Toronto cop apologizes for telling female college students to dress more modestly to avoid rape

[alp227]

CBC News reports: "Toronto officer to apologize for 'sluts' remark":

A Toronto police service officer will apologize for his conduct after he was heard telling women at a York University assembly they could avoid sexual assault by not dressing like "sluts."

The remarks were made by one of two police officers who were at a campus safety information session at York's Osgoode Hall Law School on Jan. 24.

Ugh. This fool (who wasn't identified, I guess to protect his reputation in the future?) can't be in a position to uphold justice if he believes in the mentality that how one dresses will cause her to be raped.

Oh, the officer's fellow citizen Justin Bieber was misquoted in that Rolling Stone interview. The magazine made it appear that he said that rape happens for a reason. An editing error omitted the following sentence in bold:

He does have a solid opinion on abortion. "I really don't believe in abortion," Bieber says. "It's like killing a baby." How about in cases of rape? "Well, I think that's really sad, but everything happens for a reason. I don't know how that would be a reason. I guess I haven't been in that position, so I wouldn't be able to judge that."

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

1. There is a huge difference between blame and responsibility

One reason this type of discussion gets into the flaming area very quickly is that people can't differentiate between responsibility and blame. To say someone has some responsibility for something that happened (lack of caution) isn't to say they should be blamed. They are two completely different concepts. Blame has a moral component and responsibility does not necessarily.

Suppose I am in a bar and I leave my wallet on the bar while I go to the bathroom. When I come back, my money is gone and so is the stranger who was sitting next to me. I bear some of the responsibility because I was incautious. Had I not left my wallet on the bar, the perpetrator would not have had the opportunity, but I did nothing morally wrong. The perpetrator also had responsibility, because without his actions, nothing would have happened, but he also gets the blame, because he acted wrongly in taking something that didn't belong to him.

Now, suppose the person next to me was a friend who I had been drinking with many times. That really reduces my responsibility because I was operating under the assumption that he wouldn't steal from me. If he does, then he bears more responsibility for what happened -- and his level of blame is higher because he violated a trust as well as took something that didn't belong to him.

So, to say that I should have been more careful with my wallet (in the first case) is not to "blame" me for what happened, but only to say that I acted foolishly and bear some of the responsibility in the chain of events that led to the outcome. The other person is still the person with all the blame.

This is why urging women to be cautious about putting themselves in situations where they could be assaulted is in no way "blaming" them for the outcome -- merely saying that we all have some obligation not to foolishly put ourselves in danger. And, it in no way excuses the perpetrator of the crime (as some people seem to think it does).

- orig. post by nichomachus

[LucySky]

2. um...

i have a right to wear a short skirt with a sexy top. i share NO responsibility for a hypothetical sexual assault on me, no matter what i am wearing.

[seabeyond]

3. ya. i hear ya.

probably get in trouble for hearin ya. this is what i teach my kids, ect... and how i see life.