• TAASA on Facebook

  Texas Association Against Sexual Assault (TAASA) | Promote Your Page Too
  
• 
• Search for:

• Tags

  • activism
  • child sexual assault
  • crime
  • diversity
  • feminism
  • gender
  • gender socialization
  • harassment
  • masculinity
  • media
  • media commentary
  • pop culture
  • public policy
  • race
  • rape "jokes"
  • rape culture
  • sex offenders
  • sexting
  • social justice
  • youth

• Categories

  • Announcement
  • Guest Post
  • Humorless Feminist
  • Motivating Moments
  • News
  • Powerful Women
  • Uncategorized
  • Vlog

• Recent Comments

  • Rose Luna on The Chicken or the Egg
  • Morgan Curtis on The Chicken or the Egg
  • Tim Love on Hearing things we don’t want to hear…
  • Kayla on Hearing things we don’t want to hear…
  • Lara on What could possibly make you think that’s ok?

• Blogroll

  • abyss2hope
  • Broadsheet
  • CALCASA Public Policy Blog
  • Change Happens: the SAFER blog
  • Child Abuse Survivor
  • Feministing
  • Grits for Breakfast
  • Prevention Works
  • Racialicious
  • Sentencing Law and Policy
  • Sex Crimes
  • The Curvature

• Admin

  • Register
  • Log in
  • Entries RSS
  • Comments RSS
  • WordPress.org

Finally, nearly four years later, some good news for Jamie Lee Jones!

On Tuesday, a court ruled that her injuries and rape allegations were not related to her employment, which means that she will be allowed to sue her company, KBR for damages. In case you don’t recall Jones’ story, Think Progress reminds us of the allegations:

In 2005, Jamie Lee Jones was gang-raped by her co-workers while she was working for Halliburton/KBR in Baghdad. In an apparent attempt to cover up the incident, the company then put her in a shipping container for at least 24 hours without food, water, or a bed, and “warned her that if she left Iraq for medical treatment, she’d be out of a job.” Even more insultingly, the DOJ resisted bringing any criminal charges in the matter. KBR argued that Jones’ employment contract warranted her claims being heard in private arbitration — without jury, judge, public record, or transcript of the proceedings.

As horrifying as it is that it has taken years simply for Jones to win the legal right to seek restitution for what happened to her, I am incredibly heartened that it has finally happened. I wish Jones the best of luck and hope that she finds the justice she deserves. Companies like KBR can’t be allowed to get away with abusing people this way.

The Dallas Morning News‘ editorial board speaks out on ineffective Texas laws that have allowed a psychiatrist convicted of molesting a 10-year-old neighbor.

State law should be tightened up so future Olmsted-like cases don’t fall between the cracks of separate state codes governing criminal, licensing and administrative law. By the time the State Medical Board got the Olmsted matter, it was six years old and involved a sentence of deferred adjudication – probation, essentially.

The age of the case and absence of a guilty verdict did not permit the board to immediately suspend Olmsted’s license. Pursuing revocation could have involved proceedings lasting as long as two years before a separate state hearing agency, and all the while the doctor could have continued to practice as a child psychiatrist.

Part of Dr. Olmstead’s sentence includes restrictions on his license. From now on, he will only be allowed to treat adult males in group or institutional settings.

It’s an outrage that our states’ laws are so tangled that there was no easy way to make sure that Olmstead doesn’t practice psychiatry any more. These laws are supposed to exist for the public’s protection! I’m going to have to agree with the Dallas Morning News on this one: “Those who have a state license to treat people at their most vulnerable must be beyond reproach.” Shouldn’t that be obvious?

Torie sent me the link to this new online zine i’m the fox. According to the website, the zine “was started in July of 2009 by two teenage girls. Zoe and Nadia met at a summer camp and after discovering that they both loved art and music, decided to make a zine together.”

The project itself is described as “an interactive art project bringing influence from art, feminism, and daily life.” Hooray for (self-proclaimed) teenage feminists!

So far, only one issue is available online. The prompt for the submitted art read:

Since the beginning of time, girls have been considered inferior to boys. Mix that prejudice with the struggles of growth, finding yourself, and trying to make a difference, and you’ve got a shitload of drama.

We all have our own stories of challenging times or mortifying embarrassments, but the time for those will come. Right now, we want to hear about the road bumps you’ve faced on your life journey as an independent girl – unfair judgment you’ve faced, an inspiring story, where/ when you discovered you wanted to live an alternative lifestyle, etc.

We want to know what makes you the unique girl you’ve become today, and you can express yourself anyway you want. Good luck.

Here’s my favorite piece from the collection:

If you’re interested in submitting some art for the next issue, check out the prompt and instructions. Submissions are due September 27.

Phillip Garrido was a registered sex offender, on parole and fitted with a GPS ankle bracelet to track his movements – yet he kidnapped an 11-year-old girl in 1991 and held her prisoner for 18 years. He repeatedly raped her and even impregnated her twice. Even more astonishing is the fact that he kept the victim prison in his backyard all those years but despite his parole monitoring, he wasn’t discovered until now.

This case is an extreme situation, and cases like it are exceedingly rare. Still, it’s a clear example of why technology like GPS monitoring is not a one-size-fits-all solution. It’s easy to think that it’s foolproof, but there are countless ways around it. It’s dangerous to be lulled into a false sense of security and in this case Garrido’s victim had to pay the price – for 18 years.

Back in June, I blogged about a new Texas law, that actually went into effect yesterday, that allows information to be noted on criminal records when someone is linked to a crime via DNA, but cannot be prosecuted because of an expired statute of limitations.

Dallas’ 33 News notes that the law is not without its critics – people who believe this protocol will infringe on people’s rights.

At first glance, I thought this law was a good idea, though I doubted its effectiveness. Upon second reflection, though, I do wonder if it’s a civil rights violation. I, of course, support laws that benefit sexual assault survivors – but if this law has the potential to blame someone for a crime they haven’t been convicted of, that isn’t justice. Regardless of how compelling a piece of evidence (even DNA evidence) may be, a single piece of evidence is not equivalent to a trial, so it seems unfair for that information to be used against someone.

Of course, it certainly isn’t just for a rape victim to have to endure the pain of learning that DNA has implicated a suspect in their case, but be unable to do anything to because of an expired statute of limitations. Maybe the answer isn’t to brand un-convicted (read: innocent until proven guilty) people, but to address the statutes of limitations and the problems they present.

I know I’m talking myself in circles here – that’s why I’ll never enter politics! What do you think about this new law?

Many of you have undoubtedly heard about the controversy surrounding Harris County District Judge Kevin Fine’s questioning of a rape victim. Scott over at Grits for Breakfast blogged in Fine’s defense:

By contrast, having just left a gig as Policy Director of the Innocence Project of Texas, my first thought about the case was “Good, I’ve known way too many men wrongly convicted of rape who lost decades of their lives to false convictions. I’m glad the judge is making sure he gets it right.”

While I agree that it is imperative for judges to ensure that the right people are convicted – that’s obviously what’s best for everyone: victims, the wrongfully accused and society at-large. I don’t necessarily agree, though, that interrogating a rape victim after her rapist has been convicted is not only extremely insensitive, but also unnecessary. Plus, it sends a message that rape victims are liars.

According to the Houston Chronicle:

Although the jury already had found Escobar guilty of aggravated sexual assault, Fine went on to challenge the victim’s version of events, doubting her truthfulness on details from her vague timeline to the method in which her clothing was removed… What shocked the victim most was when the judge questioned whether she was really raped since he found it “odd” that was she was on top of Escobar during the assault. The judge required the victim to recount, in detail, her position during the rape and explain how Escobar, who maintained the sex was consensual, was able to force himself on her.

I just can’t support the idea of insinuating that a rape victim is lying and forcing her to recount traumatic memories in detail, all after a conviction has already been handed down. The jury already decided her rapist was guilty, so why would Judge Fine treat the victim like a criminal? What do you think? Were Judge Fine’s actions defensible or out of line?

Driving to work the other day, I caught a segment on NPR titled “American Nuns Question Vatican Scrutiny.”

Apparently, the Vatican is currently examining a group of American nuns and their adherence to the principles of the Catholic Church. Many Catholic nuns have integrated into communities in which they serve thus abandoning traditional garb and service procedures. I was touched by this group of women’s indignant spirit in standing up to the “man” (literally and figuratively). The price of defiance is high, however their conviction is not for sale.

… the leaders (American nuns) have been pretty blunt in their defiance. In the assemblies in recent years, they have called for “loyal dissent” and an end to “patriarchy.” They say they have shifted from being “obedient daughters” to “mature women who have something to say about the church, its teaching and practice.”

… Sister Nancy Schreck says as followers of Jesus, the sisters must voice their views when they feel the Vatican is wrong — on things like caring for gay men and lesbians, and the equality of women. Such discussion is the American way, she says, adding that these disagreements reflect the larger tension between Rome and the U.S. church. And no matter what the outcome of these inquiries, she says the U.S. sisters will not back down on their core beliefs.

As I listened to the remainder of the segment, the parallels to victim advocacy crossed my mind. Central to the work of both advocates and nuns are sacrifice, commitment and dedication to those in need. Both from time to time are wary of the powerful institutions affecting their work and some are not afraid to push the envelope despite criticism from peers.  The bravery of the nonconformist nuns to defend their work struck a chord with me. As I reflect on victim advocacy and the tireless fight for justice, it is encouraging to know sisters of all types are in this fight. Although the journey seems lonely, we are not alone.