Thursday, February 24, 2011


A recent decision by Judge Robert Dewar has aroused a lot of ire here in Manitoba. The basic story is that the judge allowed a convicted rapist to serve a two year conditional sentence because the "attire" of the woman involved "provoked" him to assume that "sex was in the air". Love those wind currents. Here is a call for a demonstration outside the Manitoba Law Courts Building to protest the idea behind this sentence.

Judge Dewar: No Means No! Rally
Information about the Rally:

: Campus and Community Women’s Centres
What: Rally against Judge Robert Dewar’s rape case ruling
Where: Manitoba Law Courts Building
When: Noon, Friday, February 25, 2011
Why: Judge Dewar said: "inviting circumstances" and survivor’s attire make rapist less morally responsible for rape.

Everyone is more than welcome to bring your own signs with your own message but there will be signs available at the rally.

Please spread the word about this event to everyone you know. There is also an event created for the rally through this facebook group that can be shared.

In order to show your support please change your facebook profile to the no means no picture and change your facebook status to express your views on Judge Dewar's ruling.


Anonymous said...

Please read the case closely before you have a knee-jerk reaction. The man was convicted of rape, and the sentence reduction does not change this fact. Human behaviour leaves some room for misinterpretation, and the sentencing system needs to be flexible enough to distinguish between situations like this and violent rapes in order for non-violent rape offences to be prosecuted successfully.

Anonymous said...

How about after this rally we have one called " A rally to restore personal accountability" we can have the victim tell us how acting like a tramp and offering to get naked in front of guys leads wholesome stable long term relationships.

mollymew said...

Let's begin with debunking the idea that the crime was "non-violent". It definitely wasn't even though the victim only ended up with one permanent scar on her knee. To go on, however, the reasons the judge gave for a lenient sentence had nothing whatsoever to do with the level of violence in the offense. They focused exclusively on what might be called the "risk taking behavior" of the victim. In other words admitting fully that a rape occured. There are, of course, rapes that are actually considerably less violent than this one in which the victim puts up no resistance and ends up with no scars. By this judge's "logic" these would receive a heavier sentence of the victim wasn't "provocative". THAT is the gist of what is wrong with the principles of sentencing in this case.

One other thing should be considered if some individuals can get their minds out of the gutter and how much they hate "sluts". Suppose you were incautious enough to flash a wallet full of bills in a downtown 7-11 (or bar) at night. Supposed you get mugged and "only" ended up with one scar. Do you honestly think that your lack of caution could JUSTLY be used as a "mitigating factor" in sentencing the thief ??? That is another way of putting what is wrong with this decision.