A Turkish court ruling against the testimony of a raped woman because she didn't scream during the assault makes me absolutely sick to my stomach.
A judge in Diyarbakir, Turkey has ruled that the sexual abuse of a woman with mental disabilities will go unpunished because the woman did not scream.
The woman, known by the alias "E.B.," was repeatedly raped for two years by her 24-year-old neighbor, Ibrahim T. DNA proved Ibrahim T. to be the biological father of E>B .'s child.
E.B. later said she was too afraid to report the abuse because her neighbor was from a wealthy family and threatened to kill her and her children if she said anything.
A judge in Diyarbakir, Turkey has ruled that the sexual abuse of a woman with mental disabilities will go unpunished because the woman did not scream.
The woman, known by the alias "E.B.," was repeatedly raped for two years by her 24-year-old neighbor, Ibrahim T. DNA proved Ibrahim T. to be the biological father of E>B .'s child.
E.B. later said she was too afraid to report the abuse because her neighbor was from a wealthy family and threatened to kill her and her children if she said anything.
This sounds pretty nonconsensual to me. But because E.B. didn't fight back, the judge decided her word wasn't good enough.
Join me in speaking out against this horrific display of injustice here
Join me in speaking out against this horrific display of injustice here
Inti dari beritanya adalah pengadilan Turki membebaskan tersangka perkosaan karena—si objek yangdiperkosa tidak berteriak selama penyerangan. Disebutkan juga bahwa si wanita punya keterbelakangan mental.
Buat saya sih ini cost beberapa poin:1. Perkosaan tidak dibenarkan dengan alasan apapun juga.
2. Orang dengan keterbelakangan mental butuh ekstra perhatian khusus. Kita yang—katanya normal ini harusnya lebih aware, bukannya malah mengambil keuntungan.
3. Which part of ‘because she didn't scream during the assault’ is rational??
Korban itu ‘takut’ berbicara karena banyak ancaman. Ancaman yang paling mempan adalah ancaman dibunuh (objek maupun keluarganya). Maka dari itu, seharusnya pengadilan menjadi ‘suara’ dari korban.
Kebayang kalau si hakim ditangkep teroris, terus diancem, dan dia nggak teriak waktu diancam, dengan mudahnya teroris dibebasin—maka dunia ini akan penuhh dengan teroris yang nggak takut akan hukuman. Logikanya aja, yang jadi masalah adalah terorismenya, bukan ancamannya. Sama kayak kasus ini—seharusnya yang jadi masalah adalah pemerkosaannya, bukan ‘tidak teriak’nya.
And this is something I found on 9gag
If pro is the opposite of con, then what is it the opposite of progress?
With that logic, what will these people turn our constitution into?
Vote wisely.
THINK. DO. SHARE. IMPACT OTHERS.
No comments:
Post a Comment