Girls like us

I'm nearly at the end of reading 'Girls Like You' by Paul Sheehan. I've stolen late nights and early mornings from muched needed sleep, locked myself in the bathroom (how anyone could think I could stay in their for that long ???) and tried to beat the nausea I often experience from close contact with a book as a passenger in the car, so I can turn just one more page and another and another.

At times I cried in silence, my heart broken over and over again and the flooding of my recollections were at times difficult to withstand. Like hair triggers waiting for a moment of tension release, the guard is down and the nightmares waiting in the darkness of our minds, transcends the constant willpower we try to maintain each day, to control those intruding thoughts, the memories.... no nightmares, there are no memories so vile and traumatising. With this still, I owed it to each girl in these pages to read the accounts of their experiences, to remember what lives in our community, what girls, women, girls just like us, face everyday.

What a truly mind blowing account of the violation of several girls by 6 brothers who had come to Australia from Pakistan with total disregard for our laws. At times so incredibly remote from reality, the only way to describe their behaviour was moronic throughout the entire trial process. The call of clarity from the maouri brother of one of the victims at the end of one trial, summed up what I had been thinking all along. Athough idiot, even a f*&$%*@# idiot at that, was still too shallow a description. My thoughts teetered between trying to process how a woman could actually have given birth to such scum, vile excuses for human beings and my utter disgust which continued to build for the legal system in this country.

Law, upholding the law, the rights of the innocent to be proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt, this is the law. Where are the rights of victims defined? Act after Act outlines clearly how far Defence counsels may humilitate, intimidate and harrass even bully victims giving evidence in sexual assault trials, however these procedures, or tactics have become normality in sexual assault trials, regardless of age, regardless of the trauma and re-traumatisation of victims, regardless of the LAW and the judges, the system and our AG Department seems delayed in their resolve.

It is strange really looking back now on my own trial, that prior to stepping in through those double doors, I truly believed, once again vulnerably and stupidly in justice, the law, human dignity and humanity. For victims of sexual assault, the court process is more traumatic than the actual sexual assault attack. Imagine that, a legal system, a system designed to protect our societies, each day is causing more harm to those same vulnerable persons, same victims than the actual perpetrators themselves.

In Australia, in NSW particularly we have the Crimes Act. There is no Act which defines sexual assault on the fact that it is one of the most underreported crimes in the country, has the lowest conviction rate and one of the highest incident rate and how does our patriarchial system of justice respond, we tuck it away amongst the Crimes Act. Evidence - an ordinary human being would consider what as evidence? I thought it was the facts, the indisputable physical facts, police statements/reports, DNA. See once again I was blinded by my beliefs in truth, justice and fairness. The reality is so far from this belief.

Most people, who have never had to face a court before believe in the truth. Little do they know from moment we step into the police station and report these crimes, and we are told they are crimes, horrific crimes, it is never about the truth. It is about the clothese we wear, our intimacy with previous partners, our occupations, whether we should be out late or not, whether we should be drinking, even down to the injuries we sustained, whether we "like it rough". No matter what truth we provide, this is as Sheehan describes a 'pantomine' drama carried out under the guise of law and justice.

The jury never get to hear that the victim does not see the evidence of the accused, his/their testimony, or list of witnesses, whereas the prosecution must hand over everything. We go in their with truth covering our boxing gloves, the accused is permitted razor blade knuckle busters and there isn't a damn thing we can do about it.

You can't wait to celebrate your promotion with a night out with a few girls...what the jury here is you are an alcoholic, a repeated drinker and likes to party and flirt. You choose that favourite dress your husband brought, the long black one, you wear those long black boots underneath, you can't really see them anyway, but its cold so you think they are more suitable. What the jury hears is these are known as "f*#@* me boots" of course everyone knows that and anyone who wears them is asking for it. You've been working away from your husband for the past few months, it has devestated the kids being seperated, you speak every night at 7pm, you say "I love you...I miss you" a million times and your heart aches, but you remind yourself this is nearly over, you have the promotion and all those years without work, taking this far away posting is going to change your lives.......What the jury hears is that you have left your husband, you like to play up when you are away, you and your husband has problems, he is violent, you are scared of him....

Do you need me to go on...The facts are, the law says, they can make up whatever stories they like and they don't need one bit of evidence to back it up....all they need to do is raise doubt....doubt....just one little bit of doubt in the jury members minds and its over. All those supporting facts, the truth to even counter their lies, you don't get to do that as a victim, the only evidence or facts you get to share are the events of the attack, no-one gets to hear about who you are, what kind of mother, friend, wife, daughter you are, no-one gets to hear from character witnesses supporting your credibility, only offenders need character witnesses.

Its a pantomine, a drama, a joke NSW justice and the laws for victims of sexual assault. The irony is our symbol of justice is a lady, I wonder what that balance truly represents?

We need to provide victims with an Act which defines the horrendous nature of sexual assault. Clearly defines the rights of victims to be treated with dignity and respect, we need stronger reigns for Defence counsels who continue to abuse their rights as representatives of a justice system, we need to put back the humanity into the treatment of sexual assault victims. Evidence needs to be defined clearly. What fairness can come from ad-hoc descriptions by Defence Counsel, when there is no proof whatsoever behind their claims.

This is not good enough, we must demand more, we must stand up, speak out and challenge this patriarchial and primitive system of justice we call law in our country.


http://www.smh.com.au/news/paul-sheehan/rough-slow-justice-for-rape-victims/2006/04/09/1144521208559.html

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19910629-32522,00.html

Consent - meaning or myth?

Consent? The dictionary defines consent as "to agree" "agreement".
The definition of consent is by far the most crucial link to truth and justice as to any other detail in sexual assault trials.

Sexual assault http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ca190082/s61h.html
Consent (NSW) http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ca190082/s61i.html
and http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ca190082/s61r.html

How little the issue of consent is defined in Australian Law, in addition to the risk of jury misdirection in directing jury members in the closing of sexual assault trials to the meaning of consent - I question whether the issue of consent in sexual assault trials has become a myth rather than holding any great meaning for sexual assault victims?

We know victims are saying "no" "stop" "why" "don't do this" please stop", we know complainants become victims the moment they are preyed upon when they are walking home alone, in their homes as they sleep, after a night out at the pub, when they are intoxicated, drugged, physically and cognitively incapable of consenting, when they are by definition of law too young to be legally able to consent, then why does this same law allow admissable suggestion by the Defence in contrary to the evidence of victims which raises doubt, plays upon the social misconceptions about victims of sexual assault and contradicts the concept of consent?

The Law clearly states that the failure to resist in a sexual assault does not mean the victim is consenting. However we regularly here of cases where a victims failure to call out when they are aware there might be someone nearby, failure to kick, scream, shout, scratch, punch or use any force necessary to resist, suggests (as defined by the Defence) the victim is consenting. This of course is absent of any data on psychological trauma and the impact of violent crimes on victims, it plays directly on these same social misconceptions or beliefs of what someone would do in the event of a violent crime and not what actions would actually take place in the event of a life threatening situation.

In a trial of a mother who was raped three times in her home, where her 5 year old child slept quietly, the mother was repeatedly asked why she had not called out to her daughter in the attack. In the NSW District court in 2003, a reference by the Defence was even made suggesting if the mother had seen a spider of course she would have called out to her daughter, but why then did she not call out to her in the early hours of the morning, when she was half naked and being raped by the accused?

The Police Station was two blocks from the victims residence, a building constructed in the early part of last century. The jury was directed once again to ask themselves why didn't the victim scream out to the Police?

Obviously the Defence attorney was a man, possibly a father (no reflection on all men intended), however any woman would know (with exception of those on the jury) that a lionness would do anything to protect her cubs, regardless of the species, it is instinct.

The Defence even made sarastic reference to the volume of the victims voice "sorry I can't hear you...can you speak up"...."no I still can't hear you" even suggesting the victim may need special assistance to be heard in the court room, suggesting that once again the onus was on the victim to clearly and loudly delcare she did not want to be raped. Regardless of whether the law claims if the accused believes the victim is consenting, once again this arhaic law which we are told is there to protect the rights of victims and uphold justice, suggests the victim is responsible for making sure the offender understands clearly he/she is not consenting.

So of what relevance is this law? We know that the lack of "no" does not necessarily mean "yes". We know (from the Law of course) that failing to resist on the victims part does not mean he/she is consenting. It appears that a lack of response from the victim, or an action does not suggest the victim is consenting - but where does this have relevance in rape trials?

Under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 in the United Kingdom, an accused must show that they have taken steps to determine whether the victim is consenting or not. This landmark change in sexual assault law is the first step in placing the responsibility of consent onto the accused.

Australian sexual assault laws are disgrace and they are not alone in the international community http://incestabuse.about.com/od/inthenews/a/disgrace.htm

The idea that a person is not free to feel safe in their community, free to accept a ride home from a party with friends, free to sleep in their own bed at night, free to be single, married, work late at night, walk through dark parking lots to their car, enjoy a night out, a few drinks, where a short skirt, red lipstick, high heels and heaven forbid those long black sexy boots and even celebrate with knowing should someone remove this freedom, should someone take advantage of them, prey on their vulnerability, prey on their innocence, instill fear and terror into their lives that they law will protect their rights as human beings. The law will be upheld and held to the highest standard of accountability within our society.

The fact that this is not the reality of 99% of sexual assault trials in our country is an absolute disgrace. We have to seriously consider that this patriarchial system of justice denys Darwins principles of adaptation. This mens club who have evolved so little in equalising the balance of justice for men and women, for victims and offenders, who continue to do their jobs whilst statistics rate sexual assault crimes on the increase, convictions on the decrease and one of the most violent crimes to go unreported each year.

Oh there is law reform, what the government would like victims to believe will provide 'a fair chance' for victims of sexual assault crimes. Give me a break.....

Option for reform under the subject of consent "Amendment of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) to introduce an objective fault element in seuxal, whereby a person commits sexual assault if he or she intentionally engages in sexual intercourse without another person's consent,

(ISN't this the LAW already?)...ooooh but wait for it...

"but the accused can raise a defence of honest and reasonable belief that the complainant was consenting"

This is what we can expect from reform?

I can just see it now

"Oh but your Honor...it was that dress, those shoes, the way she looked so innocent and just there for the taking...I BELIEVE she wanted it"

Who wrote this garbage? Where were the voices of victims please in this proposal for reform? Where we are still allowing "sexual reputation" to be defined more clearly so it can be admitted as evidence, where we need to put in writing that judges are not permitted to describe rape victims as "unreliable witnesses".

IDEAS for reform

1. Clearly define consent
2. Place the responsbility of consent on the accused under the law so that the accused must take reasonable steps/action to ensure that consent was given
3. Review of the evidence act - evidence to include the fact that the victim did not scream, shout or resits (as outlined by consent) is not admissable by way that it contradicts the concept of consent.
4. Since the relevant of clothing, makeup, occupation, sexual reputation do not define or clearly show in law that the victim is consenting by way of these details - as such these facts are inadmissable. Whether the victim was wearing a sexy black dress and heels, does not mean she was consenting.
5. As the theory of justice is based on a balance of principles, or so Lady Justice would have us believe - why not balance the scales? Victims or sexual assault trials are to be considered as victims or complainants - not witnesses in their own crimes. As the victim is not afforded character referees, and the fact is they have no relevance as to whether the accused gained consent or not based on his character as a 2 year old 30 years ago or what he was like at school 15 years ago, this should be removed altogether.

It is a start anyway .......

Silenced for far too long - STOP the insanity

Ida Caddock...never heard of her, you should. Even if we go back to 1899, throughout history, brave, courageous women have been having their day. Speaking up and speaking out about the inequalities and lack of justice for women. I hear it all the time about the laws which are designed to protect women, yes we have laws, but do they work...absolutely not for the majority of victims of crime and for a large majority of women. Tell that to the women who have lost their lives in domestic violence crimes as if apprehended violence orders are a magic shield to protect women and their children from abusive, violent partners.

Law....... a system of words, placed on paper upheld by a patriarchial judicial system. Laws many of which designed by men and implemented by men. Believe me I am not on an anti-male campaign...far from it, I'm married, I have children, Sons, a father, a brother, male friends. The fact is a minority of the male population of men are perpetrators of violent crimes against women....what we need is the majority of the male population to speak up and speak out against violence against women.

Special Agent of the Post Office in New York - Anthony Comstock took it upon himself to uphold the values/laws of the day by having Ida Caddock charged for producing brochures for women called 'Right Marital Living', suggesting an indictment of rape in marriage.

In Australia it wasn't until Roma Mitchell (First Australian female Judge - South Australia) was appointed in 1965 and then another 11 years later (1976 for goodness sake !!) when the law was changed to include rape in marriage as a crime of violence.

Despite this change it made absolutely no difference in the South Australian court during a rape trial in 1992, where a Supreme Court Judge, whose education presumably founded in the days of Sir Matthew Hale in 1736, when women were considered 'property' of their husband's and as such had no right to deny any of her husband's advances.

Judge Bollen goes on to state in his closing

"There is, of course, nothing wrong with a husband, faced with his wife's initial refusal to engage in intercourse, in attempting, in an acceptable way, to persuade her to change her mind, and that may involve a measure of rougher than usual handling. It may be that handling and persuasion will persuade the wife to agree. Sometimes it is a fine line between not agreeing, then changing of the mind, and consenting ..." (R v Johns, Supreme Court, SA No. SCCRM/91/452, 26 August 1992)

As for Ida Caddock, Comstock went on to pursue his claim that the woman was mad and on locking her away once again, refused to allow her out without her pleading to insanity. On the morning of her sentencing she slashed her wrist, leaving a note, in a desperate plea to people to stop the injustices against women.

A short while ago I was visited my a well meaning christian door knocker, it was one of those days..you know one of those days when you realllllllly....don't mind the intrusion into your home, when you just have the baby asleep, about the site down for 5 minutes etc. I thought how harmless could a little chat be? I heard claims by a woman, that women, have so much to answer for with all the problems in the world, how much Eve is to blame for starting it all when she manipulated Adam in the Garden of Eden, if it weren't for Eve, imagine where we could be today!....Oh please....One could take the other perspective (heaven forbid?), what kind of man was Adam, what type of intelligence must he have been provided with, with no ability to question, decide for himself - let alone have self control.

Women are still believing that "giving in" to their partner's advances, just "taking it" letting him "have what he wants" they will have peace. There will be NO PEACE when women feel it is their responsbility to surrender their rights as human beings to a violent free home, a violent free community and a violent free world. There will be NO PEACE when women are not safe, when their GOD given right to freedom and justice are ignored, when the laws, underpinned by faith and justice, continue to be ignored.

We must restore the right of EVERY single person to Human Rights. The right to say "no" and be heard, the right to walk safely home, the right to live in a safe home, the right as children to grow, play, laugh and have fun, the right to go out, enjoy ourselves. Which brings us always back to the same legal crap of consent, is it not the right of the individual to verbalise their consent freely, without intimidation, harrassment or fear? Without influence of drugs, alcohol or disability? If there is no verbal consent how can the law continue to protect perpetrators? That is another blog altogether.

Why speak out? it only scares people?

A comment which continues to fester in my mind was from sometime ago. "Why speak out...it only scares people...won't it stop victims from coming forward...why not have a more positive approach...". Firstly how ridiculous, what a 'keep in the closet' approach to change. If we don't tell people the horrible parts, the fact that 'Lady Justice' just isn't doing her job, it will make it all better, all go away...for who? Will it give victims faith in the justice system? Restore their faith in society?
Let's not forget not all crimes report to police which go onto trial have negative consequences for victims of sexual assault. There is of course the less than 2% of these cases which do gain convictions, although only a very, very small number of these offenders actually see the inside of a jail cell. Why not hide the truth? the reality about sexual assault crimes? Is it going to make our world a safer place? Will it stop offenders from raping? Will victims be able to safely go out at night, enjoy themselves, (heaven forbid) even walk themselves home? Leave their doors wide open because they are safe in knowing this doesn't happen in thei....r community?
Oh...please....give me a break. Control, it comes down to control. Controlling what the public hears, what they acknowledge, what the government wants people to know. Is it no wonder so many victims fear coming forward when we have this "ssshhh...don't talk about it" attitude. Let's break down these barriers, rip down isolation, hold up the banners loud and clear, "WE WILL NOT TAKE THIS INSANITY ANYMORE". 1 in 3 women, with an estimated 60,000 victims each year in our State, yet nearly 12,000 reports to Police, of these less than 2% conviction rate. A crime on the increase, a conviction rate on the decline and I have people telling me I should be quiet about this.
Victims in the court room, children, being asked 'but you really wanted to sit on his lap didn't you'....women 'why would you wear a dress like that?' 'don't you feel ashamed' 'wearing those boots...those *&^% me boots says you are asking for it'
Where is the evidence in this, any of it....come-on where is the legal significance of these comments. The law states sex without consent is a CRIME. Under the age of 16 years, a child CANNOT consent, whether they do or don't, legally they CANNOT, so who cares how this perp manipulated and groomed this vulernable person who placed their trust and faith, their innocence and childhood with this scum, who selfishly in an act of violence used their power to their own benefit. OF what legal relevance is it what a women wears when she has been raped? What if she was on the beach in a bikini? Hiking in bike shorts and a singlet? Home alone in bed in her P.J's? I cannot see the legal significance of this and how this can be considered as evidence.
Do we not live in a free, democratic society built on the principles of human rights? Dignity? Freedom? Justice? We only need to look at the fear instilled in people by the differences in what people wear for religious purpose, where this is being banned in France, criticised in our country...why, why do we need to be threatened by this?
A police officer I spoke with once said to me "if I wore my knickers and bra into a night club, no-one, absolutely no-one has the right to touch me without my consent".
Now if only we could get this message out to society. If only society could feel empowered enough to share this message with each other and stop trying to keep their skeletons in the closet.

The aftermath

Wouldn't you have screamed? Wouldn't you have used every effort of power and strength to fight off your attacker? What about going to the Police, surely you would have run, yes run literally to the nearest Police Station. Who cares what time of night or early hours of a morning it is. What you say your daughter was in the other room...Well why didn't you call our to her, who cares if she is only a 5 years old, surely she could have saved you? Right?
Sounds unbelievable doesn't it. No its true, this is taken from a scenario of a trial involving the sexual assault of a mother. The male Defence lawyer was described on record as attacking the "witness" (victim) in the worst possible way, oh yes...there was more. Then why wouldn't he, look what the offender had to look forward to three accounts of sexual assault, each carrying a maximum penalty of seven years of jail. Just think, in the absence of physical hard evidence, the jury must rely on the verbal evidence, statements and accounts of these events by witnesses in a court of law. Naturally the perpetrator and their team of....well I'm yet to find a word to describe the type of persons who would defend rapists....would use their own analogy of the events placing the victim in the worst possible situation. Doubt.....doubt is all they need to raise...doubt, an essence of doubt is all they need....
In the aftermath to follow a sexual assault, immediately following pulling yourself together, trying to make sense of the confusion in your brain, the disorientation, the fear, the trembling, the need to want to scrub every inch of your body as rigorously as possible, to cry, oh yes to cry, to be near someone who makes you feel safe, who will make it all stop, make the crying stop, wipe this from your brain, oh its still there all of it, the pictures keep re-appearing, interrupting your walking, your thinking, dressing. Everything you do, every cognitive, linguistic, physical action you attempt is interrupted by your brain in overload from an abnormal event which it is trying to rationalise. It can't.... there is no rational way of creating sense or meaning from this event. Trust "I will never trust again" you tell yourself, "I will never let anyone near me again", but what about....what will you tell your husband? boyfriend? girlfriend? brother? sister? friends? family? How will you tell them? What will people think? Believe?
In between the random thoughts, the fear, the loss of control, you can't eat, thinking, how can you think? You need to tell someone, share this pain, say it out loud. The words are jumbled, incoherrent, he doesn't understand you, you keep trying to explain, the tears just keep falling, he knows, there are reactions to some events which need no explanation. He lets you take your time, he is scared, he is frightened. Another set of random thoughts, two brains disconnected by tremendous emotion, terrifying. He wonders why he wasn't there for you, to protect you, make you feel safe, how something like this could happen to someone he loves, he is angry, oh so angry, so amazingly angry, like an anger no words or actions could describe.
You lay in your own bed, you don't sleep, there is no sleep, you shower, constantly, over and over again, but you feel the same. Nothing seems to work. He reminds you of how many more women could go through this unless this person its stopped, he wants to stop this offender who calls himself a human being, you know what you must do, it is just so hard, so damn hard, to re-tell these events, you never want to relive, you've given so much time to keeping as far from reality as possible. How could you re-tell this, the most intimate and personal of details about your body, to someone you don't know? You go to the Police.
Trauma...what is trauma? Is it the feeling of shock, that you would go more than a day without speaking more than two words at a time? Would it be uncontrollable crying, shaking, fear? Refusing to leave the house, refusing to answer the phone, unable to return to work even a year later. How about relationships? Withholding intimacy from your partner, the shock of brushing up against a person in the supermarket sending you into such a spin, you leave the fully loaded basket in the isle and go home? Is it the trembling you feel from the smell of stale burbon on a person, how you freeze physically, emotionally, mentally when something as simple as a person who looks similar crosses the street? Your though patterns are constantly interrupted, you have developed neuro-associations to many events which previously told you life was fun, exciting, worth living. Is this trauma?

If you search trauma on the web, it is there. Even for rape victims. Why does the justice system disregard trauma for victims of sexual assault? Expert witnesses are regularly used in trials of a different nature. Why not in sexual assault trials? Are the feelings of victims unjustified? unworthy of acknowledgement? What is this ignorance of society to believe victims should just "get over it"? That life will go on the day after, a week after, even years after this event. The reality of extraordinary events, life threatening events, is they are forever inbedded in your thoughts. Unless we can produced a small pen which we hold up to a persons face to erase such thoughts as things we shouldn't have witnessed or traumatic events with the blink of a flash, those horrific events will remain on the hard drive of our bodies.

When we experience a traumatic event, we can and will react in a number of ways. We may fight, we may run or we may freeze. There is never, ever an assurance that one person will act one way over another. It is what makes our species so unique, our individuality. You yourself might believe if such an event ever took place you know exactly how you would react. You may and I mean may be right.

In the aftermath of a sexual assault, there are so many expectations placed on victims from the legal system and society, we must remember as victims, not to place unreal expectations on ourselves. Victims of sexual assault have a right to heal, a right to their pain, to their trauma, their time to recover and right to acknowledgement...which has for too long been disregarded by the legal profession, the justice system and society. It is time to make a difference, to give victims of sexual assault the right to heal.

Reality

We all have two choices, it comes down to yes or no, whether to act or not to act, to go or not to go, to be great or horrible, bad or just good. Life really is THAT simple. We have choices and well....there are consequences, you would hope, pray, hold onto what little faith you have, there WILL be consequences.

The Law says if we just say "no" that will be enough. The government spends thousands in advertising campaigns supporting the Law....as if saying "no" is the answer. Well the numbers of victims are growing as I type, the thought of which is difficult to fathom, so many people let down, so many innocent victims, so much injustice. Where do they go? The police? The court system? From the time sexual assault victims straighten their clothes and wipe away their tears, fight off their fear and anger, society has stacked the odds against them. Each brick built upon myths, lies and stereotypes. Even to go as far as to claim certain types ....you know "those types" of people "deserve" to be assaulted. Have we evolved so far only to shift humanity into reverse gear? The blindness ...or is blindness too gentle a word? Ignorance? Pathetic ignorance?of society to shake their heads in disgust at reading another report of a child sexually assaulted, a woman gang raped, yet hold their head up, place the paper in the garbage and believe this doesn't happen to them or too communities like they live in.

In the court room victims are told its due to their appearance, their character, behaviour or choice of career, even sexual orientation. Even...can you believe it in a world as modern as ours....even told that because they wore a particular tye of boot they were "asking for it". This is what our justice system calls "evidence". A black dress (of which the jury never actually views, they just hear in "evidence" the defence interpretation of its appearance) described as "of gothic appearance" "witch like". Would this be then suggesting the Law believes people who choose to wear black deserve to be raped? are "asking for it?"
A female victim is told because she wore long black boots (oh yes..by the way the boots were hidden under a ground length dress!!) she should have known these boots are known by society to be sending a hidden (telegraphic? electronic? sensory? teleportic?) message to others they are "asking for it". These evidentary suggestions describe the accused as holding not only x-ray vision, but highly developed sensory perceptory skills, that they can pick up messages, even the victims cannot identify, requires further investigation, why use rats in such a ground breaking scientific discovery, surely with offenders having so little will power why not use the real thing.

So you, society, our communities, the law, the government, insists if victims just come forward, if they just report their crimes to police, all will be better, there WILL be consequences. Oh please. Research claims children attempt to report their assaults up to 30 times before an person actually listens. Is it no wonder adult victims have so much difficulty making their needs known, when our most vulnerable of all victims, children for goodness sake, cannot have their voices heard. Any change in law is so overwhelmed by the heated attack of civil libertarians about offenders rights, the changes have so little impact. Take protecting children. Protecting children....mmmm...let me see...oh yes, the civil libertarians were more concerned with the privacy of pedophiles after they are released from prison, they attacked suggestions of a 'megan's law' in Australia, with total disregard for the safety and welbeing of our children.

Oh yes by the way has Australia even signed the 'convention for the rights of the child'? Maybe the paperwork is buried under taxes, superannuation increases for politicians, funding cuts and oh yes HUMAN RIGHTS. Who are these people? Maybe they are still evolving? Cognitively so to speak. They walk and talk like human beings, yet there is something missing, biological differences from the original mould, compassion, understanding, empathy and truth.

There is a inbalance, a sense of instability in society for victims of violence. For too long our needs, our voices have been silenced by being referred to as "just a witness" in a crime of which they are the victim. For too long we have been doing just what society has asked of us, enjoying life, walking home with the view we lived in a free nation, where we had choices. We have been going to bed at night and turning out the light, believing with our windows locked we were safe to fall asleep, as children we have placed our trust in those we look up to, those who have brought us gifts, taken us special places and held our hands, we have thought we were safe. We have shared in celebration with trusted friends, colleagues we have shared our lives with and when they offer to walk us home, we felt more safe that we were with a trusted friend. We said "I do" and listened to the words of the minister/priest tattooed on our heart, we believed in the love you sold us, the safety of marriage build on respect. We have done what you have asked of us society, but you have misled us, we were not safe and now you tell us we are too blame.
IT IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH!