De Minimis
  • Home
  • ABOUT US
  • Podcast
  • Your Learned Friend
  • Anonymous Feedback
  • Art
  • Get published!
  • Constitution
  • Archive
    • 2018
    • 2017
    • 2017 >
      • Semester 2 (Volume 12) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8 (election issue)
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12
    • 2016 >
      • Semester 1 (Volume 9) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12
      • Semester 2 (Volume 10) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8 (Election Issue)
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12
        • Issue 13 (test)
    • 2015 >
      • Semester 1 (Volume 7) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
      • Semester 2 (Volume 8) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
    • 2014 >
      • Semester 1 (Volume 5) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
      • Semester 2 (Volume 6) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 12
    • 2013 >
      • Issue 1
      • Issue 2
      • Issue 3
      • Issue 4
      • Issue 5
      • Issue 6
    • 2012 >
      • Semester 1 (Volume 1) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12
      • Semester 2 (Volume 2) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12

Just Leave the Human Rights Commission Alone

15/8/2017

 
Vol 12, Issue 4

GABRIELLE VERHAGEN

Content Warning: Sexual Assault

​Last week I made the mistake of reading an Andrew Bolt article (link below) about the
University Sexual Assault Report being a “fraud”. As expected, it sent me into a rage about how the media of the socially conservative right seem to misunderstand the policy, law and symbolic justice behind the Report. So here is a feminist perspective clearing up a few things based on Andrew Bolt’s critique (for other conservative perspectives see Bettina Arndt, Mark Latham and Janet Albrechtson).
Picture
Bolt claimed that 51% of students being harassed is unlikely and remote, and that it is nearly 30 times that of “violent” South Africa (not sure why he felt a need to do an irrelevant jurisdictional comparison to a country of a completely different culture, but hey you do you). He probably never researched the nature of statistics and conducting research since he usually just does trash opinion pieces. But it is well known that sexual assault and rape are severely underreported crimes and frequently associated with grey statistics. The associations of shame for the victim, social humiliation and a loss of control lead to a lot of people staying silent. It is likely that 51% of University students are sexually harassed, particularly in an anonymous survey where students’ identities were protected so that they felt safe coming forward.

He also had a problem with none of the claims being tested or that only ‘motivated’ students such as social justice or identity warriors would respond, implicit in these comments are allegations of fabricated experiences. As I said earlier, making the face to face complaint for victims is really hard, and honestly if they are not wanting to make a complaint for those personal reasons, why the heck would they do a survey that would test their allegations? When someone calls police for an alleged sexual assault the usual process is: the police arrive and they recount the story to them, then usually the Sexual Offences and Child Abuse Investigations Team arrives and they do it all over again, and then, if needed for DNA testing, they explain it to the forensics team, and then they are usually referred to the Centre Against Sexual Assault or one of their equivalents for mental health care. That is 3-4 different recounts an alleged victim does in the investigation stage alone. Not to mention if it has to go to trial, that the victim would be cross-examined and asked questions in an extremely sensitive and emotional state suggesting they are a liar, “mixed up” or just “confused”. Don’t get me wrong, I am not saying that all alleged complaints should not be tested, or that they should all be taken at face value. But the entire point of this survey was to better understand student experience in an anonymous way that accounted for this, to emblematically encapsulate a rape culture entrenched with various power dynamics throughout Australian Universities. So no Bolt, I do not care that some students didn’t bother responding – and you know why? Because it wasn’t for them, it was to give students a safe space and voice to express these experiences and show an entrenched social problem that needs addressing.

Probably the most painful points in his article were his problems with the survey’s definition of sexual assault: that it included inappropriate staring or leering, sexually suggestive jokes, inappropriate displays of the body and being tricked into sexual acts against their will or without/withdrawn consent (like you know,  the definition of rape). Sexual crimes under the Criminal Code and Equal Opportunity Act 2010 include:
  • Rape sexual penetration without consent (which includes blatant lack of consent, ‘might be consenting’ or without any thought to consent), withdrawn consent or forced penetration without consent.
  • Indecent assault which is broadly defined to include sexual acts other than penetration.
  • Sexual harassment is broadly defined as unwelcome sexual behaviour which is expected to make a person feel offended, humiliated or intimidated. This actually includes the examples Bolt listed himself  like sexually suggestive comments or jokes and leering.

So if he has a problem with the way the Report defined sexual harassment, he literally has a problem with the current state of law and how it operates in the ‘testing of claims’ he so desperately called for. So maybe instead of using his opinion pieces to constantly attack the HRC he can have a go at the Victorian Legislature.

Bolt also raised the point that only 1.6% of the incidents occurred on or in transit to campus  to imply that universities should not be liable however university policy, tort law or the events being off campus but run by the university or their affiliated student associations would all impact on their liability. In defending universities, Bolt said universities earn us $20 billion a year, I honestly could not give a crap if they earned us $100 billion a year, no amount of money justifies altering their duty of care or discounting experiences of sexual assault/harassment. I have no idea why he brought money into something that is clearly irrelevant to it.

Paraphrasing his own words: Bolt’s article is a disgrace. The failure to educate himself on the law, legal processes and culturally relevant facts shows why he only writes opinion pieces.  

Scrap ignorance. And read the HRC’s footnotes before launching uneducated attacks.

​Gabrielle Verhagen is a third-year JD student. This article was written in her personal capacity.

Andrew Bolt's original article can be found here 

More articles like this:
  • Boys will be Boys?

The rest of this issue:​
  • ExamSoft Enthusiasm and Concerns
  • No One Said Climbing Wasn't Hard
  • Let Opponents of Same-Sex Marriage Speak
  • International Perspectives: Romance of Raino

 
Person of indeterminate sex, gender, race, age or other defining characteristics
15/8/2017 08:20:08 am

I do remain scpetical of the seemingly comprehensive term 'sexual harassment' when it encompasses 'inappropriate staring or leering, sexually suggestive jokes, inappropriate displays of the body'. Those are quite hazy themselves in the details of what they contain. What is an 'inappropriate display of the body'? Should I take this to mean it is sexual harassment when girls show up to uni wearing shorts half way up their thighs?

I might have read the breakdown of the responses somewhere, or I might have just imagined it, but if I do recall correctly the majority of the sexual harassment reported was the 'inappropriate staring or leering'. This then gets reported in the media as 'sexual harassment' which to most people's minds means something much worse than being stared at, and gives people an impression that what is happening is far worse than it actually is.

'Inappropriate staring or leering' is also highly subjective, as to what is considered inappropriate and as to whether or not people really have been staring or whether it is partly one's imagination. It is easy to become paranoid that people are staring at you in class or around the campus when in reality people arent actually paying you much thought,

But if people do happen to see you and do actually like the way you look, is it really 'sexual harassment' to throw a few discreet looks now and then in a person's direction, not even intended for them to notice you doing it? Some people have become incredibly prudish and seem to rebuke all positive attention at their appearance as harassment, 'how dare you find me physically attractive' etc.

I'm not saying this is actually the case with the incidents people have reported, but that is the problem with the report's definition of sexual harassment. It leaves much open to interpretation

Ellie
15/8/2017 11:00:34 pm

Whilst I get what you are saying, I also feel like saying that leering, sexually suggestive jokes etc is not harassment isn't correct.

I have been in plenty of situations where I have been harassed in that way. As an example, last year I was getting the train home and sat next to the window. Two men got on the train and sit right next to me. They started to make what they thought were 'jokes' about my body, and that we should all have a threesome. They thought it was hilarious but I was actually really scared. I didn't know whether smiling along with them would make them leave me alone, or if I should have ignored them at risk of angering them. I decided to get up and move seats, but they blocked my way out and laughed as i tried to struggle past them.

That might sound like a bit of fun to them, but frankly I felt harassed and unsafe during my trip home.

Instead of saying we shouldn't take the report seriously because you don't classify some of the behaviour described as harassment, maybe you could think about how it would feel to be on the receiving end of behaviour that people tell you is 'harmless' when it sure doesn't feel it.

Those who have responded to this survey are not 'paranoid' or thinking people are staring at them when they aren't. We are able to take a compliment when its given in good faith (lol) and decipher that from comments, staring and behaviour which is intimidating and intended to harass you.

I think its a good thing that we are taking this report seriously, and instead of trying to minimise its results we should be recognising that a substantial portion of students are experiencing this in their lives and its not helpful to sit back and assume everyone is just overreacting to something harmless

Sorry for the mini essay response- I agree that the interpretation of sexual harassment is subjective but I also think its better to take the results seriously instead of downplaying it.

All the best :)

KNP
15/8/2017 11:06:20 pm

Let's say, in some bizarre alternate universe, it were true that students are over-reporting or statistics otherwise overstate the seriousness of the issue. Even if that is true, what exactly is your great fear? That society would simply do *too much* to address sexual violence? Do you really think it's likely that the system would make the drastic jump from the fuck all that's being done now to somehow oppressing men so that women don't feel threatened? Undermining one gender for the convenience of the other, hmmm where would we have picked up that one

Maybe take a step back and re-evaluate whether the preservation of your fragile self-image is worth the wholesale dismissal of a pervasive societal harm.

Fragile self-image preserver
15/8/2017 11:43:53 pm

'what exactly is your great fear?'

My fear is a misdiagnosis and and inappropriate resulting treatment. I don't want chemotherapy for leukaemia when what I actually need is a kidney transplant.

Why the absolutes?
16/8/2017 09:43:13 pm

@FRAGILE SELF-IMAGE PRESERVER

I'm a little confused by your analogy. What's stopping you from seeking a second opinion?

J
15/8/2017 05:48:41 pm

An alternative perspective from feminist writer Julie Szego: http://www.theage.com.au/comment/flawed-sexual-harassment-report-undermines-the-change-it-seeks-20170810-gxtbl3.html

M
17/8/2017 11:40:42 pm

Thanks for sharing. Here's hoping some of the SJWs take the time to read Szego's article and actually consider her arguments. I think she's spot on.

C
15/8/2017 07:27:07 pm

Also interesting to see the response from experts in this area, many of whom have felt compelled to establish an independent evidence-based consortium in response to the report:
http://junkee.com/sexual-assault-report-underreporting/117679

https://casvr.wordpress.com/


Comments are closed.
    Picture

    Archives

    December 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    December 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014

  • Home
  • ABOUT US
  • Podcast
  • Your Learned Friend
  • Anonymous Feedback
  • Art
  • Get published!
  • Constitution
  • Archive
    • 2018
    • 2017
    • 2017 >
      • Semester 2 (Volume 12) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8 (election issue)
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12
    • 2016 >
      • Semester 1 (Volume 9) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12
      • Semester 2 (Volume 10) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8 (Election Issue)
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12
        • Issue 13 (test)
    • 2015 >
      • Semester 1 (Volume 7) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
      • Semester 2 (Volume 8) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
    • 2014 >
      • Semester 1 (Volume 5) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
      • Semester 2 (Volume 6) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 12
    • 2013 >
      • Issue 1
      • Issue 2
      • Issue 3
      • Issue 4
      • Issue 5
      • Issue 6
    • 2012 >
      • Semester 1 (Volume 1) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12
      • Semester 2 (Volume 2) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12