When is rape not rape?

December 10, 2007 at 9:50 pm (Aboriginal affairs, NT intervention, colonisation, race and racism, rape, sexual abuse, sexual violence, violence, whiteness, women of colour)

Answer: when it happens to Aboriginal women.

Recently Cairns District Court Judge Sarah Bradley sentenced nine men, aged between 14 and 26, who pleaded guilty to the rape of a 10-year-old girl, to probation. I.e. no conviction is being recorded for this offence, according to Judge Bradley’s judgement.
One of the men has a prior conviction for child sexual abuse. Despite this, the Crown Prosecutor did not ask for custodial sentences for the men.
[***EDIT: Correction-- No conviction is being recorded against the juvenile perpetrators, who are getting probation. The adult perpetrators will have suspended sentences with convictions recorded. Articles were a little ambiguous on that point.***]

The lenient sentence was justified on the basis that the girl apparently “was not forced and she probably agreed to have sex with all of [them].”

Many of them are from powerful families in Aurukun, the remote Cape York community in which the rape occurred; the girl is not. She has now been placed in foster care.

The Queensland Attorney-General Kerry Shine is planning to appeal the sentence, although the appeal period of 28 days has expired, and the state Premier Anna Bligh will review all sentences handed down in Cape York over the past two years.

More details:

The issue not being discussed in any of these reports is the whiteness of the judge who handed down the non-sentence. Why did she play havoc with the life of a young Aboriginal girl? Why is her life worth so little to this white judge? Why is she being kinder to rapists (black though they may be) than to young women? Isn’t it because Aboriginal women are considered worthless by the white legal system?

And why has this girl been removed from her family? In the Age article it suggests that the girl was initially placed in care in the Aurukun community.

I think Auntie Shirley said it best: for Aboriginal people, child removal equals paedophilia.

I think this case reveals the corruption and hypocrisy of Australian governments in dealing with child sexual abuse in Aboriginal communities. While the state is enabling confessed abusers, it is also chastising the entire Aboriginal population of the Northern Territory with punitive welfare quarantines and paternalistic community managers. While Aboriginal leaders condemn the enabling of abuse and the malevolent neglect of governments, the state congratulates itself on taking military action. For eleven years John Howard let report upon report about abuse, poor health, inadequate housing, unemployment and poverty pile up and he did nothing but take a knife to the guts of Indigenous leadership and rights. And now all Aboriginal people get is their money quarantined and threats to roll it out to the entire country.

It looks like the ALP is tripping on whatever ideological sauce the Coalition was on. It’s the only way this kind of bullshit could possibly make any goddamn sense.

7 Comments

  1. Another “Theft of Rape Victim Status” Case « Problem Chylde: Learning in Transition said,

    December 11, 2007 at 9:07 am

    [...] Fire Fly, my source for this story of burgled human dignity, suspects that the young girl was removed from her family and placed in foster care, a rather insidious phenomenon for indigenous peoples who face threats on their autonomy by the “law of the [stolen] land.” She alludes strongly to child relocation from indigenous lands as the equivalent of state-sanctioned child trafficking and points to a larger pattern of indigenous Australian disenfranchisement and disempowerment: And why has this girl been removed from her family? In the Age article it suggests that the girl was initially placed in care in the Aurukun community. [...]

  2. lauredhel said,

    December 11, 2007 at 7:53 pm

    Why the ALP? Are the Crown Prosecutor and the Judge involved with the Labor Party?

  3. Fire Fly said,

    December 11, 2007 at 9:17 pm

    Wouldn’t their appointment have been presided over by state Labor ministers?

  4. The “What the Hell is Wrong With People!?” Roundup « Vox ex Machina said,

    December 12, 2007 at 1:57 pm

    [...] for three adult men, including a previous sex offender. Why? The girl might have agreed to sex. [Source 1; Source [...]

  5. Bq said,

    December 15, 2007 at 5:10 am

    This case is absolutely enraging. I just sent an email, for what it’s worth. The twisted dynamic you pointed out is appalling. While the Australian government is currently destroying indigenous sovereignty and imposing invasive mandatory health checks in the name of protecting children, it’s also enabling the rapists of an indigenous child. What cynical, colonialist bs.

  6. lauredhel said,

    December 18, 2007 at 9:02 pm

    Another example of “When is rape not rape?”- when the victim is a child, apparently. A judge in the Northern Territory has banned reporters from using the term “rape” when reporting on another case regarding the ongoing multiple rape of a child. Five perps over two months. The victim was 11. Justice Trevor Riley “said while the crime of sexual intercourse with a child was very serious it was not rape.”

    Stop this country, I want to get off.

  7. theresa said,

    December 21, 2007 at 1:02 pm

    This case was disgusting–the men plead guilty to rape, which very clearly indicates that no consent was given. They didn’t plead guilty to unlawful carnal knowledge. And, extended family has told me that the girl suffers from fetal alcohol syndrome, and has the mental capacity of a 6 year old. Even if she was of a legal age to give consent, there is still a huge risk of coercion.

    The judge said it was childish experimentation, which seems a very racist comment to me considering one of the perpetrators was 26, and 3 others were 17+ Of course, the judge’s opinion came from the suggestion of the prosecutor, who told the court before sentencing that the girl enticed them.

    So many things wrong with this case. Sickening.

Post a Comment