Bill C-127 was passed in 1983, with the objective of redefining rape and indecent assault as violent crimes and changing public perceptions of what defines sexual violence. In the past these had been considered crimes of sex, not aggression, and it was thought that an aggressive focus would reduce the stigma that is often carried by the word “rape”. It was also intended to help preserve the dignity of victims by reducing the impact of their character on the outcome of their case (Gunn & Linden, 1997) and encouraging victims to report these crimes to police. Moving from stereotypes that encouraged victim-blaming, Bill C-127 accomplished the following: it reclassified rape and indecent assault to three levels of sexual assault; it implemented the rape shield law to prohibit the use of the victim’s background unless it was relevant; it made sexual assault gender-neutral; it removed spousal immunity, criminalizing marital rape; and it changed the evidence rules around consent, corroboration, and recent complaint. Instead of victims having to prove that they protested or otherwise did not consent, the onus was now on the accused to prove that they had obtained consent (Gunn & Linden, 1997; Newman & White, 2012, p. 178), which should have been beneficial to victims of coercive rape, as there may not have been a physical struggle involved. The offences of indecent assault and rape were replaced with sexual assault; sexual assault with a weapon, threats to a third party, or causing bodily harm; and aggravated sexual assault. The crime of indecent assault had already …show more content…
The federal government subsequently drafted new legislation that protected victims from cross-examination unless the judge decided that the information was relevant. The revised laws also define consent more clearly, and a number of situations are listed in which consent is assumed not to exist – for example, when the victim is unable to consent because of intoxication (Newman & White, 2012, p. …show more content…
The new terminology, being broader and less well-defined, has had a “homogenizing effect” on the severity of recommended punishment: it has brought rape sentences down and indecent assault sentences up. This is clearly a negative and unintended consequence of the bill, as a crime labeled “sexual assault” tends to be punished less severely than the same crime labeled “rape” (Roberts et al., 1996, p. 146). The concept of rape in Canada, then, “is sufficiently embedded in the culture to resist modification with the space of a few years: people perceive a rape as a rape, whether it is called that or sexual assault” (Roberts et al., 1996, p. 146). The media, for example, particularly mainstream news outlets, often uses the term “rape” instead of “sexual assault”, contributing to a lack of awareness (granted, this may have changed since the source data was collected in 1996). This corresponds with the lack of public awareness of the new label – if it is little known, it will have little impact (Roberts et al.,