Does the Government Have A Right to Sexually Assault You?

Two recent cases suggest that the government believes it has a right to touch your genitals, particularly if you choose not to have a full body scan (pretty explicit, huh?) done when you seek to board an airplane in the USA. The case of Erin Chase and John Tyner highlight just how confronting the "enhanced pat-down" procedures are. You can read Erin's blogpost about the incident here.

The "enhanced pat-down" procedures are conducted by the Transportation Security Administration or TSA.

The pat-downs take place if a traveler refuses to have a full body scan done. If a refusal occurs then the passenger is taken off to a special screening area and subject to the pat down. If the passenger refuses a pat-down then they cannot board the aircraft. And, in the case of John Tyner, a TSA official will suggest to you that you will get into serious trouble and run the risk of a substantial fine, especially if you bail out in the middle of a screening.

Cutting to the Chase case, the TSA official did not inform her about the procedure, she just went ahead and did it. The enhanced pat down, as Chase described it, included the TSA officer touching both of Chase's breasts and her vaginal area, including both labia.

In any other circumstances this would be sexual assault. Perhaps the government is working on the assumption that if you refuse the body scan then you consent to the enhanced pat-down. Therefore, it cannot be assault because you are consenting to the procedure. In essence, you are consenting to a complete stranger touching your nether regions for the purposes of security.

I am sure there are those of us out there who believe that this is not a breach of our civil liberties and that if it makes us more secure, then it is worth it. I am also certain that there are plenty of us out there who are struggling with seeing how the enhanced pat-down procedures can be truly justified. Whatever happened to the idea that you could be swabbed for explosives? After all, it was the attempt to blow up an aircraft with exploding undies which triggered these procedures. So, why not just swab people's hands and clothes?

 It would seem that despite the litany of complaints and the genuine concerns people have with the procedures, the TSA is not going to back down. So, the enhanced pat-down procedure seems like it is here to stay, at least for a while.

The final image here is an alternate view of one of the images above. The technology is certainly capable of getting the details of a whole lot more than whether you are carrying a gun or a knife or some other sort of contraband.

Can Rape Be A Joke? -- The Follow-Up...

In a follow-up to an earlier post that discussed this particular case and whether or not rape could be a joke, the jury has come back with a verdict. The rape itself might not have been a joke, but it seems that the jury has been convinced that it was accidental. The jury consisted of six men and six women and they took just shy of two hours to reach their verdict of "not guilty".

The prosecutor, Kieran Gilligan, instructed the jury that they must be satisfied that there was penetration, that is was deliberate, that there was no consent, and that Naggs knew that the man was not consenting to any penetration.

The man who claimed that he had been raped was a willing participant in the events and had said something to the effect of "Be gentle. Don't do it too hard." I am guessing that probably sealed it for most of the jurors.

The jury acquitted Naggs and she is free to return to what she has apparently been doing for the past thirteen years, and doing quite well by all accounts.

So, the lesson from this case would seem to be that rape is not a joke, but in a very particular set of circumstances a rape could be accidental and therefore not rape. I think.