By tigtog on July 6, 2012
Transphobic court tosses out rape charge because defendant’s intent ‘was to rape a woman’
Posted in gender & feminism, law & order, social justice, violence | Tagged bigotry, gender essentialism, Oh FFS, trans | 6 Responses
This author has written 3283 posts for Hoyden About Town. Read more about tigtog »
I’m going to try to track down something about this in Swedish.
That would be most useful, Aqua. I’m presuming that the attacker will still be held to account for assault/GBH etc – but if the main thing that stopped the attacker from completing the rape was only the absence of a vagina, then how on earth is it not still attempted rape?
According to the comments on the blogpost there could be some issue with the law and its interpretation. But certainly someone who knows a) Swedish and b) Swedish law would be better placed to say what is going on. I hope it has been mis-reported :(
Yes still held to account for the assault – 4 years in prison and payment in damages to the woman. The judge recommended the sentence be appealed and was “looking forward to the verdict” from the Court of Appeals.
The judge recommended the sentence be appealed and was “looking forward to the verdict” from the Court of Appeals.
Sounds like we might have a cloaked-activist judge on our hands, deliberately being very rigid in applying the law as written in order to provoke a clarifying ruling from an upper court.
I found the original Swedish news story (I’m not sure it’s been covered in the rest of the Swedish media).
Most of the article is pretty much as has been translated. The victim is described using female pronouns throughout the story and as “purely physically a man” one time. Otherwise, she is referred to as a woman.
Right near the end, we get to this:
Det juridiska uttrycket för det här är att brottet är ”otjänligt”. Begreppet är ovanligt och enligt Sjöstedt är det inte exakt definierat vad som avses med detta.
–Det finns olika teorier om hur man ska hantera det här så därför ser vi fram mot hovrättens dom, säger Sjöstedt.
In my (worth every cent you paid for it, and possibly less) translation, that’s something like:
The legal expression for this is that the offense is “unfit”. The term is unusual and according to Sjöstedt it is not exactly defined what is meant by this.
‘There are different theories on how to handle this so therefore we look forward to the upper court’s judgement’ says Sjöstedt.
IMHO, definitely a judge wanting the law clarified! On the other hand, I’m a bit disturbed by the extent to which this legally is about the offender’s intended action (which I infer as vaginal rape – the story does not address the possibility of rape via other orifices), rather than the actual actions and their effect on the victim. I’m not sure if I was knocked over and my clothes torn off I’d care all that much whether the person completed all zir intended activities.
As mentioned elsewhere, the offender was convicted of assault, but it’s only four months imprisonment, not four years (come on, rest of Internet, “månaders” is not that hard to translate!)
n.b. our posts are closed to new comments after 60 days. If you wish to discuss a closed post, please use the latest open thread.
RSS - Posts
RSS - Comments
Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
Beppie, blue milk, Chally, Emily Manuel, Guest Hoyden, Helen, Jennifer, Jo Tamar, lauredhel, Lauredhel, Mary, Megpie71, mimbles, Mindy, Orlando, shonias, tigtog, Wildly Parenthetical
Copyright 2005 - © 2013 Hoyden about Town.
Powered by WordPress, Hybrid, and Outline.
Customised by VIVidWeb