Archive for the ‘Roger Canaff’ Category

How you can agree with someone and still have that person piss you off?

Monday, September 3rd, 2012

If you have read previous blog posts of mine, you would know that I am not a big fan of Roger Canaff. But there are many things that he stands for that I also agree with. I mean, take his most recent post at this time is about Republican Congressman Akin and his horrific comments on rape.

I agree with most of what he says. Rape accusations are not often fabricated. I agree with his explanation of those who would be apologists for rapists and for the most part wouldn’t word it differently.

But when he makes a comment like this:

 … is a natural outgrowth of the equally baseless male hysteria that birthed the myth that women regularly lie about rape in order to recapture their virtue.

I cannot help but think of his friend, my false accuser. Women may not regularly lie about rape in order to recapture their virtue.  But when this happened to me, when his friend did this to me, the first comments by my mother was that this was exactly what she was doing, that she was just trying to lie to recapture some perceived lost virtue.

The problem with people like Roger is that the mere suggestion that someone might have lied about being a victim of sexual violence will cause them to ostracize them as being hysterical. I am not hysterical. It happened to me. His friend did it to me. He is a false rape accuser apologist.

Roger rejects “modest reforms” in rape trials.

Sunday, August 28th, 2011

A double dipper today with two posts dealing with Roger Canaff and his blog. In this post, Roger is critical of Florida Attorney Roy Black and his recent article suggesting “modest reforms” in rape cases.

Now, I have several issues with Roy Black and how he makes his argument. He brings up Jamie Jones and the Halliburton case. I do not believe that is the same thing as DSK or Kobe or some random guy off the street who has been accused of rape. What Black is requesting is something that I also have said would be a good idea, and that is to extend the rape shield laws to protect the name of the accused.

This shouldn’t be too controversial. If we are truly a nation that treats people as innocent until proven guilty, then we should not seek to parade them in front of the media and splash the name of the accused all over the place.

Of course, like the author of the other article Roger criticizes, Black invokes the flawed Kanin Iowa study that “showed” 40% of rape accusations to be false.  This is why Black is not helping his own cause. When you bring up flawed studies, you are not coming to the table with clean hands and as such you make your own demands less likely to be agreed to.

However, Roger also has some issues with his rebuttal. Black believes it is easy to make a false accusation. It is. I know. It was very easy for my false accuser (who Roger personally knows) to make her claim to police. She just made it up and called the cops.  Roger uses unreported cases of rape as proof that it is not easy to make a false claim. Yes, you read that right. Roger states:

The idea that rape is an accusation “easily made but not easily defended,” for instance, never existed in reality, but only in the minds of men who could enforce this paranoid fantasy in courts of law.  In fact, most victims don’t report being sexually assaulted; it remains a chronically under-reported crime and a tiny percentage of victims ever see their rapists legally punished.

That rape is under-reported does not change that a rape charge is easily made if it is false and that it is not easily defended when you handcuff the defense.  Roger also claims that rape shield laws prevent cross examination but in fact some laws in some states do indeed prevent certain things that some might view as relevant from being asked. Now, is what a woman was wearing or how she was dancing relevant? Absolutely not. If a woman is walking around in nearly nothing she still has her body autonomy and as such should not be touched without her consent. But in the article linked to in my last post, it described a case where the emails by the accuser describing a desire to participate in BDSM were ruled inadmissible under rape shield laws. Now, the conviction was overturned on appeal. However, how much extra jail time was served because such evidence was barred from trial.

This is why Roger fails in his argument. He claims that the defense is allowed to bring up relevant information at trial when we have evidence that on occasion it does not. He also fails to disproves that false claims are easy to make yet hard to defend against. I would say this makes Roger 0-2 but he is wrong about so many other things I have lost count.

Roger shocks me.

Saturday, August 27th, 2011

There is an article on The Weekly Standard about false accusations of rape. I have several issues with the way in which the article was written. One of the problems is the highly flawed Iowa study done by Kanin.

Well, Roger Canaff has some criticisms of the article as well.  However,  in his attempt to discredit the author he fails to link to one study or one report to back up his claim that the author is, in fact, wrong about her claim that women lie about being raped more than other people lie about other crimes.

And let’s look at one of the quotes that he criticizes in full context. “While orthodox feminists grudgingly admit that women sometimes make false reports of rape, they insist that such cases represent a minuscule share of all complaints and that to give them much attention is to perpetuate misogynistic “rape myths” and revictimize real victims.”

To me, her point is that she is attacking the idea that because the occurrence of false accusations is low that it should, in some way, be deserving of no attention.

Now, I will grant you that she does quote the Iowa study and anyone who does that is suspect. Even if the number of false accusations in that one town was true, the town is such a small sample size and is irrelevant in the grander conversation that should be had about people who do lie about being raped or sexually assaulted for any reason.

The overall point made by reasonable people who wish to discuss false accusations of rape is that people accused of any crime should be considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law and that the law should be held to the same burden of proof when it comes to convicting someone on a charge as serious as rape or sexual assault. When such a person is found guilty, it is my opinion that the book should be thrown at them.

Unfortunately, there are many (not all, not most, but many) in the feminist movement (of which I am a part) who do wish to sweep false accusations under the rug because they fear that every false accusation hurts every prosecution of every real rape.

But here is where Roger shocks me. He states: “False reports are both horrific and criminal. People who make them should be dealt with harshly unless serious mental illness was at play in making the report.” Unfortunately, he then seems to try and sweep them under the rug as well. But if false rape accuser apologists can make a statement that false reports are horrific and criminal, perhaps there is hope.

Remember Duke Lacrosse

Monday, July 4th, 2011

Just when you thought he couldn’t get more absurd, false rape accuser apologist Roger Canaff strikes again.

This time, he makes this statement:

Remember Duke Lacrosse: A rallying cry that will do more to shelter rapists for the next generation than any force on earth could hope to accomplish

Seriously? Come on man!

When confronted on these words, Canaff does say that the Duke Lacrosse team members were factually not guilty, should never have been tried, and that Mike Nifong should have been disbarred. Of course, anyone who disagrees with those three statements is an idiot.

However, the idea that remembering the Duke Lacrosse case (DLC) is somehow a defense for actual rapists proves that Canaff completely misses the point. DLC should remind everyone that we should not be making assumptions about what has happened in an alleged rape. DLC should remind everyone that there are predatory prosecutors who do not seek justice but instead seek to make a name for themselves. DLC should remind everyone that in this country that people are supposed to be treated as innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

Canaff has not learned this lesson. He is saying that in the DSK case that there is no compelling reason to disbelieve her claims.

Everyone should remember that hookers, thieves and liars can be raped.  But Canaff would have us ignore the lies told in this investigation. At what point does an accuser of rape lose credibility? How many lies must one say in a police report before the accusations are not believed. In the case of my false accuser (who Canaff knows personally), it seems obvious that one big lie was all that was needed for the police to say that her claims were false.

Canaff also suggests that there are only two possibilities when you question the truthfulness of the statements made by accusers of rape. That either women are perfect and as such are believed when they make an accusation of rape or that they are not perfect and as such should never be believed. This, of course, is an absurd argument made by an absurd person. Nobody is suggesting that a woman needs to be perfect in order to be believed when making a rape accusation. What is being suggested is that SOMETIMES women lie about being raped and that it is reasonable to question the trustworthiness of a person making a serious claim that could have life lasting consequences for the accused.

Unfortunately, Canaff does not seem to embrace the legal ideals that our country holds dear. He would have us believe all accusers of rape, even though we know that sometimes (as in the Duke Lacrosse case) that rape claims made against individuals can be false.

More on Roger Canaff and Title IX

Saturday, June 18th, 2011

I really do not want this to become a blog that focuses on one man. But when one man is so wrong about the issues, it is hard to avoid pointing it out.

There was an accusation of rape by a Wake Forest student against one of their basketball players. According to a local news station, the school told the student that they would investigate the case and as such there was no need to file a police report.

Now, according to my understanding the school seems to have it wrong on Title IX as it would be applied according to the letter that I blogged about earlier. However, perhaps the statute wasn’t as clear back then. According to the new regulations the school is supposed to take a step back while the police conduct their fact finding. They are not supposed to discourage the accuser from seeking police intervention nor should the police take a back seat to the university. But this would be a screw up on the part of the university and not on the part of the accused. (It does seem like their current written policy does reflect the idea that police investigations do take precedence. However, it is not known at this moment if that statement existed in the policy handbook that was in place at the time of the alleged sexual assault.)

Now, the accused had an attorney to defend their interests in this case. The attorney suggested that the woman in question made some poor decisions that night but that the acts were consented to by all parties involved. This is where Roger comes in. In his post on the Wake Forest issue,  he is critical of the fact that the students were allowed to have an advisor with them. However, Canaff sites the 2010-2011 policy (likely written after the new regulations were sent out to the universities) and not the policy that was in place at the time. I do not know if there are any differences but seeing as the change that was made was a major change in the burden of proof I cannot imagine that they are the same. I do not know if Canaff is purposefully doing this or not. However, it is my personal opinion that he does not care either way.

However, under the current policy of Wake Forest it does appear that the accused would not be allowed to bring legal representation with him. This doesn’t seem to phase Mr. Canaff at all. In fact, he seems supportive of the idea that the accused should be denied the right to have legal advice in the hearing and I find that absolutely reprehensible.

Canaff also condemns the fact that the accuser was questioned during the hearing.  However, according to the pdf , the accused is allowed to question the accuser.

Canaff then goes on in his blog post to treat these men as guilty until proven innocent. I do not know if these young men raped her. I do not know if she is lying. It is a shame that our legal system has failed victims of rape in that they are not encouraged (or more specifically empowered) to come forth and press charges immediately. At the VERY LEAST these woman would get oral contraceptives and chemical prophylactic measures that can help to prevent pregnancy and sexual diseases from appearing after a sexual assault. We can do so much better in our society by creating an atmosphere that allows for the accusers to have their chance to explain their side of the story WHILE preserving the idea that all people are innocent until proven guilty in the eyes of the law.

Start by believing… in the presumption of innocence.

Saturday, May 28th, 2011

There is a group “End Violence Against Women”.

This is their vision statement:

We envision a world where gender-based violence is unacceptable; where perpetrators are held accountable, and victims receive the compassion, support, and justice they deserve.

This is their mission statement:

We inspire and educate those who respond to gender-based violence, equipping them with the knowledge and tools they need to support victims and hold perpetrators accountable.  We promote victim-centered, multi-disciplinary collaboration, which strengthens the response of the criminal justice system, other professionals, allies, and the general public — making communities safer.

I can say nothing about these goals that would be negative. Every good person in our society should support such things. Support victims and also support punishing perpetrators of sexual violence.

The problem is that Roger Canaff is involved with this group and he is a defender of false accusers of rape. Furthermore, he seems to take the “start by believing” idea too far by suggesting that we stop believing in the presumption of innocence that the victim of every crime has in this country. In his most recent “start by believing” post, he describes the actions by Dominique Strauss-Kahn as an apparent sexual attack instead of an alleged sexual attack. Words are important and we should be careful to use proper labels when describing those accused of crimes… not to protect the guilty but to protect the innocent.

Yes, Roger, power can help people get away with violence against women and that is wrong. But the fact that someone has power should not take away from the presumption of innocence that should be afforded to all people accused of crimes in our country. If “DSK” is guilty of sexual assault, he should be punished severely. Perpetrators of sexual violence are a scourge on our society and should be dealt with harshly. But you cannot truly have justice in our society if we hold accused rapists to different standards than other people accused of other crimes.