"Corrective rape"

[yguy]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009...e-south-africa

The partially clothed body of Eudy Simelane, former star of South Africa's acclaimed Banyana Banyana national female football squad, was found in a creek in a park in Kwa Thema, on the outskirts of Johannesburg. Simelane had been gang-raped and brutally beaten before being stabbed 25 times in the face, chest and legs. As well as being one of South Africa's best-known female footballers, Simelane was a voracious equality rights campaigner and one of the first women to live openly as a lesbian in Kwa Thema.

Her brutal murder took place last April, and since then a tide of violence against lesbian women in South Africa has continued to rise. Human rights campaigners say it is characterised by what they call "corrective rape" committed by men behind the guise of trying to "cure" lesbian women of their sexual orientation.

Why, having thrown off the shackles of white oppression, are blacks in SA oppressing each other?

Now, a report by the international NGO ActionAid, backed by the South African Human Rights Commission, condemns the culture of impunity around these crimes, which it says are going unrecognised by the state and unpunished by the legal system.

The report calls for South Africa's criminal justice system to recognise hate crimes, including corrective rape, as a separate crime category.

And why is "corrective rape" any more a hate crime than any other kind of rape?

[Kael]

To your second question, I don't really have an answer. The whole hate crime idea is still something I haven't come to a personal conclusion on.

Your fist question, however, makes no sense. How does race enter into this situation? Could you explain what makes this different from, say, some white guys in Texas beating/killing another white guy for being gay, or raping/killing a white woman for the same reason? Or is it just that you don't see the oppression of gays, therefore the oppression must be racially oriented?

[yguy]

Originally Posted by Kael

How does race enter into this situation? Could you explain what makes this different from, say, some white guys in Texas beating/killing another white guy for being gay, or raping/killing a white woman for the same reason?

The only difference I'm aware of is that whites aren't perceived to be members of an "oppressed minority".

[Shelli]

I thought the title read "Corrective rape" at first.

If only....

[Farren]

Yguy, before commenting further I have to say that you've previously taken an unusual amount of interest in how screwed up post-colonial africa is and post apartheid SA especially. Since I know a lot of disgruntled white ex-Saffies post on forums I'm sure you frequent (like Free Republic) and write for right-wing publications in the US, the idea that your sources might be people who don't genuinely give a shit but in fact wet themselves with delight over every failure of a post-colonial/post Apartheid African state that they can broadcast, disturbs me.

SA indeed has serious problems with both homophobia and violence against women. Thankfully many of the prevailing attitudes about sex and sexuality cannot find their way into the law of the land since our constitution writers showed considerable foresight (like putting non-discrimination on the grounds of both gender and sexuality in the actual constitution). This legal cover at least provides activists with an enabling environment to change attitudes, despite the intimidation and violence. People have a constitutional right to be gay and enjoy full equality before the law in this country, up to and including marriage.

On the issue of why its in a seperate legal category: If the crime is meant to terrorise, if it was commited in the service of a broader goal like pushing a belief system and silencing opposition, it obviously requires special consideration. Because those who would push such an agenda will implicitly or explicitly use such crimes as examples of what happens to those who do not acquiese.

Therefore, the punishments for such crimes should obviously be especially vivid examples of how bad things can get for the actual perpetrators. Especially when the problem is endemic. The punishment is not just targetting an individual crime, but an entire unnacceptable belief system and everyone who adheres to it.

[yguy]

Originally Posted by Farren

Yguy, before commenting further I have to say that you've previously taken an unusual amount of interest in how screwed up post-colonial africa is and post apartheid SA especially. Since I know a lot of disgruntled white ex-Saffies post on forums I'm sure you frequent (like Free Republic)

Prolly been there half a dozen times in my life. Never posted there. As for "disgruntled ex-Saffies", I don't remember ever encountering such a person.

This legal cover at least provides activists with an enabling environment to change attitudes,

Was all this rape going on under apartheid? If not, it seems there has already been something of a "change in attitude".

The punishment is not just targeting an individual crime, but an entire unacceptable belief system and everyone who adheres to it.

Meaning the belief that lesbianism is wrong, or the belief that it can be cured by rape?

[Farren]

Originally Posted by yguy

Meaning the belief that lesbianism is wrong, or the belief that it can be cured by rape?

The latter. Plus the belief that lesbians or gay men should be punished for their sexuality.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Farren

On the issue of why its in a seperate legal category: If the crime is meant to terrorise, if it was commited in the service of a broader goal like pushing a belief system and silencing opposition, it obviously requires special consideration. Because those who would push such an agenda will implicitly or explicitly use such crimes as examples of what happens to those who do not acquiese.

This.

[Wonderbread Leotard]

From the stupidly phallocentric viewpoint of erimir/deadlokd/et al. (who absurdly have denied female sexual interest in rape except from an angle of personal submission/surrender, which is every bit as ridiculous as their denial of significant female bisexuality) one could assume women getting raped by men are just getting what "true" women all really want deep down.

[Dingfod]

Originally Posted by Sovereign

From the stupidly phallocentric viewpoint of erimir/deadlokd/et al. (who absurdly have denied female sexual interest in rape except from an angle of personal submission/surrender, which is every bit as ridiculous as their denial of significant female bisexuality) one could assume women getting raped by men are just getting what "true" women all really want deep down.

Because deep down Jenni is a bimbo and wants to be raped. You go tell her that, fuckhead.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Dingfod

Because deep down Jenni is a bimbo and wants to be raped. You go tell her that, fuckhead.

Would that he could. He's banned from talking about Slobberinism at Debate Unlimited.

[Naru]

Originally Posted by Sovereign

From the stupidly phallocentric viewpoint of erimir/deadlokd/et al. (who absurdly have denied female sexual interest in rape except from an angle of personal submission/surrender, which is every bit as ridiculous as their denial of significant female bisexuality) one could assume women getting raped by men are just getting what "true" women all really want deep down.

This isn't DU, Sovereign, you're allowed to talk about your own opinions here

Originally Posted by davidm

Would that he could. He's banned from talking about Slobberinism at Debate Unlimited.

He would've left Debate Limited sooner or later anyway to come back to his FFavorite FForum.

[Deadlokd]

Originally Posted by Sovereign

From the stupidly phallocentric viewpoint of erimir/deadlokd/et al. (who absurdly have denied female sexual interest in rape except from an angle of personal submission/surrender, which is every bit as ridiculous as their denial of significant female bisexuality) one could assume women getting raped by men are just getting what "true" women all really want deep down.

Thank you, thank you, I'll be here all week. Try the prawn cocktails. Good night all!

And you're the tard that thinks that women want to be raped. Your whole nation building viewpoint is based around that crucial, and erroneous, fact.

As for the OP, it's a shite state of affairs. And I think it goes to show that no matter how liberated a society is on a whole, there will always be small minded fuckheads who feel the need to impose their limited beliefs on others. Men who do that are the ones that feel threatened by women. They know that when women have true equality they're the ones that are going to be left by the wayside fapping to clothes catalogues.

I hope they find all the perpetrators of these hate crimes and emasculate them.

[Dingfod]

Originally Posted by Deadlokd

... they're the ones that are going to be left by the wayside fapping to clothes catalogues. ...

Don't take that away from me!

[Farren]

Thankfully, I cannot see Sovereign's opinions on the matter, only the fact that he vomited something up on this thread.

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by Farren

Thankfully, I cannot see Sovereign's opinions on the matter, only the fact that he vomited something up on this thread.

Don't worry; I read it.

You didn't really miss an opinion, per se; it was more like a tinfoil-hat word salad.

[ChuckF]

lol Sovereign is here.

[davidm]

How's Debate Unlimited working out for you now, Slobberin'?

[ChuckF]

like lightning bolts from the sun!!!

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

like lightning bolts from the sun!!!

From the pitifully yet amusingly phallominuscule viewpoint of Slobberinism (which absurdly has denied that dear Jenni's kidneys are now floating in an ocean of jizz supplied by various and sundry gentlemen of the Freethought Forum, which is every bit as ridiculous as its denial of its total inability to give a straight answer to a straight question) one could assume that what "true" women all really want deep down is bedwetting nonsensical gibberish. Such language is powerful, like cream cheese from Proxima Centauri.

[Leesifer]

Hi Sovereign.

And how is the lovely Jenni?

[California Tanker]

On the issue of why its in a seperate legal category: If the crime is meant to terrorise, if it was commited in the service of a broader goal like pushing a belief system and silencing opposition, it obviously requires special consideration. Because those who would push such an agenda will implicitly or explicitly use such crimes as examples of what happens to those who do not acquiese.

Don't like it.

There are already distinctions in the criminal justice system related to intent. Pre-meditated murder, second-degree, manslaughter, what have you.
Further, when it comes to 'institutional thought crimes' we have a wonderful variety of 'conspiracy' and 'terrorism' laws to fall afoul of. (Violence against innocent parts of the civil populace to further a political goal? I -know- we have laws against that already) Thirdly, the victim is likely pretty damned terrorised regardless of if they are aware of any greater plan by the offender. I have no doubt that they (or next of kin) would be just as interested in seeing the max amount of justice done.

NTM

[Farren]

Originally Posted by California Tanker

Don't like it.

There are already distinctions in the criminal justice system related to intent. Pre-meditated murder, second-degree, manslaughter, what have you.

Exactly. Each of them are seen as mitigating or worsening the wrongness of the deed, for different, all very sensible, reasons. None of which cover intent to terrorise an entire section of the population. Terrorism laws don't cover this under terrorism, despite the outcome of such crimes being similar. Hence the need for another category. That's a very crude bit of handwaving by way of an argument, CT.

Further, when it comes to 'institutional thought crimes' we have a wonderful variety of 'conspiracy' and 'terrorism' laws to fall afoul of. (Violence against innocent parts of the civil populace to further a political goal? I -know- we have laws against that already)

And...? How does this obviate the above? Again, despite having similar effects, hate crimes generally are not covered by terrorism laws.

Thirdly, the victim is likely pretty damned terrorised regardless of if they are aware of any greater plan by the offender. I have no doubt that they (or next of kin) would be just as interested in seeing the max amount of justice done.

NTM

Read my post again. Hate crimes by definition are crimes where an entire section of the population is being terrorised, not just the victim. If I was gay I wouldn't feel any more or less safe than the next person simply because someone somewhere was killed in a lover's quarrel. But I would feel particularly vulnerable if many people in my society were being killed for being gay, like me. Furthermore, there are homophobes that are aware of that fear and use it to intimidate targeted groups.

Do you think the KKK didn't create a climate of fear that was specifically felt by black people, CT? Do you think they didn't use that to suppress the vote and discourage mixing?

Do you feel that someone that kills someone else because of negligent driving should receive similar punishment to someone who plans and executes the murder of a business partner for financial gain? And do you think the latter person, in turn, is as dangerous to society as someone who indiscriminately kills people simply because they're black or gay or belong to another religion?

[California Tanker]

Originally Posted by Farren

Exactly. Each of them are seen as mitigating or worsening the wrongness of the deed, for different, all very sensible, reasons. None of which cover intent to terrorise an entire section of the population. Terrorism laws don't cover this under terrorism, despite the outcome of such crimes being similar. Hence the need for another category. That's a very crude bit of handwaving by way of an argument, CT.

What's the handwaving? I'm pointing out that the effect you want can be attained by the combined use of the laws already on the books. I don't know about your neck of the woods, but the California Penal Code is already larger than the Holy Bible, what you propose is to add even more to it for the sake of making someone feel better. That sort of legislative logic is part of the reason the Code is so freaking big already.

And...? How does this obviate the above? Again, despite having similar effects, hate crimes generally are not covered by terrorism laws.

Why not?

Maybe just because nobody thought to apply them? Much like that animal rights activist last year got a hell of a shock when terrorism charges were thrown at her. "But.. that's not what terrorist laws are about!" she claimed. Just because they're not routinely used in cases we don't routinely associate with terrorism in the normal turn of phrase does not mean they are inappropriate.

US Code defines terrorism thusly:

Originally Posted by Title 22

The term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents

Why should this not apply?

Hate crimes by definition are crimes where an entire section of the population is being terrorised

If someone is engaging in terrorism, what difference does it make their motivation? Violence for political goals is generally considered 'wrong.' And what if the section of the population is being terrorised for non-political reasons? Can terrorism descriptions still not apply? The Freeway Sniper in Los Angeles certainly made the section of the population who used US-101 in LA county a bit nervous, without regard to creed or colour. The Virginia Supreme Court upheld the death penalty for the D.C. Sniper as appropriate for an act of terror, and again, there was little racial/sexual-orientation grounds for the attacks. (Indeed, the "cruel scheme of terror", as the court put it, was held to be extant as a result of an attempt at financial extortion!). If we're already giving the death penalty for acts of terror, what more do you want by way of additional sentencing?

Do you think the KKK didn't create a climate of fear that was specifically felt by black people, CT? Do you think they didn't use that to suppress the vote and discourage mixing?

The reason that the KKK was able to sustain a climate of fear was not because nobody slapped a 'hate crime' charge on them. It was because they either were never found guilty of 'ordinary' charges by the jury of like-minded peers, or they were never even investigated in the first place by the local police who didn't care to waste their time over the death of a black person.

Do you feel that someone that kills someone else because of negligent driving should receive similar punishment to someone who plans and executes the murder of a business partner for financial gain?

No, of course not. There was no intent to kill in the one situation, there was in the other.

And do you think the latter person, in turn, is as dangerous to society as someone who indiscriminately kills people simply because they're black or gay or belong to another religion?

Anyone who believes they can willy-nilly go out and kill whomsoever they please for their own motives, whatever they are, is a danger to society. However, should you wish to put special emphasis on those who engage in terrorism, that's why we have the laws on the books which account for it already.

NTM

[Farren]

Originally Posted by California Tanker

What's the handwaving? I'm pointing out that the effect you want can be attained by the combined use of the laws already on the books. I don't know about your neck of the woods, but the California Penal Code is already larger than the Holy Bible, what you propose is to add even more to it for the sake of making someone feel better. That sort of legislative logic is part of the reason the Code is so freaking big already.

I don't know how federal and state law works in your neck of the woods, but on this side of the pond I don't think we even have substantive terrorism laws (bear in mind the OP is about South Africa)

Why not?

Maybe just because nobody thought to apply them? Much like that animal rights activist last year got a hell of a shock when terrorism charges were thrown at her. "But.. that's not what terrorist laws are about!" she claimed. Just because they're not routinely used in cases we don't routinely associate with terrorism in the normal turn of phrase does not mean they are inappropriate.

US Code defines terrorism thusly:

Why should this not apply?

Again, I can't speak with any authority for American law, but I do think there's wiggle-room for gay haters, racists and other hate-crime perpetrators because of the "political" qualification, while homophobia and racism definitely involve belief systems, the claim can be made that there is no political goal. Animal rights activism, because it is usually politically organised, doesn't have as much latitude.

That said, it seems to me your anti-terrorism laws are completely OTT (an opinion shared by many legal minds the world over) and need to be trimmed, not hate crime laws precluded on the grounds of apparently frequently abused and overly general terrorism laws.

If someone is engaging in terrorism, what difference does it make their motivation? Violence for political goals is generally considered 'wrong.' And what if the section of the population is being terrorised for non-political reasons? Can terrorism descriptions still not apply? The Freeway Sniper in Los Angeles certainly made the section of the population who used US-101 in LA county a bit nervous, without regard to creed or colour. The Virginia Supreme Court upheld the death penalty for the D.C. Sniper as appropriate for an act of terror, and again, there was little racial/sexual-orientation grounds for the attacks. (Indeed, the "cruel scheme of terror", as the court put it, was held to be extant as a result of an attempt at financial extortion!). If we're already giving the death penalty for acts of terror, what more do you want by way of additional sentencing?

The issue is one of nuance. Overly broad terrorism laws lump someone who blew up a building full of people with someone who wrecked an animal testing laboratory when everyone was at home. Just as its useful to seperate out crimes of passion, premeditated crimes and premeditated political crimes with the intent to terrorise, its useful to distinguish crimes that are often unpremeditated but the result of belief system not specifically targeted by the law. The more specific our categories, the more appropriate the response.

The reason that the KKK was able to sustain a climate of fear was not because nobody slapped a 'hate crime' charge on them.

Que passa?

No, of course not. There was no intent to kill in the one situation, there was in the other.

Anyone who believes they can willy-nilly go out and kill whomsoever they please for their own motives, whatever they are, is a danger to society. However, should you wish to put special emphasis on those who engage in terrorism, that's why we have the laws on the books which account for it already.

NTM

See above. Laws which target specific motivations can be better tailored to discourage people with those motives.