A common justification for publication bans on the identities of sexual assault complainants is the stigma associated with being assaulted. According to Marco Chown Oved, investigative journalist for The Star, “Hardly anyone would be ashamed of reporting their car stolen, but admitting you’ve been raped has led, in other countries, to forced marriage with your aggressor or even honour killings by relatives. Those attitudes are present in Canada as well.” (https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/04/26/should_sexual_assault_victims_still_be_kept_anonymous.html) This is a ridiculous statement, as the overwhelming support for the #MeToo movement has demonstrated. As a culture, we do not condemn those who bring forward allegations of sexual assault.
…show more content…
As we have seen, for example with the Jian Ghomeshi trial, reporting of a public trial involves analysis of complainant testimony. (http://nationalpost.com/opinion/christie-blatchford-as-ghomeshi-trial-starts-most-disturbing-evidence-is-the-inconsistencies) There is a very real possibility that complainants will have their credibility questioned and every detail of their account scrutinized. But this is the way it should be, the way it must be. Incentivizing women to bring allegations into the criminal justice system should not be the objective of sexual assault legislation, firstly, because this objective makes no distinction between true and false allegations. The fact is that no one exits the system feeling better. Trials are taxing physically and emotionally, for both complainant and defendant. While we do not want to disincentivize real victims of sexual assault from going to the police, the onerousness of the system is a safeguard. Having to relive the details of a traumatic event over and over in the process of a criminal investigation is no doubt a difficult ordeal for a victim of sexual assault. However, removing the promise of anonymity would weed out a great number of frivolous accusers and allow the resources of the court to focus on a greater number of cases where there was a great harm done to the accuser and/or the accused continues to pose a legitimate public safety threat.
In summary, a sexual assault complainant should not have an automatic right to the publication ban of their identity. Instead, publication bans should be conceptualized as exceptions to the rule of open court which are justified only when there is a demonstrable risk of physical safety to the complainant or when the case involves
As we have seen, for example with the Jian Ghomeshi trial, reporting of a public trial involves analysis of complainant testimony. (http://nationalpost.com/opinion/christie-blatchford-as-ghomeshi-trial-starts-most-disturbing-evidence-is-the-inconsistencies) There is a very real possibility that complainants will have their credibility questioned and every detail of their account scrutinized. But this is the way it should be, the way it must be. Incentivizing women to bring allegations into the criminal justice system should not be the objective of sexual assault legislation, firstly, because this objective makes no distinction between true and false allegations. The fact is that no one exits the system feeling better. Trials are taxing physically and emotionally, for both complainant and defendant. While we do not want to disincentivize real victims of sexual assault from going to the police, the onerousness of the system is a safeguard. Having to relive the details of a traumatic event over and over in the process of a criminal investigation is no doubt a difficult ordeal for a victim of sexual assault. However, removing the promise of anonymity would weed out a great number of frivolous accusers and allow the resources of the court to focus on a greater number of cases where there was a great harm done to the accuser and/or the accused continues to pose a legitimate public safety threat.
In summary, a sexual assault complainant should not have an automatic right to the publication ban of their identity. Instead, publication bans should be conceptualized as exceptions to the rule of open court which are justified only when there is a demonstrable risk of physical safety to the complainant or when the case involves