• Search for:

• Categories

  • Announcement
  • child sexul assault
  • Diversity
  • Guest Post
  • Human Trafficking
  • Humorless Feminist
  • Legal Servivces
  • Motivating Moments
  • News
  • Powerful Women
  • Prevention
  • Privacy
  • Public Policy
  • Resource
  • sexual assault awareness & prevention month
  • sexual assault laws
  • sexual harrassment
  • Stalking
  • Uncategorized
  • Vlog

• Recent Comments

  • Patricia - Spiritual Journey Of A Lightworker on “Owning” Change
  • Gabriel on Sexual Assault on College Campuses: What you Need to Know
  • Rose Luna on Politics on a Personal Level
  • Adam on Politics on a Personal Level
  • Linda Hunter on Toning Down the Political Rhetoric on Women

• Admin

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

• Archives

  • ▼2012 (13)
    • ▼May (1)
      • You do the math
    • ▶April (4)
    • ▶March (4)
    • ▶February (2)
    • ▶January (2)
  • ▶2011 (36)
    • ▶November (2)
    • ▶October (3)
    • ▶September (4)
    • ▶July (4)
    • ▶June (5)
    • ▶May (4)
    • ▶April (7)
    • ▶March (2)
    • ▶February (2)
    • ▶January (3)
  • ▶2010 (35)
    • ▶December (3)
    • ▶November (4)
    • ▶October (4)
    • ▶September (7)
    • ▶August (4)
    • ▶July (1)
    • ▶May (3)
    • ▶April (4)
    • ▶March (1)
    • ▶February (1)
    • ▶January (3)
  • ▶2009 (45)
    • ▶December (2)
    • ▶November (3)
    • ▶October (3)
    • ▶September (1)
    • ▶August (1)
    • ▶July (3)
    • ▶June (5)
    • ▶May (5)
    • ▶April (10)
    • ▶March (5)
    • ▶February (6)
    • ▶January (1)
  • ▶2008 (15)
    • ▶December (2)
    • ▶November (2)
    • ▶October (4)
    • ▶September (4)
    • ▶June (1)
    • ▶March (2)
  • ▶2007 (2)
    • ▶October (1)
    • ▶September (1)

Okay we need to ratchet down the political rhetoric on the reauthorization of The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) and fast. Not to be overly dramatic, but lives depend on it.  I understand that election years can be particularly contentious and ugly but when an issue that previously garnered broad bi-partisan support becomes a hot potato I think it’s time for members of both parties to step back and self-reflect on their motives, tactics, and the realization that there are some things in this world more important than winning a vote or an election.

I have read news stories in the past few days regarding VAWA that have alternately sickened and saddened me. Phyllis Schlafly was quoted as referring to VAWA as a “feminist slush fund.” Another representative of a conservative think tank spoke of VAWA as “man-hating and divorce promoting.”  Some Democratic legislators are implying that Republicans that “no” vote for the current version of VAWA are in a “war against women.” A Doonesbury cartoon equated a trans-vaginal sonogram in Texas’ Sonogram Bill as “rape.” There are many aspects of this bill I do not personally support but calling a fairly common and safe medical procedure “rape” is ludicrous even in a political cartoon.

There are comments from both the Left and the Right that are lacking common-sense, civility, and fairness. These types of inflammatory statements might be the bread and butter of pundit-entertainers such as Rush Limbaugh or Bill Maher but we expect and deserve better of our elected officials.

In the past few days there have been several incidents in Texas that blatantly illustrate why VAWA is so crucial. We have seen a shooting at a courthouse in Beaumont where a man on trial for the sexual assault of his daughter  shot and killed an elderly bystander, critically wounded his daughter and shot and wounded 2 others, including his ex-wife. Several media outlets referred to this trial as “an emotional family dispute” rather than a child rape trial.

Earlier this week a female middle school teacher from Lexington was arrested for sexually assaulting both a 13 year old and 14 year old male student. The local media consistently referred to this crime as “having sex with her students” rather than calling it what it is, rape! And yesterday the news reported a story of a teenage runaway who was hitchhiking in the Austin area who was raped, stabbed several times in the chest and thrown on the side of the road. Miraculously she survived. All of these stories illustrate the critical need for victim services and the continuing need to educate the public.

The point in sharing these recent stories is my sincere belief that no member of Congress wants to see atrocities like this continue in this country. They may have some genuine differences in strategies and scope and in other instances may be toting the party line, but regardless the mud-slinging and digging in of the heels is unwise and unproductive. I implore each member of Congress to rededicate themselves to working through these differences and passing a comprehensive VAWA bill soon. Let your better nature and concern for humanity guide you.  Victims of sexual assault, domestic violence, and stalking can ill-afford to be caught in another cross-fire.

Credit: Free images from acobox.com
The three subjects never to bring up in polite dinner conversation are politics, religion and salary. Some of us are so steadfast about this rule, that we never discuss these subjects, even to our own detriment. We can choose to participate in the political process or sit on the sidelines and pray (or meditate if prayer isn’t for you) for no cuts in funding and more supportive laws for survivors. And since 501(c)(3) organizations cannot endorse a candidate, each of us individually must do more. The purpose of this blog is not to focus on an agency’s role in public policy. IRS rules dictate how organizations (including 501(c)(3) non-profits) can interact with candidates, campaigns and elected officials. A guidebook created by the Alliance for Justice is available to give non-profits a better understanding of the laws that govern their participation in the policy process. Instead, the purpose of this blog is to encourage advocates as independent, civic minded citizens to consider the plight of survivors when contemplating candidates for local, state and national office.

It is essential that we completely analyze and critique each candidate as they vie for our vote during the next political season. This is even more critical as the landmark decision on January 21, 2011 by the United States Supreme Court (citizens united v federal election commission) now allows for individuals and corporations to anonymously contribute unlimited amounts of financial support in favor or against particular candidates. As an advocate, I argue it’s our obligation to vet the candidate’s position on sexual assault issues i.e. discern lip service from action.
Read more

Texas Senate Bill 9 known as the sanctuary city bill gives police officers broader powers to ask people they detain about citizenship status. The bill passed the Texas Senate June 15th and is slated for a vote in the House this week.

Many years ago when I was working at a DV shelter, for a period of two weeks monolingual Spanish victims were reporting abuse because their husbands had been robbed of their paychecks. “Yea”, I thought, ”right”, until I took some clients to a medical clinic where the social worker reported a large number of monolingual Spanish male victims with defensive wounds. The story ends with a successful coalition of Law Enforcement, IRS, Banking Institutions, Social Services and the Mexican Consulate, each with a different perspective on how to solve the problem and a common value – community organizations are here to serve and protect everyone in the community so a vibrantly rich community
can thrive in safety.

I learned three important lessons:
1. Perpetrators have one status – perpetrators. As perpetrators they need to be prosecuted under the law.
2. Victims have one status – victims. As victims they have the legal right to services.
3. When a community operates “in the shadows” and is afraid to speak up, perpetrators will perpetrate on that community with impunity.

SB 9, though well intentioned, inadvertently results in a disconnection between safety and well- being for immigrant communities. Disenfranchising communities begs the question of who is defining safety and who has the right to safe. As advocates we support survivors unequivocally, link them to services (their right under law) and help them to obtain safety. It is imperative we consider the impact SB 9 and similar laws have on the work we do and the victims we serve.

…well, since the concept of confinement. Until last century it wasn’t seen as a problem, as the entire point of the prison system was to torture in the name of punishment,[1] not reform, offenders. And felons are, even from a legal standpoint, lesser citizens in the eyes of the law, barred from voting, holding certain offices or licenses, or possessing firearms, no matter what their crime.

Youth offenders are in documented dire straits, with 1 in 8 youth reporting sexual violence committed against them: 6 of the 8 are reports against prison staff.[2] This is essentially government-sanctioned rape-as-a-weapon, not the media stereotype of inmate on inmate abuse. These are approximate numbers, as state prison officials clearly underreport these incidents.[3]

The Bush Administration created the National Prison Rape Elimination (NPRE) Commission as one of the rare compassionate moments of that administration, given the wars and travails against human and constitutional rights in other arenas. History is replete with the kinds of tortures born of prisons resurrected in government-run or government–sanctioned facilities around the world in our “war on terror.” Facilities staffed, in many cases, with American prison “experts.”

President Obama, as with the vast majority of the Democratic machine, railed against the moral and legal sins of the Bush Administration committed against foreign nationals in the name of national security. How that same administration could have any less a passionate stand on the matter of our own citizens, the least free among us, is impossible to understand given the clear recommendations of the NPRE Commission.[4]

This is an issue crossing party and religious lines. Wouldn’t the Christian Neoconservatives like to limit homosexual acts? The Liberal Atheists ensure humane treatment so as to maximize the chance of reforming a convict? Fiscal conservatives certainly want to lower the recidivism rate and reduce the cost to medically treat assault victims (and their resulting lawsuits clogging the courts)? And those involved in combating the kind of assault that rots family trees by its commission want it reduced as much as practical.

Attorney General Eric Holder doesn’t have to steer this ship: he needs to mandate that the recommendations of the National Prison Rape Elimination Commission, whose work started in 2003, are implemented, and not just accepted. And the Obama Administration, as it goes about the grim work of deficit reduction, must reserve the funds necessary for this work to continue through completion, and not be yet another example of bureaucratic ineptitude regardless of political leadership.

---

[1] The “Tucker Telephone” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tucker_telephone) is just one of several instruments used  by prison officials up through the 1970’s.

[2] Department of Justice Report: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/svjfry09.pdf.

[3] See “No Escape: Male Rape in US Prisons,” Joanne Mariner, Human Rights Watch, p. 70.; http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2001/04/01/no-escape-male-rape-us-prisons

[4] http://nprec.us/files/pdfs/NPREC_FinalReport.PDF.

The uproar over the current airport screening measures is being heard loud and clear. TAASA has received more inquiries on this issue than any other in recent memory.  TAASA wants to be cognizant of our collective security issues as well as offer a reasoned response to the legitimate concerns and fears of travelers across our state and country.

Our concerns are four-fold:

We are troubled by the potential for sexual assault survivors to be triggered by the imaging screening or pat down they experience.

We are also uneasy about the general public being subjected to such invasive and unnerving procedures that  have obviously made some passengers feel more violated than inconvenienced but safer.  

We are also worried that there may be some serious gaps in adequate training for TSA agents on how to best screen passengers who may have sensitive physical or emotional issues that need to be factored into the normal indignities of losing control and privacy over one’s own body.

Finally, we find it distressing that TSA’s own hiring practices do not necessarily preclude a sex offender with a conviction longer than 7 years ago from hire as a screener.

Let me be clear: my intent is not to demonize the TSA screeners.  They have a job to do, and I am certain the vast majority of them are doing this job to the very best of their ability.  They are following a directive, and one can be pretty sure this is not the best part of their workday either. I do not believe however that this procedure is well-thought out, as the unintended consequences illustrate. 

On the surface it seems the argument has been presented as one of collective security versus individual privacy. I would contend otherwise.   Is this screening reactive or effective?  Are these screening procedures the best methods for identifying potential terrorists? If you can refuse the imaging screening and opt for a pat down, what stops potential terrorists from simply inserting the explosive into their body cavity, like drug mules have been known to do, to avoid detection?   Will screening procedures ramp up to include full body-cavity searches if we discover terrorists using this method of transport? How far will we be willing to go?

Dogs trained to sniff out explosives are being used effectively in war zones.  Why are we not using these canines at airport security lines?  Have we explored all potential screening methods available to us? Were these methods chosen because they are the very best options available, or were they chosen in part because of simplicity or cost? I do not claim to have the simple answers to these very complex issues, but I do feel certain that we need to gauge the impact of these actions on the citizenry.

I implore the federal  government to find tangible ways to further minimize travelers from feeling victimized, while using all deliberate speed to implement less invasive methods of screening.  There are folks trained in victim issues all across this country ready and willing to help security professionals strike this delicate balance.

On more than one occasion TAASA has received feedback that our social change/social justice focus is part of the “left-wing liberal agenda” and trust me when I say this was not meant as a compliment.  I am generally not stung by criticism and realize it’s impossible to be all things to all people, but this somehow has an uglier edge to it. Don’t get me wrong. I have been called far worse names than “liberal” in my lifetime, but it’s the intention of the label that I find most disturbing.  It’s both insulting and inaccurate for liberals and conservatives alike, as well as the majority of us who identify somewhere in the middle of this political spectrum.

As citizens we all have a responsibility to confront injustice where we see it. This is not a “liberal” issue. This is our obligation as decent human beings. This is not the work of one segment of society. We are all negatively impacted by social ills such as sexual violence, racism, poverty and the list goes on. Many social scientists, activists, educators, researchers and just plain folks with common sense and common experiences have come to the conclusion that many of these issues are linked in both simple and complex ways. 

Wanting to change our society for the better is a value that seems to be shared by virtually all political parties in our country. Granted we may not all agree on the scope of the issues or with the remedies to our problems, but make no mistake, giving a damn is not restricted to left-wing liberals. I believe moderates and conservatives may take issue with the assumption that only liberals promote social change and work to right injustices.

It is my desire that we can all stop using labels as both a weapon and an excuse for inaction. There is too much work to be done for us to be negative or complacent for the weakest of reasons: it wasn’t my idea  or you are using words that are sounding too much like the other guys. I would hope we could see where we share a common vision and truly listen and learn from one another. Labeling folks tends to shut down communication, not foster it. I for one do not intend to let others define me or the work.

 I would argue that we may be allowing a very small, self-selected group of individuals who are living on the extreme fringes decide what the real issues are and then demonize those of us who do or say anything that challenges their version of reality. I do not believe that common sense, decency,  compassion, and cooperation are dead, but they certainly seem to be on life support at times. Let’s stop working so hard to magnify our differences and being paranoid over the intentions of others and realize this work is too important to leave anyone out, silence one voice, or reject the contributions of others. Social change/social justice should indeed be part of the left-wing liberal agenda and on everyone else’s agenda as well.

 

Why do I think about writing a blog mostly when something causes me to feel frustrated or sad?  Or sometimes just left me puzzled, usually with questions that aren’t even answerable…in my lifetime at least?

So, I’ve been on the lookout for something I consider positive to write about.  I found it.

“Rape in the United States: The Chronic Failure to Report and Investigate Rape Cases.”  I know.  I know.  If that sounds positive to me, you don’t want to read about anything I’d consider negative.  But wait.  Recently the Senate Judiciary Committee held a Crime and Drugs Subcommittee hearing to “draw attention to how the crime of rape is treated in our country.”

That’s how Susan Carbon, Director of the Office on Violence Against Women, described the hearing’s purpose.  Reading her testimony gave me that first inkling I’d found something positive.  She didn’t sugarcoat the failure of reporting and investigating sexual assault. Though plenty of her testimony sets off alarms, she acknowledged years of activism that “began to transform the way that sexual violence was viewed and addressed in our society.” That made me proud to be part of this work.

I’d read CNN’s Feds undercounting rape victims, advocates warn highlighting the glut of problems with using Uniform Crime Report (UCR) data.

Advocates question the rape statistics because, they note, the federal government is using a 1929 definition of the crime that excludes male victims, statutory rapes and those committed without force.

Using such an antiquated, narrow definition is a harmful disservice to countless victims, according to Carol Tracy, executive director of the Philadelphia-based Women’s Law Project.

Not much here to ring positive bells. Oh, except when Senator Arlen Spector says, “I think we can get the FBI to change its definition.”  So let’s get that done!

Breaking the “let’s look for what’s wrong” habit is difficult for me.  Though I agree totally with Carol Tracy’s statement that using UCR stats “is a harmful disservice to countless victims,” I’m thinking, “Yes, and it’s a don’t-even-think-about-going-to-jail card for more perpetrators than I care to imagine.  Why doesn’t somebody testify about that?  Why doesn’t somebody put the spotlight on perpetrators?”

Then I read Scott Berkowitz’ testimony.  Yes, he puts the spotlight on perpetrators.

The Justice Department estimates that 60% of victims never report their rape to police. And since many reports don’t lead to an arrest, and many arrests don’t lead to a conviction or prison time, the bottom line is that only one out of every 16 rapists will ever spend even a single day in jail. One.

Let me put that another way: 15 out of every 16 rapists in America will walk free. Even after all the progress we’ve made — and we have made significant strides in getting more victims to report and improving policing and prosecution — even after years of effort, 15 out of 16 rapists face no consequences for their actions. Not only do they escape any punishment for the crime they’ve just committed, they’re emboldened to commit another rape, and many more after that.

And then with a “well, duh” he adds, “Not surprisingly, rapists have figured this out.”

Knowing that the truth is spoken aloud–by fierce advocates to people who have the power to make needed changes should they have the guts to do it–qualifies as positive, and hopeful, to me.

What do you think?  What positives do you see in the anti-sexual assault movement? What makes you proud to be part of this work?

Where do our interests lie?

The November election season is in full effect.  As candidates attempt to set the tone and position themselves in the minds of voters, campaign ads are sure to hit a record high in spending and maybe a record low with mudslinging.  My concern lies with the Supreme Court decision – Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission on January 21, 2010 and its potential to change the landscape of political fodder.  The decision ruled in favor of Citizens United overturning decades of law and precedence intended to limit corporate and special interest spending in upcoming campaigns.

What’s the big deal? What does this have to do with sexual assault or family violence?  The answer is everything.  The power of money plus the power of the media equals INFLUENCE.  The ruling consequently allows “big money” to anonymously spend freely in future elections.

This creates two concerns.  First the dubious dynamic/relationship between elected officials and the financial source that backed them is established, and secondly, unlimited anonymous campaign donations are sure to cloud the airwaves with information from both sides as well as attack ads to shift the focus away from real issues.

The relationship between money and elected officials is nothing new; however, the authority of unlimited and anonymous corporate campaign spending is NEW.  The question remains…Where do the interests of victims lie?  Will the lack of disposable dollars to contribute to candidates leave victims’ issues out of the equation?

As a result, it is important to actively pursue the truth and hold all candidates accountable.  Do you know the positions of the candidates in your area?  What are their voting records in regards to victims’ issues? We owe it to all survivors to make an informed decision.