After the verdict
There are a lot of angry and disappointed people in Canada as a result of the not-guilty verdict rendered by judge William Horkins in the Jian Ghomeshi sexual assault trial. I am one of those people. Being the mother of a domestic violence abuse survivor, there is a lot of room in my heart for outrage.
I have an extremely difficult time with the phrases “presumed innocent until proven guilty” and “beyond a reasonable doubt.” I am consumed with them; they nag at me and confuse me and make me feel restless and uncomfortable. People repeat these words as if the court of law is the only place that truth is uncovered, where only available evidence can tell a truth.
There IS no evidence for so many. And that IS a truth.
My daughter experienced intimate partner violence for two years. Her assailant was extremely careful not to leave scars or bruises visible to the naked eye. And when she finally got out, when she finally revealed what had happened to her, there was no justice for her. She had no evidence to show, no witnesses. There are those who remain friends with her assailant, who cling to “presumed innocent until proven guilty” and “beyond a reasonable doubt.” For my daughter these attitudes threaten to negate and rewrite the memories, the betrayal, the truth. Did it really happen? YES IT DID. In my daughter’s life, yes it did.
A disturbingly high number of sexual assault and domestic violence cases are never reported, and of those reported, only a small percentage go to trial, and of those cases only a small percentage result in conviction. Why? The burden of proof is with the complainant.
But there is often no physical evidence, and no witnesses beyond the complainant and the accused. When it comes to the testimony of the accused, there often isn’t any, because they are allowed not to take the stand. As for the complainants, testimony is often shadowed by trauma, causing mistakes to be made in stories, or facts to be left out. Complainants are also held to an incredibly high standard because they often have to testify about the relationship with the accused leading up to and after the alleged event, as if that should matter.
Victims of sexual assault need support— legal support, before, during and after court proceedings. We need more specialized courts for victims of domestic violence and we need to DEVELOP specialized courts across Canada for victims of sexual assault. It’s time for our justice system to evolve from the outdated mess it is right now into something that truly offers a fair trial and justice for all. And then, just maybe then, those who grip so tightly to those treasured phrases of “presumed innocent until proven guilty” and “beyond a reasonable doubt” might actually see the real truth. —Christine Hulme Colin, Halifax
So, I had a megaphone in my hand. Again. Raging against the machine. Again.
On behalf of my niece who suffered horrific violence in a relationship, I screamed out my anger to a supportive crowd who screamed out their anger—that I’m so sick and tired of going to these things because injustice to women prevails. The Ghomeshi acquittal is another death in the family of women. Change does happen, I told the crowd, but it moves ever so slowly. I told the young people there to prepare to stand at a rally 30 years from now because not enough has changed.
Once the topic of sexual abuse arises in the company of women, there is not one who doesn’t have a story to tell. In a recent conversation a young woman remarked “I was lucky. I got out of it early.” And then we all agreed that feeling “lucky” was an absurdity in such a situation.
We have no language for what happens to us. This limits our ways of communicating, limits the discussion, limits the change. By trying to decode the terror of misogynistic violence, we are restricted to comparisons, degrees of pain, measurements of suffering.
And this is why we need to keep talking, telling our truths, shouting, raging, being infuriated. Because eventually the words WILL form that can articulate what it is truly like to exist in a society that assumes your utterances are falsehoods and mere stories.
This is why I protest and rally and write and read and speak. I will NEVER be silent. On behalf of all women, I will forever put myself out there to continue the conversation. In my lifetime there will be no putting this injustice to bed. It will be a fight to the death. —Linda Hulme Leahy, Cow Bay
This article appears in Mar 31 – Apr 6, 2016.
First of all, I’d like to point out that there are TWO separate letters here… One wriiten by Christine Hulme Colin and one written by Linda Hulme Leahy…we are sisters and yes, we are FEMINISTS. But most importantly I’d like to point out that neither of us said anything about doing away with the right of the accused to be “presumed innocent until proven guilty.”. What we DID say was that there needs to be change in our justice system in order to SUPPORT victims.
Looks like I scared off City Mouse with my reply to their comment…I really AM scary!
The problem I see in this letter is that it ignored why Ghomeshi wasn’t convicted. The accusers lied and that is all there is to it. The judge’s decision says that a not guilty verdict doesn’t mean the crimes didn’t take place. It seems that he thought Ghomeshi is guilty but he couldn’t trust the evidence three people put forth when all three of them lied under oath. I’ve seen a lot of anger since the verdict but none of it is directed at these three who cost themselves the verdict they wanted. Ghomeshi got off because these women didnt tell the truth in court and got caught lying. The system didnt fail them. Police encouraged them to charge him and the courts heard their case and rape shield laws protected their identities and even after they liied they wont be charged becaue that might stop other women from coming forward. The system did everything right and the mistake was from the accusers. Special courts wont change that they told lies about not talking about the case. And if special courts don’t follow the same rules as normal courts then what happens? Do people get convicted on a person’s say so? Thats why they burned witches.
The letter talks about living in a society that assumes your utterances are falsehoods. Thats not this society. As soon as someone is accused of sexual assault their life is over. Ghomeshi has been guilty since day one in the public’s eye and we believe every accuser now no matter what. We wont evenb blame his accusers for telling lies and its a scary world where people are accountable for what they might have done but accusers are not responsible for what they did do. Courts should decide things based on facts not emotions
Why are you calling out the judge? He arrived at the only verdict he could when presented with the evidence–personal accounts of three people who did not tell the truth on the stand and who tried to conceal the extent of their communication. The justice system did not convict a man based on falsehoods and in that regard acted perfectly, even though the accused is likely guilty.
Christine said in her letter that the justice system needs to evolve into something that gives everyone a fair trial. The justice system does do this, by not presuming guilt and requiring trustworthy evidence to support a guilty verdict. Three women lied under oath and in so doing cost themselves the verdict they sought. That’s not the fault of the legal system. It’s theirs, “theatre at its best” indeed.
These letters demand a seperate legal system to try sexual abuse cases. They do not suggest how these courts would operate nor do they offer a course that would protect from false allegations–allegations that occur far more than 2% of the time.
Above all else these letters perpetuate the narrative that men are always abusers and women victims. 30% of lesbians report sexual abuse at the hands of other women, and estimates run as high as 45% for the number of lesbians treated violently by female partners (see http://www.pandys.org/articles/lesbiandomesticviolence.html)
In fact, women are as abusive as men – see jezebel.com/5509717/domestic-violence-are-women-as-abusive-as-men
Change requires open and frank dialogue that accepts both men and women as aggressors and both as victims. Portraying everything as an attack on women who need special courts and rights is sexist. Amend your statements to include men as victims as well, and women as aggressors, and you’ll find more support.
Not scared off Chris Hulme Colin, censored. My post has been deleted.
Feminism stands for a lot of things. Apparently free speech isn’t one of them…
City Mouse, you seriously need to pay more attention.