Be heard on the issues that matter most to you!
On my WordPress blog a few weeks ago I wrote about Tory Bowen, Pamir Safi and the ruling made by a judge that Bowen could not use the word "rape" in her testimony against Safi. Bowen alleges that Safi raped her while she was asleep, and his first trial ended in a hung jury. His second trial was just about to begin, but...
According to the AP, via the New York Times:
Filed at 10:00 a.m. ET
LINCOLN, Neb. (AP) — Before a jury was even seated, a judge declared a mistrial in a sex-assault case where he had barred the words ”rape” and ”victim.”
Judge Jeffre Cheuvront of Lancaster County District Court said protests and other publicity surrounding the rape case against Pamir Safi, 33, would have made it too difficult for jurors to ignore everything they heard before the trial, which had been expected to begin next week.
The trial will be continued at an as-yet-unspecified time and possibly in another county.
A question: Should those of us who want to see a trial occur stop blogging/speaking/writing about this for fear of tainting the process? Or is speaking up about these complicated issues a responsible thing to do because it may help educate potential jurors and give them new perspectives that might help them in making just decisions?
...because public space really matters!
Elizabeth
as far as i can comprehend this...bowen is guilty and she should be the one going to jail. when a girl goes to a bar wearing little cloths...getting drunk and going to a stranger's house..sex is the ultimate reason. thats what bowen did and now to cover her guilt she is playing with someone's life. SHE WILLINGLY LEFT WITH SAFI AND WENT TO HIS PLACE AND WOKE UP THE NEXT MORNING, REGRETING HER ACTIONS AND BLAMED AN INNOCENT MAN FOR HER FAULT...i wonder how would she ever forgive herself for doing what she is doing?
SAFI IS INNOCENT............
*sniffle* I'm so proud. Our very first troll... Our little web site is getting all grown up.
But seriously. This is such boilerplate misogynist bullshit that I don't even know where to start out. It's like trying to debunk someone's claim that the earth is hollow and houses Nazi UFO's. The basic assertions are so far out, so completely divorced from consensual reality that the two people might as well be talking completely different languages. In the above example, the two could agree that there's something called the Earth, and there's people called Nazis, but that's about it.
Maybe the best place to start here is the idea of consent. Consent is always revocable. Even if a woman goes to a bar hoping that by 11:00 she'll be on her back getting fucked hard, she can look around the bar, decide that she'd rather catch up on her Tivo watching, and walk out again. Even if she goes home with a guy, planning to have sex with him, she might decide that he's a creep halfway there and hail a cab. Even if she winds up naked on his bed, legs wide open and just burning to have him fuck her pussy, mouth and tits, she can change her mind because he refuses to wear a condom, because he insists on fucking her in the ass, because she feels uncomfortable for some reason, or just because.
This isn't an idea of consent that's unique to sex, or to some mistakenly chivalrous conception of women; it's the same when you go to a doctor or a lawyer, or engage in any other complex relationship. With every step in medical treatment or a legal action, you need to keep on being informed about what's going to happen and consent to it.
Guys like our troll up here are completely invested in the virgin/whore idea of female sexuality. If she's not chaste, if she's interested in sex, she's essentially signed an immutable contract to be used, and god help her if she decides she doesn't like it. I'm constantly amazed by how many men (and women) continue to cling to ideas like this. Maybe I shouldn't be, but goddamn me, I am. And as hateful as these ideas are, I feel kind of sorry for our troll and his compatriots, because such intense hatred for women's sexuality can't exist without a corresponding hatred for your own sexuality. Male sexuality is typically seen as a corrupting influence on men that has to be held in check by chaste women. Paradoxically, as vile as it is, sexuality is also seen as the source of male strength and virtue, so the only possible solution is to direct it towards women who become tainted by their lack of chastity. It's a weird, impossible cycle to keep going through, and toxic to all involved. I feel sorry for anyone who lives in a world where this kind of hurtfulness can make sense.
Blog: Literate Perversions
“Writing is like prostitution. First you do it for love, and then for a few close friends, and then finally y
Well truthalwayzwins, you are challenging my misguidance! Wow, you must have one hell of a clairvoyant power to know what actually happened that evening. They should have called you and there wouldn't have even been a trial. However much you think you may know, there is reason to believe that Ms. Bowen may be innocent as well since there's the possibility that she was drugged at the bar.
Regardless of guilt or innocence, the point your trying to make is not only infuriating it's barbaric! I would like to be the first to welcome you to the year 2007, where women have rights and are allowed to go out by themselves! I know this is a big concept for you to imagine but try. Regardless of your small mindedness, it isn't an issue of guilt. It's about the freedom to be able to express in your own words what happened, to be able to call things what they are. If we begin to limit what we're allowed to say in a court room, the trend will continue to an uncontainable point. The possibility that of not allowing such words as "robbed", "child abuse" or "kidnapped" is not far fetched. These banned words inThe balance of justice in this case however, is definitely tilted. The judge did not allow the victim to express what had happened to her because of the implication it forms in the jurors minds. If this is case, then why is the accused allowed to express his words of what occurred. When he claimed that he had "consensual sex" is that not implying to the jurors the victim allowed this to happen to her or that she agreed? Shouldn't these words be banned as well? Let’s play fair.
