Watching Porn and Thoughts of Rape and Pedophilia...

It is interesting how an argument that links pornography to all sorts of society ills is trotted out to justify a crackdown. There is a distinct difference between arguments regarding the morality of porn and arguments about porn leading to increases in occurrences of rape and pedophilia. So, when high ranking individuals in government ministries, agencies, or the police force make statements to the effect that watching porn promotes thoughts of rape and pedophilia then they have a moral obligation to evidence support for those assertions.

It was always going to be the case in the post TitS vs. RIM battle that TitS would be ratcheting-up his anti-porn agenda and putting the hard word on other institutions of state, like the police force, to pull their collective fingers out and fight porn on their own turf.

Now, Sr. Comr. Baharudin Djafar, a spokesman for the National Police Force in Jakarta has labelled pornography "a disease" and then gone on to say this:

“The raid was conducted so that there would be no more porn videos circulating among the public, because they can ruin society — especially children”, and “From watching porn, [a person can get ideas that can] lead him to rape someone or commit [pedophilia] with the neighbor’s children” (as quoted in The Jakarta Globe).

This is not a new argument in Indonesia. It is one that is offered up by all manner of individuals and institutions. The linking of porn to rape and other serious sexual assaults is a favourite of the Indonesian National Commission for the Protection of Children, and was especially so in the aftermath of the Ariel sex tape scandal, which is now coming to a conclusion in the courts.

A final point. Perhaps, now is a good time that TitS and others start to provide some statistics and data that highlight how the war on porn has provided tangible benefits to the community. For example, how it has lowered the frequency and numbers of rapes and serious sexual assaults or how it has contributed to raising the standard of living and getting any of the estimated 50% of Indonesians living on or below the poverty line to a position where they are able to provide a sustainable future for themselves and their children.

I appreciate that TitS views his "war on porn" as a simple law enforcement issue. To a certain degree it is, there are plenty of laws and regulations in place in Indonesia governing pornography. The point is whether this is the sole task of the Ministry of Communication and Information in the sense of devoting so much of a limited amount of resources to defeating. 

On a personal level, I have no objection to the government protecting children from pornography and the ability to access it, However, I do wonder whether or not the government has a right to invade the private sphere of two, or more, consenting adults who wish to make or view pornography within the confines of their own homes with the curtains drawn.

To each their own!

Teacher Accused of Raping Students Transferred...To Another School!

There is something fundamentally flawed with a bureaucratic system that allows for a teacher that has been accused of raping primary school students to remain in the classroom pending a finalisation of the accusations. This is not a question on the presumption of innocence.

The alleged perpetrator of these sex crimes against children has the right to a presumption of innocence until such time as those charges are proven against him. However, common sense would demand that the individual be removed from the classroom and placed in a position where he has no interaction with children in the school environment or he is place on leave until the allegations are investigated and concluded.

Sadly, in South Tangerang, a male teacher, Y.P., was accused of having molested a number of primary school students at the Pondok Ranji 5 Primary School in Pondok Aren. He has since been transferred to Setu 3 Primary School which is also under the jurisdiction of the South Tangerang District Education Office.

There are a couple of problems with this. The most obvious being: why is this individual still in the classroom and still with access to children considering the serious nature of the allegations? And, what in the world is the South Tangerang District Education Office thinking when it states unequivocally where the teacher has been teaching immediately prior to the transfer and then goes on to say where that individual is now.

It is not beyond the realm of possibility here that in a country like Indonesia where vigilante justice goes hand-in-hand with more official forms of punishment that an angry mob could soon be descending on Y.P.'s new school.

I appreciate that there are procedures to be followed and the like because Y.P. is a civil servant, a government employee, but nevertheless it would make sense to remove the individual from the situation. But, the preferred option in this instance has been to transfer him to a different school, provide mandatory counselling and to put in place a more strict monitoring regime.

In the meantime, the South Tangerang District Education Office is encouraging the parents of all students who have been abused to make reports to the police.

More on Julian Assange and Wikileaks: The Sarah Palin View...

Julian Assange has certainly found more fame than he may have craved in developing Wikileaks into a whistleblower of world renown. The recent release of some 250,000 US diplomatic cables has intensified the hunt for Assange and the "need" to bring him to justice. Assange has some serious legal problems aside from the alleged rape and sexual molestation of which he stands accused of committing in Sweden. There are quite a number of states looking to prosecute him for his part in the publication of the "illegally" obtained diplomatic cables.

Australia is clearly looking to build a case against Assange. However, it would seem that the US is also exploring what options it has in making the case and prosecuting Assange in the US. This has obviously brought the ranting and railing conservative right out. Among them is the former Vice-Presidential candidate from the Grand Old Party (GOP), Sarah Palin. The fact that some might consider her a legitimate contender for the GOP presidential nomination in 2012 is scary enough, but the latest outburst is indicative as to what lengths this woman will go to try and capitalise on conservative popular opinion. It is also indicative of the fact that she really does not understand the difference between Osama bin Laden and Julian Assange. It is pretty clear that she obviously missed the advocacy class on why not to use exaggeration.

Sarah Palin in her infinite wisdom has taken to Facebook to condemn Assange for his role in releasing to the world some 250,000 confidential and secret diplomatic cables. Fair enough! There are good arguments to be made that it was irresponsible for Assange to publish via Wikileaks. However, Palin was not satisfied stopping there. In order to really ratchet-up the rhetoric she decided to add that Assnage should be hunted down like Osama bin Laden.

Well, after ten years of searching the US has not found or been able to confirm that it has killed bin Laden. So, it would seem that Assange really need not fear the US if it was to mount a similar "search and destroy" campaign that has been mounted for bin Laden. Although, on a more serious note, it would appear that all those who need to know where Assange is, in fact know where he is. It would also appear that an arrest is not that far away once the arrest warrant(s) are in order, assuming Assange decides to surrender to authorities and not seek political asylum in a country favourable to that proposition, Switzerland perhaps.

To further reinforce her point she suggested that Assange is not a journalist in any shape or form and compared this lack of journalistic skill to the current editor of al-Qaeda's English-language magazine, Inspire. Further intensifying the rhetoric saw Assange labeled as anti-American and with blood on his hands.

In any event, this was a political point scoring opportunity that was more about Palin slamming the White House and President Obama by implying that they were complicit in Assange's Wikileaks work because they have not been serious in hunting him down or arresting him.

Yet, this generally fits into the overall rhetoric of US politics with recent claims seeking to force the US government to declare Wikileaks a terrorist organisation. A whistleblower as a terrorist organisation, what an interesting development. However, it is symptomatic of the way the world is post 9/11. Anything that annoys us or possible effects many as opposed to a few is almost immediately labeled a terrorist organisation. I wonder what the Tea Party might need to do to be labeled a terrorist organisation? What about the Republicans or the Democrats?

However, the US is looking to invoke the Espionage Act with a view to criminal prosecution. And, it is imperative in the US view that they do this one by the numbers, and make the case bullet-proof.

The case to shut down sites that release confidential documents needs to be assessed on a merits basis. The reality is that releasing secret or confidential information can always be criminalised, but at what cost?

The question that must be answered here was whether there was any value in the releasing of these particular diplomatic cables? Simply, does the public need to know outweigh the need to maintain confidentiality?

Ho hum...

Are The Charges of Rape Against Julian Assange Fabricated?

I pondered this very question just recently in a post by asking whether or not there were any cables in the 250,000 released by Wikileaks, and founded by Julian Assange, that related to trumping up a few charges such as rape and sexual molestation. I particularly wondered whether these cables might be from and between the US Embassy in Sweden and the State Department in Washington D.C.

It seems I am not the only one wondering such things.

Andrew Wilkie, the recently elected independent MP for Denison in the federal parliament of Australia and a former intelligence officer, has stated today that the charges "could definitely be a set-up".

Wilkie would have to be a kindred spirit of Julian Assange as they are both whistleblowers of some renown. Wilkie, while still an intelligence officer, came into knowledge that lead him to question the reasons and rationale for Australia's commitment to going to war in Iraq. He resigned and went public. He was hounded for his efforts. He is now a federal politician.

I guess time will tell as to what evidence the Swedish police have on Assange. Everyone has a right to a presumption of innocence until such time as a competent court finds otherwise. Until then, Assange finds himself the subject of an Interpol Red Notice. And, this means that he is subject to arrest wherever he is found. Although, the legal hoop-jumping is likely to be long if he is arrested in a state that may be partial to offering some form of protection or asylum. Ecuador made an offer of asylum over the past 24 hours but withdrew it almost as quickly as the offer was made.

The case is an intriguing one!

Stifling News, Buying Up A Print Run...

In Indonesia in 2010 it is hard to imagine that there are those that still think that buying up a complete print run of a tabloid newspaper is a legitimate way of stifling a news story and getting it out of the mainstream media. However, those shady and unknown figures seemingly still exist, lurking in the shadows and ready to pounce.

M. Nazaruddin, a member of the Democrat Party, has been accused of raping a sales promotion girl (SPG) in Bandung this past May. The Democrat Party, the party of SBY, held its Party Congress in Bandung. Needless to say, allegations of this nature were sure to become public tabloid fodder as soon as they became widely known. It is not rocket science to know that sensationalism sells newspapers, and the only thing more sensational than linking the president to a possible plot to cover-up a rape would be to accuse the president of the rape himself.

Anyways, Check and Recheck which now goes by the moniker C & R printed a cover story that explores the allegations against Nazaruddin. This story headlined their most recent edition, a print run of some 100,000 copies. The whole print run was purchased by an unknown group. C & R retails for IDR 6,000. You do the math on that one, but suffice to say, it was an expensive exercise in futility.

It was futile because the publishers of C & R would have a whole stack of cash available to them to go about printing a second run of 100,000 and then sell them as they usually would. Maybe the mysterious buyer can sell them onto someone who recycles paper and recoup some of their expenditure that way.

What is weird about this is that the allegations are not new. In fact, the allegations emerged not long after the Congress. What is interesting is that the Ethics Council of the parliament (DPR) has indicated that it would "examine" the allegations. Yet, the Ethics Council seems to be dragging its feet on the promised examination.

Aside from the ethics issues that might arise from a legislator being accused of rape, there seems to be a possibility that a crime has been committed here. So, the bigger concern is where the police and public prosecutors are up to in pursuing this case, and whether it is likely to go to trial.

The police have suggested that they have medical examination evidence from the victim and also CCTV footage from the hotel where the alleged rape took place. However, the police have not moved forward on the case. The obvious question is then "have the police not moved forward on this case because the evidence does not support the claim made by the victim or are there other 'forces' at play here attempting to stifle the pursuit of justice for the victim?"

Nazaruddin has a right to the presumption of innocence. However, the victim also has a right to expect that her claims that she was raped by Nazaruddin are given their proper due with a thorough investigation. If the investigation turns up 'nada' then so be it. But, if the investigation does turn up evidence that supports the allegation then this must be heard in a court of law (assuming that the victim wishes to pursue the case through criminal legal channels).

The Democrat Party have been quick to distance themselves from the purchase of the papers. Ahmad Mubarok and Ruhut Sitompul and always good for sound bites when the 'proverbial' hits the fan. Mubarok piped up that the Democrat Party will not be suing C & R or its publishers over the story. And, Ruhut took the more personal angle by stating that the Democrat Party would not be supporting Nazaruddin if the charges were found to have any substance.

Perhaps more interesting still is the Golkar response. Priyo Budi Santoso has gone on the record to say he hopes that the case does not get all that much media exposure because the facts of the case are not that spectacular. Huh? Since when do rape and spectacular end up in the same sentence? Perhaps the spectacular thing in this case is that Santoso thinks that this is a private matter and not a public or legal one.

Poor old PBS is worried that any public discussion of the case will see all legislators labelled as rapists. Hey, PBS, time to wake up and smell the coffee, being a legislator does not make you a rapist. Although, having said that, I am sure that there are plenty of constituents out there in Indonesia who would be thinking that they are regularly being raped and pillaged by their representatives in the figurative sense, particularly each time a group of them flies out on a junket which are known in DPR circles as comparative study tours.

Necrophilia...

It is a little weird how things appear. I was having a discussion within the past several days about the term necropolis in a historical context, then low and behold I am reading The Jakarta Globe and come across this story of necrophilia in Kediri, East Java.

Anyway, it is a story that I do not recall having heard before in Indonesia. Maybe I have and just cannot recall it. The standard fare has generally been bestiality where lonely men are having their way with an animal or two, goats and cows being the animals of choice.

The story goes that Eko Santoso is a married man of 27. He is married to a young woman of just 19, Tri Wayuni. Tri accused Eko of continuing to sow his wild oats after their marriage with sex workers. Unfortunately, Eko was offended by the suggestion and thought the most appropriate course of action was to strangle his wife, then have sex with her dead body, and then try and cover it all up by hanging her from a fan in their house.

What I do not get is the need to strangle her because of the accusation. I am not sure how that enrages one to the point of murder. I can appreciate that it happens, and it seems to be the way this crime unfolded. However, what I really do not get is how then this reaches a point of defiling the body by having one last round. I guess this is why I am not a psychiatrist.

Maybe I need to read a little more on this subject. I can probably justify it by classifying it as necessary research to teach history subjects. Maybe I could even buy a book on the subject and claim it as a tax deduction.

Rape by Deception -- An Update...

It is not always fatal to rush to judgment on a limited set of facts. However, it is important if you rush to judgment that you have the courage and honour to report the rest of the facts surrounding a case when they come to light. There is a sense of moral responsibility with respect to setting the record straight.

This brings me to the case of rape by deception. Israeli law allows a man to be charged and convicted of rape by deception for lying about who he is in order to gain sexual favours.

The law has been used to convict a number of Israelis who lied about their socio-economic status in order to bed a woman. This absurd law really came under the harsh spotlight of international media scrutiny when Sabbar Kashur was convicted to 18 months in jail for the rape by deception of a young Jewish woman.

The international media at the time, as well as many bloggers and other social media commentators, wrote this off as some form of anti-Arab overt racism. However, the case is far more complex and sad than it first appeared. There are very real arguments that race played a part in this sordid affair, but that it may have in fact worked in Kashur's favour rather than against him. There are always two sides to any story, and I mention that the commentary I was making in the original piece was based solely on the exclusive story of Kashur.

The Hebrew press in Israel has recently taken up the other side of the story, in this instance the woman who was raped. You can find that story at Haaretz online it is in Hebrew. You can find a translation of the article and some commentary on it at Mideast Youth blog. The best English account of the growing alternate case, alternate only in the sense of it being the other side of the story, can be found in an excellent piece written by Lisa Goldman.

There is always the temptation when you get something so wrong that it is embarrassing that you take all necessary measures to remove the embarrassment and pretend that it did not happen, and then hope that no-one ever finds out about it. However, the original piece that I wrote on this case will remain where it is. It is, and will continue to be a lesson, on remembering that there is always an alternate story out there waiting to be written. In any event, I stand by my belief that the law is absurd (at least for now).

The other side of this story is that Kashur brutally raped the young Israeli woman and left her bleeding and hysterical in the building in which he forced himself upon her. The reality is that he was charged with that violent sexual assault. The truth is that the prosecution realised that the victim in this case, the young woman and not Kashur, was going to be problematic as a reliable and credible witness if the case went to trial. Her testimony was riddled with inconsistencies and part truths about her life that the defense would have been able to exploit mercilessly.

The young woman has a story, and it is a tragic story. It is, and must be, one that is noted here. The young woman was a victim of incest, she was raped by her father from the age of six. She worked as a prostitute, and at the time of the violent sexual assault perpetrated against her by Kashur, she was living in a woman's shelter. It is not rocket science to understand that this is a young woman with serious emotional and mental issues to deal with. It is also not rocket science to understand that her life story has left her vulnerable to exploitation by others.

It would seem that she placed her trust in a man that had no intention other than to see whether or not he could extract a sexual favour or two. And, when the young woman resisted, he decided that he could take those favours even if she resisted those advances. A man forcing a woman to have sex with him by any definition is rape. No means no; no ifs, no buts and no maybes.

What is most interesting about this case now that more of the facts have come to light is that the prosecution and the defense seemingly reached a plea agreement in proceeding with this case. This is interesting for many reasons.

First, considering the vulnerability of the victim, why did the defense agree to a plea deal for the lesser charge of rape by deception? It would seem that with such a vulnerable witness that the defense could have continued to pick her testimony apart and that there would have been a good chance that Kashur would have escaped punishment for his crime.

Second, and conversely to the first, why would the prosecution and judges consider the plea deal when it would seem that this was in fact a case where a violent rape had occurred where the perpetrator must be punished, and severely for the crime he has committed.

The answer probably lies in the reality. The defense would undoubtedly have been worried that the sympathy for the victim may have overridden the inconsistencies in the victim's testimony and then resulted in a very long custodial sentence. In order to avoid this the defense agrees to plead out to the lesser charge. For the prosecution and the judges, the belief would undoubtedly have been that this is a man who is a violent rapist who must be punished. However, the inconsistencies in the victim's testimony are going to make it very difficult to secure a conviction, so plead out to a lesser charge. It is better that he be punished a little than not at all.

Yet, despite the machinations in this sorry and sad case, the prosecution and judges were not able to avoid being labeled as racist for jailing an Arab for a crime that he claims he did not commit and only pleaded guilty to in order to avoid a long custodial sentence. However, as more details and facts come to light, then perhaps perceptions about who the real victim is in this case can be rectified and the record set straight once and for all.

This is a sad case, but it has been an illuminating and educational one on many levels for me.

Perhaps I will revisit this issue in the future. I feel that there is more that needs to be said, I am just not sure at the moment what it is that needs to be said.

The Sociology of Rape...

It seems that an earlier post that I did on provocatively dressed women and rape touched a nerve in at least one pseudonym who found the need to comment on it. So, with that in mind, I post this list of myths about rape. It was written back in 2001 by John Hamblin from the University of Minnesota - Duluth. The "sociology of rape" makes for some interesting reading.

No apologies on the length. I have cut and pasted the whole article.

List of RAPE MYTHS

Sociology of Rape

University of Minnesota Duluth

Rape myths are beliefs about sexual assault that wrought with problems. Some myths are just completely and blatantly untrue. What often happens is that beliefs surrounding circumstances, situations, and characteristics of individuals connected to rape are applied to all cases and situations uncritically. Myths exist for many historic reasons which include inherited structural conditions, gender role expectations, and the fundamental exercise of power in a patriarchal society. The best way to approach rape myths are to confront them honestly and frankly. Don't deny their existence and don't dismiss one ungrounded statement with another.


Confronting rape myths sociologically means looking at the data and reevaluating knowledge in the face of social facts. What follows are a list of rape myths and the facts that bring those rape conceptions into question. 


They are not always conclusive but provide the ground work for continued research.


Myth: Rape is sex.
Fact: Rape is experienced by the victims as an act of violence. It is a life-threatening experience. One out of every eight adult women has been a victim of forcible rape. (National Victim Center and Crime Victims Research and Treatment Center, 1992) While sexual attraction may be influential, power, control and anger are the primary motives. Most rapists have access to a sexual partner. Gratification comes from gaining power and control and discharging anger. This gratification is only temporary, so the rapist seeks another victim.


Myth: Women incite men to rape.
Fact: Research has found that the vast majority of rapes are planned. Rape is the responsibility of the rapist alone. Women, children and men of every age, physical type and demeanor are raped. Opportunity is the most important factor determining when a given rapist will rape.


Myth: There is a "right way" to respond to a rape situation.
Fact: Since rape is life-threatening and each rapist has his own pattern, the best thing a victim can do is follow her instincts and observe any cues from the rapist. If the victim escapes alive she has done the right thing.


Myth: A victim should be discouraged from dwelling on the rape. She should "forget it".
Fact: This advice generally comes from people who are more concerned with their own feelings than the victim's. All victims should be offered the opportunity to talk about the assault with those personally close to them and knowledgeable professionals. Victims who are not allowed to talk about the rape have a much more difficult time recovering form it.


Myth: Support from family members is essential to the victim's recovery.
Fact: A Victim Services study found that emotional and practical support offered by family and friends does not necessarily speed the recovery of rape victims. However, when the people that a victim relies on behave in un supportive or negative ways, the victim faces a longer, more difficult recovery process. These negative behaviors include worrying more about oneself that the victim, blaming the victim, withdrawing from the victim or behaving in a hostile manner, and attaching a stigma to the rape and demanding secrecy from the victim.


Myth: Rape trauma syndrome is a transient problem. Most healthy people will return to a normal state of functioning within a year.
Fact: Surviving a rape can lead a woman to a better understanding of her own strength, but rape is a life changing experience. Rape has a devastating effect on the mental health of victims, with nearly one-third (31%) of all rape victims developing Rape-related Post-traumatic Stress Disorder (RR-PTSD) some time in their lifetimes. More than one in ten rape victims currently suffer from RR-PTSD. (National Victim Center and Crime Victims Research and Treatment Center)


Myth: Rapists are non-white. Rapists are lower class. Rapists are "Criminal types".
Fact: Rapists that fit the myth are more likely to be prosecuted but a rapist can be anyone: doctor, policeman, clergyman, social worker or corporate president.


Myth: Men can't be raped.
Fact: There were approximately 20,000 sexual assaults of males ages 12 and over in the United States in 1991. (Bureau of Justice statistics, 1992)


Myth: Incest is rare.
Fact: Incest is common and happens in every community. An estimated 77% of reported sexual abusers are parents (57% of the total being natural parents), 16% are other relatives, and 6% are non-related. In addition, males are reported to be the abusers in 60 to 95% of cases. (Thoringer, School Psychology Review, 17 (4):614-636)


Myth: Sexual assaults are rare deviations and affect few people. After all, no one I know has been raped.
Fact: Sexual assaults are very common. Most likely, someone close to you has been profoundly affected by sexual assault. Not only are victims reluctant to discuss their assaults but many succeed in totally blocking the assault from conscious memory. However, the trauma remains and may come to the surface at another crisis or when the opportunity to discuss it with a sympathetic person arises. An estimated 155,000 women were raped each year between 1973 and 1987. (U.S. Department of Justice, 1991)


Myth: Women often make false reports of rape.
Fact: According to FBI crime statistics, during the 1990s around 8 percent. The “unfounded” rate, or percentage of complaints determined through investigation to be false, is higher for forcible rape than for any other Index crime. Eight percent of forcible rape complaints in 1996 were “unfounded,” while the average for all Index crimes was 2 percent.


Myth: You can tell a rapist by the way he looks.
Fact: Rapists are not physically identifiable. They may appear friendly, normal, and non-threatening. Many are young, married and have children. Rapist types and traits however can be categorized.


Myth: Women fantasize about being raped.
Fact: No woman fantasizes about being raped. Fantasies about aggressive sex may be controlled and turned off if they become threatening. In rape, the victim is unable to control the violence and stop it.


Myth: A man can't rape his wife.
Fact: Many states now have laws against rape in marriage. The idea that a man can't rape his wife suggests married women do not have the same right to safety as do unmarried women. Most battered women have experienced some form of sexual abuse within their marriage. It is also known that estranged or ex-spouses sometimes use rape as a form of retaliation.


Myth: Only "bad" women get raped.
Fact: No other crime victim is looked upon with the degree of suspicion and doubt as a victim of rape. Although there are numerous reasons why society has cast blame on the victims of rape, a major reason found in studies is that of a feeling of self protection. If one believes that the victim was responsible because she put herself in an unsafe position, such as being out late at night, drinking alcohol, dressing in a certain way, or "leading on" the rapist, then we are able to feel safer because "we wouldn't do those things." But, the basic fact remains that without consent, no means no, no matter what the situation or circumstances.


Myth: Rape is just unwanted sex and isn't really a violent crime.
Fact: Rape is a lot more than an unwanted sex act, it is a violent crime. Many rapists carry a weapon and threaten the victim with violence or death.


Myth: Rape only occurs outside and at night.
Fact: Rape can and does occur anytime and anyplace. Many rapes occur during the day and in the victims' homes.


Myth: Sexual assault is an impulsive, spontaneous act.
Fact: Most rapes are carefully planned by the rapist. A rapist will rape again and again, usually in the same area of town and in the same way.


Myth: Sexual assault usually occurs between strangers.
Fact: By some estimates, over 70% of rape victims know their attackers. The rapist may be a relative, friend, co-worker, date or other acquaintance.


Myth: Rape only happens to young attractive women.
Fact: Rape can and does strike anyone at anytime. Age, social class, ethnic group and has no bearing on the person a rapist chooses to attack. Research data clearly proves that a way a woman dresses and / or acts does not influence the rapists choice of victims. His decision to rape is based on how easily he perceives his target can be intimidated. Rapists are looking for available and vulnerable targets.
Statistics were obtained from various sources including the study Rape in America, 1992, National Victim Center, The Federal Bureau of Investigations and the National Crime Survey.


Myth: Rape is a crime of passion.
Fact: Rape is an act of VIOLENCE, not passion. it is an attempt to hurt and humiliate, using sex as the weapon.


Myth: Most rapes occur as a "spur of the moment" act in a dark alley by a stranger.
Fact: Rape often occurs in one's home - be it apartment, house or dormitory. Very often the rapist is known by the victim in some way and the rape is carefully planned.


Myth: Most rapists only rape one time.
Fact: Most rapists rape again, and again, and again - until caught.


Myth: Only certain kinds of people get raped. It cannot happen to me.
Fact: Rapists act without considering their victim's physical appearance, dress, age, race, gender, or social status. Assailants seek out victims who they perceive to be vulnerable. The Orange County Rape Crisis Center has worked with victims from infancy to ninety-two years of age and from all racial and socioeconomic backgrounds.


Myth: Only women and gay men get raped.
Fact: The vast majority of male rape victims, as well as their rapists, are heterosexual.Male rape victims now represent 8% of the primary victims served by the Orange County Rape Crisis Center. Rapists are motivated by the desire to have power and control over another person, not by sexual attraction. Male rape is not homosexual rape. Many male victims do not report the assault because they fear further humiliation.


Myth: Rape is an impulsive, uncontrollable act of sexual gratification. Most rape are spontaneous acts of passion where the assailant cannot control him/herself.
Fact: Rape is a premeditated act of violence, not a spontaneous act of passion. 71% of rapes are planned in advance. 60% of convicted rapists were married or had regular sexual partners at the time of the assault. Men can control their sexual impulses. The vast majority of rapists are motivated by power, anger, and control, not sexual gratification.


Myth: No woman or man can be raped against her or his will. Any person could prevent rape if he or she really wanted to.
Fact: In 1991, 14% of the rapes reported to the Orange County Rape Crisis Center involved the use of a weapon. 74% involved physical force and/or threats of force. Women are often physically weaker than men and are not taught to defend themselves or to be physically aggressive. Furthermore, some women are not willing to hurt another person, especially if the offender is someone they know.


Myth: Most rapes occur when people are out alone at night. If people stay at home, then they will be safer.
Fact: 44% of rapes reported to the Orange County Rape Crisis Center in 1991 occurred in the victim's home.


Myth: Rapists are strangers. If people avoid strangers, then they will not be raped.
Fact: In 60% of the rapes reported to the Orange County Rape Crisis Center in 1991, the rapist was known to the victim. 7% of the assailants were family members of the victim. These statistics reflect only reported rapes. Assaults by assailants the victim knows are often not reported so the statistics do not reflect the actual numbers of acquaintance rapes.


Myth: If the assailant, victim, or both are drunk, the assailant cannot be charged with rape.
Fact: Forcing sex on someone who is too drunk to give consent is second degree rape in North Carolina. [It carries a prison sentence of up to 17 years.] Rape is a crime. People who commit crimes while under the influence of alcohol or drugs are not considered free from guilt.


Myth: Most rapes involve black men and white women.
Fact: 77% of the rapes reported to the Orange County Rape Crisis Center in 1991 involved persons of the same race.


Myth: Rapists are abnormal perverts; only sick or insane men are rapists.
Fact: In a study of 1300 convicted offenders, few were diagnosed as mentally or emotionally ill. Most were well-adjusted but had a greater tendency to express their anger through violence and rage.


Myth: Rape is a minor crime affecting only a few women.
Fact: It is estimated that 1 in 8 women will be raped in her lifetime. Because of low reporting rates, it is not known how many adult men are assaulted. It is also estimated that 1 out of every 4 girls, and 1 out of every 8 boys are sexually assaulted in some way before they reach adulthood. Rape is the most frequently committed violent crime in this country.


Myth: Women frequently cry rape; false reporting of rape is common.
Fact: The FBI reports that only 2% of rapes reports are given falsely. This is the same report rate for other felonies.


Myth: Most rapes occur on the street, by strangers, or by a few crazy men.
Fact: Over 50% of reported rapes occur in the home. 80% of sexual assaults reported by college age women and adult women were perpetrated by close friends or family members. There is no common profile of a rapist. Rapes are committed by people from all economic levels, all races, all occupations. A rapist can be your doctor, your boss, your clergyman, your superintendent, your partner, your lover, your friend or your date.


Myth: You cannot be assaulted against your will.
Fact: Assailants overpower their victims with the threat of violence or with actual violence. Especially in cases of acquaintance rape or incest, an assailant often uses the victim's trust in him to isolate her.


Myth: Women secretly enjoy being raped.
Fact: No woman/ man/ child enjoys being raped. It is a brutal intrusion on the mind, body and spirit that can have lasting trauma.


Myth: It is impossible for a husband to sexually assault his wife.
Fact: Regardless of marital or social relationship, if a woman does not consent to sexual activity, she is being sexually assaulted. In fact, 14% of women are victims of rape committed by their husband.


Myth: If a person doesn't "fight back" she/he wasn't really raped.
Fact: Rape is potentially life-threatening. Whatever a person does to survive the assault is the appropriate action.


Myth: A person who has really been assaulted will be hysterical.
Fact: Survivors exhibit a spectrum of emotional responses to assault: calm, hysteria, laughter, anger, apathy, shock. Each survivor copes with the trauma of the assault in a different way.


Myth: Women "ask for it" by their dress or actions.
Fact: Rapists look for victims they perceive as vulnerable, not women who dress in a particular way. Assuming that women provoke attacks by where they are or the way they dress is victim-blaming. No person, whatever their behaviour, "deserves" to be raped.


Myth: Women "cry" rape.
Fact: Only two percent of reported rape and related sex offences are false (which is approximately the same rate of false reports for other crimes). Although many cases are dropped because of insufficient evidence for conviction, this should not be confused with false reporting.


Myth: Gang rape is rare.
Fact: In 43% of all reported cases, more than one assailant was involved.


Myth: Women who are drunk are willing to engage in any kind of sexual activity.
Fact: The fact that a woman has been drinking does not imply consent. Alcohol and drugs can render a woman incapable of consent.


Myth: Only young, pretty women are assaulted.
Fact: Survivors range in age from infancy to old age, and their appearance is seldom a consideration. Assailants often choose victims who seem most vulnerable to attack: old persons, children, physically or emotionally disabled persons, substance abusers and street persons. Men are also attacked.


Myth: It is impossible to sexually assault a man.
Fact: Men fall victim for the same reasons as women: they are overwhelmed by threats or acts of physical and emotional violence. Also, most sexual assaults that involve a male victim are gang assaults.


Myth: As long as children remember to stay away from strangers, they are in no danger of being assaulted.
Fact: Sadly, children are usually assaulted by acquaintances; a family member or other caretaking adult. Children are usually coerced into sexual activity by their assailant, and are manipulated into silence by the assailant's threats and/or promises, as well as their own feelings of guilt.


Myth: Most rapes involve black men raping white women.
Fact: The majority of rapes are same race; womewhere around 3 to 4% are not same race.

The University of Minnesota is an equal opportunity educator and employer.

Copyright: © 2001, John Hamlin

Last Modified: Thursday, 03-Mar-2005 14:12:13 CST

Page URL: http://www.d.umn.edu/cla/faculty/jhamlin/3925/myths.html

Page Coordinator:John Hamlin

Provocatively Dressed Women and Rape...

It was with some interest that I read a story in The Jakarta Globe about the Head of West Aceh, Ramli Mansur. It seems that the Head of West Aceh has decided that scantily or provocatively dressed women are responsible for their own rape if they go out in public dressed inappropriately. I think more specifically, he said that these women were "asking to be raped!"

If you are shaking your head, then I do not blame you. I always shake my head when I hear this line of argument from anyone. It is an argument I have heard before in Australia. In fact, way back in 2006 an Imam based in Sydney during his Friday prayer sermon stated in unequivocal terms that women who wore make up, dressed provocatively, and went out in public were the equivalent of uncovered meat. Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali said:


"If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it ... whose fault is it, the cats or the uncovered meat?"


"The uncovered meat is the problem."


"If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred."

As I said, been there and heard that!

The Sheik was born in Egypt and, the last I heard, he still calls Australia home.

Why is it that blokes making statements like Mansur and Hilali look like they have been hit by a bus? Let's face it, there is not a stud muffin amongst them! Some of these fellas would be lucky to get laid even if they offered to pay for it!

Back to Mansur and West Aceh. It is understandable that reaction to the misogynist opinions of a backward thinking, backward looking relic of ancient Islamic history has been roundly ridiculed in the Blogosphere, Twittersphere, Facebook, and other social networking places. It is high time that some of these people came and joined the rest of us in the modern world.

It is also high time that people, usually men, stopped making excuses for the bad (and criminal behaviour) of other men. There is nothing right or mitigating in circumstances where a man rapes a woman because she is not wearing the hijab or a burqa or she desires to leave her home and head out in public. Wearing a short skirt does not equate to wearing a sign around one's neck saying "hey, feel free to rape me because I am wearing a short skirt".

Respect and tolerance are not things to be enjoyed by, and among, men. Respect and tolerance extend to all, not just when you feel like it, but at all times. These are not Western values, these are human values.

These men make me want to puke!

(If you have not been able to tell yet from the tone of this rant, I have no time for fools like this!)

"Rape By Deception"...

You have to give it to the Israeli courts, they will be creative in their jurisprudence if it means protecting some absurd sanctity of Jewishness and purity. If you tell lies and mistruths or you misrepresent something, like who you are for example, you might be guilty of deception. But to say you are someone you are not, or to lead someone to believe you are someone you are not, seemingly gets you in a position where you can be guilty of rape by deception.

In essence, if you embellish your personal story to get laid, then you get laid and the other person finds out that you are not who or what you say you are, then you are guilty of raping that other person because they would not have willingly engaged in sexual relations with you if they had known the truth.

This brings us to the case of Saber Kushour. It is a story I came across as I plough through the news online. I found this story at The Guardian here. The article is based solely on the account of Kushour.

The story is a sad tale because Kushour is a married father of two, and irrespective of the outcome of the case he acknowledges that his stupidity has harmed his family.

Kushour is an Arab Israeli who speaks fluent Hebrew without an Arab accent, and obviously passes for a Jew in some circumstances. Perhaps he now wishes that he did not in hindsight. Kushour has been sentenced to eighteen months in jail for the rape by deception of a Jewish woman.

The sex was consensual at the time and lasted a mere 15 minutes. Kushour's case is on appeal and attracting considerable attention in Israel for the underlying racist nature of the sentence and what this says about justice in Israel, and perhaps what is morally acceptable to Israelis in general.

Why has Kushour been sentenced to prison? This is a crude tale, an adulterous tale, where a single Jewish woman propositions a married Arab Israeli man and then has sex with him on a rooftop. To be fair the Jewish woman does not know that Kushour is married. But, Kushour is married and seemingly figured it was a good idea to avail himself of an opportunity to have a casual sexual encounter that his wife would never find out about. Unfortunately for Kushour, the Jewish woman when she found out that Kushour was really an Arab Israeli and not a Jew she lodged a police complaint claiming that she never would have had sex with him if she had known he was an Arab Israeli and not a Jew.

So, what was the legal reasoning of the judge, Zvi Segal, in this case that would allow a decision like this to be reached:

'Judge Segal conceded that it was not "a classical rape by force". He added: "If she hadn't thought the accused was a Jewish bachelor interested in a serious romantic relationship, she would not have co-operated. The court is obliged to protect the public interest from sophisticated, smooth-tongued criminals who can deceive innocent victims at an unbearable price – the sanctity of their bodies and souls."' (from the Guardian).

The problem with this reasoning is that the woman was clearly not thinking about the sanctity of her body or soul when she engaged in the consensual sexual activity. The reality is she picked a man up off the street and then had sex with him on a rooftop. The judge has seemingly gone above an beyond in constructing his decision based on the need to protect the public interest from smooth talking criminals.

It would seem that Kushour's crime is that he suggested to the Jewish woman that he was a bachelor interested in a long-term relationship. In addition to the failure to be explicit in saying to the Jewish woman. "before we have sex you should know that I am an Arab Israeli, are you still interested in proceeding with our sexual encounter?" However, it must be pointed out that the Jewish woman did not ask about Kushour's lineage either.

The judge has then decided that the Jewish woman would not have 'co-operated' if she had known that Kushour was not a bachelor, and presumably she definitely would not have proceeded had she known he was an Arab Israeli. Yet, I would argue that the simple fact that she picked this man up while he was out buying cigarettes and then had sex with him on a nearby roof suggests that she was not all that interested in a period of courtship, marriage, and then sexual relations.

Kushour might be an adulterer but he is not a rapist.

Note:
If I can find what the appeal court decides in this case I will add a postscript to this post. If the appeal court upholds this decision it will be interesting to see if anyone tries to argue and introduce it in other jurisdictions.

Peterporn and Increasing Child Rape...

A celebrity sex tape and the world of Indonesia is falling apart at the seams, it seems! When it is all said and done what we have here is a celebrity sex tape. Nothing more, nothing less. What we also have is a celebrity sex tape which has already been watched by millions upon millions of 'law abiding and moral' Indonesian citizens. The rest of what we have is anecdotal and unsubstantiated theories of what the impact has been on Indonesian society and how it should be dealt with. Just about all of it over the top.

What is really disturbing is that much of the over the top stuff is being driven and flamed by the obvious pot stirrers such as the Islam Defenders' Front (FPI) and institutions such as the Child Protection Commission (KPAI). I do not know if I can say it enough times, all we have is a celebrity sex tape, two of them to be precise so far. That is it folks!

Now, the Chairman of the KPAI, Hadi Supeno, is of the firm opinion that Nazriel 'Ariel' Irham must apologise to all Indonesian children. This belief is based on an assertion that Peterpan has some 30 million fans and a great number of them are in their tweens. What is truly disturbing is the assertion that the sex tape has led to an increase kn reports of rape and sexual abuse involving children, both as perpetrators and as victims. The intent is clear because the above assertion is followed by a modifying statement that suggests this increase is post the release of the tapes.

To my knowledge, and I read widely and peruse Indonesian news 4 or 5 times a day, there have not been any rapes or sexual assaults where the claim was that the perpetrator was trying to copy the actions of Ariel. To make the link that there is some kind of direct correlation between the videos and increasing sexual assault reports is irresponsible in the extreme. Supeno seems more interested in acting in his own interests by making outrageous statements to get his name and mug in the papers and on TV than he does with the idea that the interests of the child should be paramount.

The apology, and the demand for it is a little premature. If the tapes / videos were stolen, then Ariel has been the victim of a crime. Since when has law enforcement been about punishing the victims of crime and not the perpetrators of those crimes? There is no guarantee that with a strict reading of the prevailing laws and regulations, especially the Porn Law, that Ariel has in fact broken the law by taping himself doing the deed with either Luna Maya or Cut Tari.

The idea of video taping yourself having sex is questionable in light of the fact that these things can get lost or stolen. The rest as hindsight shows us is history. There is no going back once the footage is out there. Should Ariel apologise for having sex? No. Should he apologise for video taping it? If he wants to. Should he apologise to the youth of Indonesia for the tape finding its way into the public forum? No. At most this should become a teaching moment where Ariel can talk directly to youth about the perils associated with his actions and how intent does not always matter in cases such as this one.

But not being one to let sleeping dogs lie, Supeno has fanned the flames even further by suggesting that even if Ariel does not want to apologise to the children of Indonesia, he should apologise to all Indonesians as a means of quietening down the hardliners such as those in the FPI. Supeno then goes on to equate any failure to apologise to the masses as being the trigger to violence. The Chairman is being truly irresponsible in suggesting that the failure to apologise is a legitimate trigger to violence.

The FPI have a pretty solid track record of violence. They do not need to be spurred on to further violence. Nevertheless, claims such as those put forward by Supeno and the KPAI will only serve to embolden those look for any reason to wreak havoc on the innocent. Emboldened as they now are, the FPI in Bandung is demanding that the local government revoke Ariel's identity card. Every Indonesian is required to hold an identity card. Is the suggestion that making a sex video is sufficient to extinguish your rights as a citizen. It seems that revoking his Bandung ID is not enough, the FPI would like the local government to ban Ariel from ever returning to Bandung. Over the top? Just a little!

At least the Home Affairs Minister, Gamawan Fauzi say the irrationality of demanding the revocation of Ariel's ID card by saying that there are no laws in place that would allow for the revocation of an Indonesian's ID card for making porn videos.

The kicker for me is that the FPI jumps up and down on the spot in between destroying public and private property in the name of Allah and Islam while simultaneously perpetrating violence against those who will not agree with them, and then say that Ariel has destroyed the moral fabric of Indonesia. There is something inherently wrong in the claim, the vast majority of Indonesians can see through the hypocrisy of that without blinking an eye.

Once again, I do not know if I can emphasize this enough, this is just a celebrity sex tape! The world is not ending, the sky is not falling in, and life will go on!

For those of you out there who think this is the end of the world as we know it, Get A Grip!

Raped by a Genie -- Indonesia

This is one of those stories where you find yourself sitting back in your chair as you read it and shaking your head incredulous to how creative some people are when they plan to do something wrong or have been caught out having done something wrong. I guess I will never be a novelist because it had never occurred to me that one could blame their raping of a 15-year-old student under their care on a genie that had not been fed in a while.

The story goes that a principle at an Islamic Boarding School in Tangerang, Banten, West of Jakarta, raped and impregnated a 15-year-old girl under his care. The young girl had not revealed the rape to anyone, but it became increasingly difficult for her to conceal her pregnancy.

The girl, who has been identified by the initials KHF, alleges she was raped by the principal. However, the principal has supposedly said that it was not him but rather the genie that did it. The principal, who has been identified with the initials HDN, allegedly told the girl that if she had sex with him or the genie, then the genie would give her special powers. The girl claims she rejected the genie principal's advances and in her embarrassment decided against reporting the incident.

It would seem that the genie was not to be denied. A few days later the girl again found herself alone with the genie principal. However, this time she claims that she became incapacitated in the presence of the genie principal and when she later regained consciousness she was sore in places where she should not have been sore.

This is where the story gets even a little more bizarre. The girl's parents confronted the principal, as you would if your daughter had told you she had been raped by her principal. However, the principal denied that he raped the girl, but apparently confessed to the parents that it was his pet genie that did it. And, that the genie probably did it because he had not been fed in a few months. But what is really weird is that the principal agreed to a DNA test and is seemingly pretty confident that the DNA results will prove that he did not do it and that the genie did.

Nah, if my understanding is correct then the genie sort of appears and takes over the body of the host and then has his way with the girl. If this is the case then I am thinking that perhaps the DNA of the host rather than the genie is likely to turn up in any subsequent DNA test. Then again, I am no scientist, so I do not know for sure how these things work.

I am wondering whether this is a confession that there have been other girls who have fallen victim to the hungry genie in times previous to this account.

Nevertheless, it seems that the principal has realized that the allegation of rape of a minor is a little more serious than he envisaged at first and he is now backing away from the genie claim. The principal is now suggesting that the young girl is pregnant to her boyfriend and in her embarrassment and shame on that front she is seeking to blame the principal for her troubles.

The Indonesian Legal Aid and Human Rights Association (Perhimpunan Bantuan Hukum dan Hak Asasi Manusia Indonesia / PBHI) has taken up the case, and they have reported the alleged crime to the Indonesian police who are now reportedly investigating the claims. Perhaps they need to get a psych report done on the alleged perpetrator who seemingly thinks he is harbouring a genie or two.

Another interesting twist in this story is that the principal's family are now claiming that it is impossible for him to impregnate the young girl because he is a diabetic with extremely high blood sugar levels. And, the family claims, that it is a medical fact that diabetics cannot get erections. The family does not seem to be entertaining the idea that the genie did it either. But there have been no reports as to whether the genie is diabetic as well.

Apparently the DNA tests have been done and when the results come back from the lab, then it is expected that the families of the girl and the principal will have a clearer picture of what transpired or did not transpire. As will the police and just about everyone else following this story.

Statutory Rape or Monumental Mistake?

This is a series of photos doing the rounds of the internet at the moment. Perhaps they will appeal to lawyers more than anyone else (I am not sure that is a good thing, though).

So, the simple question is: "Is this statutory rape or a monumental mistake?"

Manohara Odelia Pinot -- Part XXIII -- Default Judgment

It has been a while between drinks, so to speak, when it comes to the Mano posts. However, apart from her self-titles soap getting canned, there has not been anything much newsworthy to post on. Nevertheless, patience pays off, and the girl is back in the news this week and in a bit of a lawyer-driven bind.

It is interesting to see that the press refers to Mano as an Indonesian teen soap star. I am not sure that one truncated, and ultimately cancelled, season warrants the description. Yet, as a teenager she still has time to become a star. However, Mano and her mum, Daisy Fajarina, are in a spot of bother. That bother is what is likely to be a 105 million ringgit default judgment against both Mano and her mother for defaming and slandering Mano's former husband, Tengku Fakhry, of the Kelantan royal family.

Mano and Daisy's previous legal representation have handed back the case files and bailed on the case. The Malaysian High Court has decided that Mano and Daisy have until 5 November to get new legal representation on board and complete the case or run the risk of the court handing down a default judgment. It would seem that Tengku Fakhry thinks he is on a winner no matter whether his former wife and mother-in-law get counsel or not, as he was supportive of a delay to allow Mano and Daisy to seek out new legal representatives.

Aside from the cash, the prince is also asking that the court hand down an injunction that prohibits both Mano and her mother from defaming him by constantly stating publicly that the prince sexually and physically abused Mano during their brief marriage. This mistreatment also included an allegation of abduction or kidnapping.

The best defense to an allegation of defamation or slander is truth. It would seem that with this case, the prince is asking both Mano and Daisy to ante up and prove the truth of their allegations or withdraw them and be penalized for making false claims.

It has been suggested that Mano has been paid well for her work on her short-lived soap opera, but I am not sure she was paid well enough to cover a default judgment of 105 million ringgit.

(Photo courtesy of here)

Abortions, Plastic Surgery, Breastfeeding, and Other Goodies in the Indonesian Health Bill...

No apologies for a really long post...read it if you want to (it is interesting though) :D

The Health Bill which will repeal and replace the current law, Law No. 23 of 1992, has been doing the rounds of the House of Representatives (Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat / DPR) since at least 2003. The passage of the bill was somewhat controversial as it includes clauses that permit abortions to occur under very specific circumstances. Ultimately, these clauses saw one parliamentary faction reject the bill outright and another pass the bill but with notes as to their objections included. These factions were the Prosperous Peace Party (Partai Damai Sejahtera / PDS) and the Star Reform Party (Partai Bintang Reformasi / PBR), respectively.

Nevertheless, PDS did accept the right to an abortion where there was a medical reason detected early in the pregnancy (Art. 75(2)(a)). In contrast, the PBR rejected the clause that permits a rape victim to abort the product of that rape. The PBR rejection is based on the rights to life of the fetus / baby.

However, the bill is so much more than just a few clauses legalizing abortion in certain circumstances or more generally female reproductive rights. The bill also includes provisions on generic medicines and the rights of babies to be breastfed exclusively for the first six months of their young lives, and the amount of the respective government budgets that are to be allocated to health.

The provisions permit abortion within a very narrowly defined set of circumstances. It is important to note that these circumstances do not include abortion as a form of birth control. Abortion is permitted where the pregnant woman is pregnant as a result of a rape. Abortion is also permitted in circumstances where there is a medical reason for the procedure to be conducted. Some of the medical reasons include where there is an identified risk of severe genetic defects in the fetus or where the life of the mother is at risk if she were to carry the fetus / baby to term.

Before an abortion can be performed, counseling must be undertaken by the woman to determine whether she has considered all of the pros and cons of what she is about to do. The bill lists who may provide this counseling.

The bill also requires that the government ensure the availability and supply of generic medicines. This is intended as a measure to ensure that all Indonesians have access to medicines and drugs that they can afford. It is worth noting that the only obligation on the government with respect to generic medicines and drugs relates to those medicines and drugs listed on the essential list.

Interestingly, the bill recognizes the rights of babies to be breastfed exclusively for the first six months of their young lives, and then in combination with other foods up to the age of two. The bill also recognizes that some mothers, even when they want to, for medical reasons are unable to breastfeed. Where this is the case the mother is exempted from the provision. However, it would seem that there would need to be a provable medical reason for this before the exemption would come into effect. It is unclear whether mothers need to have a medical certificate that they must carry with them in order to prove this. The bill is also silent on how this is to be enforced.

More interestingly, the bill requires that the ability to breastfeed be facilitated by not only family members, but also by the central and regional governments, and the broader community. This implies that there is an expectation that employers respect the need for women to breastfeed and provide specialized facilities for this purpose.

Anyone that intentionally interferes with the breastfeeding program is liable for a term of imprisonment up to one year and a fine of IDR 100 million.

Furthermore, the bill sets out provisions that require the central government to set aside at least 5% of the state budget for the health sector. The bill also requires that the regional government set aside a minimum of 10% of their respective budgets for the health sector. There is an important stipulation with these minimum amounts, namely: that they are the minimum amount required to be set aside and these numbers do not include the salaries of any employees. Therefore, in real terms the budget for health related matters is likely to be larger than the amounts noted when salaries are factored in.

The bill also addresses issues such as malpractice, an obligation on health services and providers to provide emergency health care to anyone who requires it irrespective of that person’s ability to pay, traditional healers and therapies, plastic surgery and reconstructive surgery, and expressly prohibits the trafficking in organs.

The provisions relating to malpractice and the obligation to provide treatment are attacked to a criminal sanction that provides that where medical treatment is refused then there is a liability to a term of imprisonment up to two years and a fine of up to IDR 200 million. However, where this refusal results in impairment or death then the penalties are ratcheted up to a maximum of ten years imprisonment and a fine of up to IDR 1 billion.

Traditional healers who use “tools” are required to have those tools registered by the relevant authorities. I would be guessing that this includes Mak Erot and her sons with respect to their noted abilities in fixing male issues like small penis syndrome. If a traditional healer causes injury then they are liable for a term of imprisonment not to exceed one year and a fine of up to IDR 100 million. This is the case even where the injury caused results in death.

So, in that sense it is better to be a traditional healer and kill someone than be a doctor and kill someone. In fact it could be better by about nine years.

The bill explicitly prohibits the commercialization of organ transplants by stipulating that transplantation of organs and body parts can only be done for humanitarian reasons and not for commercial purposes. Therefore, anyone caught trading human organs and body parts are liable for a term of imprisonment up to ten years and a fine of up to IDR 1 billion.

The plastic and reconstructive surgery provisions are interesting. Probably more interesting because the elucidations to the bill only state “self-explanatory” which in essence means that the bill is silent as to how these provisions might be interpreted. This is of concern considering that the penalties are severe, up to ten years in prison and fines of up to IDR 1 billion.

Yet, the provisions prohibit the use of plastic and reconstructive surgery if the objective is to change one’s identity. But, isn’t that the purpose of plastic surgery to change or improve how you look, and consequently change your identity? The bill also prohibits plastic and reconstructive surgery that is against community norms. Unfortunately, the elucidations are silent as to what these community norms (and presumably values) are. So, it is worth wondering out loud whether the provision can be used to prevent gender re-assignment surgeries? I guess that this will all become much clearer when the necessary implementing legislation is enacted. So, until then perhaps this is all much ado about nothing.

It is clear that the bill is a lot more than just a few clauses on abortion and when abortion is permitted. Nevertheless, it is expected that it is the abortion provisions that will dominate news headlines. However, the articles dealing with matters such as generic medicines and drugs, breastfeeding, and minimum budgets are equally as important as these in effect significantly alter the regulatory framework from the current law and also seemingly place additional burdens on both the public and private sectors.

The bill comes into immediate force once it is enacted. Enactment requires the signature of the President. If the President fails to sign the bill into law then the bill will self-enact after 30 days pursuant to the 1945 Constitution.

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.

Manohara Odelia Pinot -- Part XX -- A Claim for IDR 3 Billion

Tengku Fakhry has decided that Manohara and Daisy owe him the equivalent of some IDR 3 billion in money that he has provided to them while he was married to Manohara. This claim has been filed in a Malaysian court.

Daisy, in her usual manner, has dismissed the Prince's claim as not only excessive, but plain wrong. According to her, she does not owe the prince a single penny. Actually, Daisy went a little further and added that she thought the prince was acting like he is a God who thinks he can control any one that he wants.

This would seem to exclude Daisy and Manohara as they managed to escape his clutches and have since shown that they have no fear of the man. Not one to miss an opportunity, Daisy added that so far, the prince's behaviour has been a little erratic and it seems that he does not know what he wants; whether he wants Manohara back as his wife or whether he wants to sue her into oblivion.

It seems that this particular saga still has legs and is looking like I can get a few more posts out of my fascination yet. And, there is always the issue of what is going to happen to Daisy on another legal front related to her abuse of a former maid.

Ain't life grand.

By the way, the photo can be found here. I am not sure whether this is a real photo of her or a photo-shopped one, but it looks like a mobile phone capture to my untrained eye.

Can Rape Be A Joke?

Can rape be a joke or perhaps an accident? The Victorian County Court, before Judge Tim Wood, is soon going to have to determine this very issue. The case involves a buck's night, the best man, a stripper, and a strap-on pink dildo. Yes, the makings of a very interesting story and turn of events that have resulted in claims of rape and the rape being nothing more than a joke.

The rape is alleged to have occurred in 2007. Perhaps alleged is the wrong word as the event occurred and all parties agree that it occurred. The substance of this issue is whether the event is rape.

The stripper, Linda Maree Naggs, is accused of using the strap-on pink dildo to violate the best man. After unequivocally stating that he did not want to have the dildo stuck in his anus, Naggs went ahead and did it anyway. This was done in spite of his insistence that he did not want to be violated. It has always been a case of "No" means "No" when one discusses the wishes of a woman declining sexual intercourse. Simply, "No" does not sometimes mean "Yes" or "Maybe" or "just do it as I am only playing hard to get." No means no, and this standard must not differ between women and men.

Naggs has pleaded not guilty to rape.

There is little need to get into the nitty gritty details and specifics. However, suffice to say, the alleged rape caused physical injuries to the best man. And, at this point there was some push and shove, and a demand for a refund of the stripping fee. Naggs refused and then threatened to call in some bikie acquaintances to settle the matter.

The best man kept the black-strapped strap-on pink dildo as evidence and this was tendered to the court.

Rape can never be a joke!

Postscript...

This post has been amended slightly from the original posting for the purposes of accuracy with regards to the names of victim and the prosecutor in the case.

Manohara Odelia Pinot -- Part XIX -- Upping the Ante

At the outset, a reminder is necessary...this is a fascination and not an obsession! :D

The prince, Tengku Fakhry, has certainly upped the ante in the domestic / marriage dispute between himself and his teenage wife and her mother. The ante in this case is reportedly in the tens of millions of Ringgit for the defamation case that the Fakhry has submitted to the Malaysian courts. Latest reports set the figure at 105 million ringgit. There is also another claim that Manohara's mother, Daisy, owes the prince about 1 million ringgit.

I am still wondering why a 30-year-old prince wanted to marry a 16-year-old wanna be starlet and social climber. Perhaps he was sucked into the black magic powers of the mother and the surgically implanted golden needles and diamonds in Manohara's jaw. Who knows, and I guess in the big scheme of things, who really cares outside of those immediately affected by this ever deepening crisis of domestic bliss turning to domestic mess.

Upping the ante also sees the prince's legal team for the defamation case, headed by Mohd. Haaziq Pillay, seeking special leave from the Kuala Lumpur High Court to file a writ of summons in Jakarta. Generally, in common law legal systems the permission of the court is required where a summons needs to be filed outside the jurisdiction because the defendants are not within the local jurisdiction. There would seem to be no reason why the court would not grant this application, except if the court was of the opinion that the case had no merit and no likelihood of success.

The court has since granted the leave and it would seem now the writ of summons needs to be forwarded to Indonesian authorities and onto the legal team of Manohara and her mother. It will be interesting to see if this spurs both mother and daughter into returning fire and filing criminal complaints in Malaysia regarding the alleged conduct of the prince.

If the duo do return fire then it will require them to start furnishing evidence of the alleged abuse, rape, kidnapping, and torture that the prince allegedly perpetrated against Manohara during their brief marriage. The reports of the abuse and alleged photos of the razor blading of Manohara have surfaced on the internet and doctors have issued statements in support of Manohara's claims. However, this has been a case of the drama being played out in the court of public opinion and the burden in this court is considerably different to that required in a criminal court of law or even in a civil matter.

To be clear, the sense here is not that Manohara has not been abused or raped or kidnapped or tortured in the manner that she claims. However, there is this underlying and emerging series of questions starting to bubble to the surface not only in Malaysia, but also in Indonesia, that if these claims and allegations are true, then why are Manohara and Daisy not more forcefully pursuing justice? On a personal level, I would like to think that in the big scheme of things that Manohara and her mother could use this unsavoury and tragic occurrence to help victims of domestic violence to escape their respective tragic existences for a better future.

Perhaps not one filled with a sinetron named after them and multi-billion rupiah appearance fees and the like, but an escape to a better life.

The defamation case is set for mention in the Malaysian courts on 2 August 2009.

The Indonesian authorities, headed by the Department of Foreign Affairs, has offered to help in any way that they can in terms of assisting Manohara and her mother filing the necessary paperwork to commence legal proceedings in Malaysia. Even the Malaysians themselves have committed to a thorough investigation to ensure that justice is done wherever that justice may be.

No matter what happens, there is still the issue with Daisy being to all intents and purposes on the run from French authorities. The sad part is that Manohara is not implicated in the legal problems that befell her mother in France, yet it is ironic that the mother, who has been so vehement in wanting to see the prince punished for his abuse of her daughter, is in fact a person who has been convicted of assaulting and abusing an Indonesian under her care.

If Indonesia is series about stamping out the practice of foreigners thinking that they can abuse Indonesia's migrant workers with impunity, then this would be a perfect case to say, enough is enough. The Indonesian government should be pro-active in working through the merits of the Daisy Fajarina case, and if necessary facilitating her return to France to face the music. To not do so sends a very poor message to all of Indonesia's migrant workers; where here for you if you want to come back and star in a sinetron and engage in some Malaysia bashing, but while your overseas you're on your own.

The last point is not entirely fair. Indonesia has and continues to pursue initiatives to afford greater protection to their migrant workers. If for no other reason than migrant workers repatriate huge sums of foreign exchange into the Indonesian banking system. Cynical, I know, but also true.

The time has come for Manohara and her mother to decide whether they are going to play legal ball here. The prince has shown his hand, Manohara's move.