UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Succumbing to the siren song : rape myths in sexual offender sentencing in B.C. Welch, Elizabeth Ann 2014

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
24-ubc_2014_spring_welch_elizabeth.pdf [ 1.5MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 24-1.0077774.json
JSON-LD: 24-1.0077774-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 24-1.0077774-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 24-1.0077774-rdf.json
Turtle: 24-1.0077774-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 24-1.0077774-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 24-1.0077774-source.json
Full Text
24-1.0077774-fulltext.txt
Citation
24-1.0077774.ris

Full Text

	 ?	 ?	 ?SUCCUMBING	 ?TO	 ?THE	 ?SIREN	 ?SONG:	 ?RAPE	 ?MYTHS	 ?IN	 ?SEXUAL	 ?OFFENDER	 ?SENTENCING	 ?IN	 ?B.C.	 ?	 ?	 ?by	 ?	 ?	 ?Elizabeth	 ?Ann	 ?Welch	 ?	 ?B.A.,	 ?McGill	 ?University,	 ?2006	 ?LL.B.,	 ?Dalhousie	 ?University,	 ?2009	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?A	 ?THESIS	 ?SUBMITTED	 ?IN	 ?PARTIAL	 ?FULFILLMENT	 ?OF	 ?THE	 ?REQUIREMENTS	 ?FOR	 ?THE	 ?DEGREE	 ?OF	 ?	 ?	 ?MASTER	 ?OF	 ?LAWS	 ?	 ?	 ?in	 ?	 ?	 ?THE	 ?FACULTY	 ?OF	 ?GRADUATE	 ?AND	 ?POSTDOCTORAL	 ?STUDIES	 ?	 ?(Law)	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?THE	 ?UNIVERSITY	 ?OF	 ?BRITISH	 ?COLUMBIA	 ?	 ?(Vancouver)	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?February	 ?2014	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ??	 ?Elizabeth	 ?Ann	 ?Welch,	 ?2014	 ?	 ? ii	 ?	 ?Abstract	 ?	 ? Sexual	 ?violence	 ?is	 ?characterized	 ?by	 ?inequality:	 ?it	 ?is	 ?a	 ?gendered	 ?crime	 ?whose	 ?perpetrators	 ?frequently	 ?escape	 ?criminal	 ?responsibility.	 ?The	 ?inequality	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?violence	 ?has	 ?been	 ?masked	 ?and	 ?perpetuated	 ?by	 ?rape	 ?myths	 ?about	 ??real?	 ?sexual	 ?assault	 ?embedded	 ?in	 ?the	 ?law.	 ?Feminist	 ?reformers	 ?have	 ?struggled	 ?to	 ?have	 ?the	 ?law	 ?eliminate	 ?rape	 ?myths	 ?and	 ?recognize	 ?sexual	 ?offences	 ?as	 ?gendered	 ?violence;	 ?this	 ?struggle	 ?continues.	 ?	 ?	 ? In	 ?this	 ?thesis	 ?the	 ?author	 ?explores	 ?the	 ?judicial	 ?expression	 ?of	 ?rape	 ?myths	 ?in	 ?a	 ?sample	 ?of	 ?recent	 ?B.C.	 ?sentencing	 ?decisions.	 ?She	 ?analyzes	 ?two	 ?aspects	 ?of	 ?the	 ?cases,	 ?doctrine	 ?and	 ?discourse,	 ?to	 ?ascertain	 ?whether	 ?judges	 ?reproduced	 ?discriminatory	 ?beliefs	 ?about	 ?sexual	 ?violence	 ?in	 ?their	 ?interpretations	 ?of	 ?law	 ?or	 ?their	 ?narratives.	 ?	 ?	 ? The	 ?thesis	 ?found	 ?that	 ?courts	 ?expressed	 ?rape	 ?myths	 ?in	 ?some	 ?recent	 ?sentencing	 ?cases.	 ?Rape	 ?myths	 ?appeared	 ?in	 ?constructions	 ?of	 ?violence	 ?that	 ?turned	 ?on	 ?penetration,	 ?the	 ?notion	 ?of	 ?the	 ?dangerous	 ?stranger,	 ?and	 ?definitions	 ?of	 ?violence	 ?that	 ?excluded	 ?coercion,	 ?manipulation,	 ?and	 ?exploitation.	 ?They	 ?also	 ?appeared	 ?when	 ?judges	 ?used	 ?terms	 ?that	 ?were	 ?more	 ?appropriate	 ?for	 ?narratives	 ?of	 ?sex	 ?or	 ?romance	 ?than	 ?sexual	 ?violence.	 ?Rape	 ?myths	 ?underpinned	 ?courts?	 ?use	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?history	 ?evidence,	 ?findings	 ?that	 ?survivors	 ??consented?	 ?to	 ?offences,	 ?and	 ?failures	 ?to	 ?seriously	 ?consider	 ?harm	 ?to	 ??risky?	 ?survivors.	 ?They	 ?also	 ?propped	 ?up	 ?the	 ?doctrines	 ?that	 ??good?	 ?offenders	 ?and	 ?intoxicated	 ?offenders	 ?are	 ?less	 ?blameworthy	 ?or	 ?dangerous,	 ?and	 ?informed	 ?language	 ?that	 ?obscured	 ?offender	 ?agency	 ?and	 ?responsibility,	 ?including	 ?the	 ?frequent	 ?use	 ?of	 ?terms	 ?that	 ?expressed	 ?doubt	 ?about	 ?legal	 ?findings	 ?of	 ?guilt.	 ?	 ? iii	 ?	 ? The	 ?author	 ?speculates	 ?the	 ?enduring	 ?influence	 ?of	 ?rape	 ?myths	 ?appeared	 ?not	 ?because	 ?of	 ?judges?	 ?intention	 ?to	 ?discriminate	 ?but	 ?the	 ?neoliberal	 ?approach	 ?that	 ?guides	 ?legal	 ?thinking.	 ?Informed	 ?by	 ?notions	 ?of	 ?rationality	 ?and	 ?risk,	 ?courts	 ?ignored	 ?the	 ?inequality	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?violence,	 ?particularly	 ?gender	 ?inequality.	 ?With	 ?inequality	 ?and	 ?vulnerability	 ?erased	 ?from	 ?consideration,	 ?the	 ?line	 ?between	 ?consensual	 ?sex	 ?and	 ?violence	 ?blurred,	 ?most	 ?conspicuously	 ?in	 ?sexual	 ?offences	 ?against	 ?adolescents	 ?and	 ?women	 ?perceived	 ?as	 ?taking	 ?undue	 ?risks.	 ?Therefore,	 ?this	 ?thesis	 ?suggests	 ?that	 ?the	 ?law	 ?should	 ?be	 ?cognizant	 ?of	 ?the	 ?unequal	 ?and	 ?gendered	 ?nature	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?violence	 ?by	 ?situating	 ?it	 ?in	 ?its	 ?social	 ?context,	 ?an	 ?approach	 ?that	 ?will	 ?ultimately	 ?help	 ?to	 ?promote	 ?equality	 ?within	 ?the	 ?law.	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ? 	 ?	 ? iv	 ?Preface	 ?This	 ?dissertation	 ?is	 ?original,	 ?unpublished,	 ?independent	 ?work	 ?by	 ?the	 ?author,	 ?Elizabeth	 ?Ann	 ?Welch.	 ?	 ? 	 ?	 ? v	 ?Table	 ?of	 ?Contents	 ?Abstract	 ?.....................................................................................................................................................................	 ?ii	 ?Preface	 ?......................................................................................................................................................................	 ?iv	 ?Table	 ?of	 ?Contents	 ?..................................................................................................................................................	 ?v	 ?Acknowledgements	 ?.........................................................................................................................................	 ?viii	 ?I.	 ?Introduction	 ?........................................................................................................................................................	 ?1	 ?A.	 ? Sexual	 ?Violence	 ?as	 ?Inequality	 ?............................................................................................................	 ?2	 ?B.	 ? Rape	 ?Myths	 ?in	 ?the	 ?Criminal	 ?Justice	 ?System	 ?................................................................................	 ?8	 ?C.	 ? Description	 ?of	 ?Thesis	 ?.........................................................................................................................	 ?14	 ?Research	 ?Objective	 ?and	 ?Approach	 ?...................................................................................................	 ?15	 ?Findings	 ?.......................................................................................................................................................	 ?18	 ?D.	 ? A	 ?Note	 ?on	 ?Language	 ?...........................................................................................................................	 ?22	 ?II.	 ?Context	 ?..............................................................................................................................................................	 ?24	 ?A.	 ? Sexual	 ?Assault	 ?Law	 ?of	 ?the	 ?Past	 ?......................................................................................................	 ?24	 ?Substantive	 ?Law:	 ?Sexual	 ?Offences	 ?to	 ?Protect	 ?Male	 ?Interests	 ?...............................................	 ?25	 ?Distrust	 ?and	 ?the	 ?Exceptional	 ?Evidentiary	 ?Requirements	 ?in	 ?Sexual	 ?Offence	 ?Trials	 ?....	 ?28	 ?B.	 ? The	 ?Past	 ?Approach	 ?to	 ?Sentencing	 ?Sexual	 ?Offenders	 ?............................................................	 ?32	 ?The	 ?History	 ?of	 ?Sentencing	 ?for	 ?Sexual	 ?Offences	 ?in	 ?Canada	 ?.....................................................	 ?32	 ?Rape	 ?Myths	 ?in	 ?Sentencing	 ?in	 ?the	 ?Past	 ?............................................................................................	 ?35	 ?Sentencing	 ?Prior	 ?to	 ?the	 ?1982	 ?Reforms	 ?..........................................................................................	 ?37	 ?C.	 ? The	 ?Current	 ?Law	 ?of	 ?Sexual	 ?Assault	 ?..............................................................................................	 ?44	 ?Advocacy,	 ?Amendments,	 ?and	 ?Resistance	 ?......................................................................................	 ?44	 ?The	 ?Current	 ?Law	 ?of	 ?Sexual	 ?Offences	 ?...............................................................................................	 ?50	 ?The	 ?Undoing	 ?of	 ?Feminist	 ?Gains	 ?in	 ?Sexual	 ?Assault	 ?Law	 ?...........................................................	 ?55	 ?D.	 ? The	 ?Current	 ?Approach	 ?to	 ?Sentencing	 ?Sexual	 ?Offenders	 ?.....................................................	 ?66	 ?	 ? vi	 ?The	 ?Law	 ?of	 ?Sentencing	 ?..........................................................................................................................	 ?67	 ?Divergent	 ?Feminist	 ?Approaches	 ?and	 ?Overarching	 ?Concerns	 ?...............................................	 ?74	 ?Sentencing	 ?of	 ?Sexual	 ?Offenders:	 ?The	 ?Law	 ?and	 ?Feminist	 ?Research	 ?....................................	 ?78	 ?E.	 ? Incomplete	 ?Knowledge	 ?.....................................................................................................................	 ?87	 ?III.	 ?Conceptual	 ?Approach	 ?and	 ?Methodology	 ?..........................................................................................	 ?89	 ?A.	 ? Conceptual	 ?Framework	 ?....................................................................................................................	 ?89	 ?A	 ?Feminist	 ?Approach	 ?to	 ?Sexual	 ?Violence	 ?......................................................................................	 ?90	 ?The	 ?Law	 ?as	 ?Discourse:	 ?A	 ?Powerful	 ?Voice	 ?......................................................................................	 ?91	 ?B.	 ? Methodology	 ?.........................................................................................................................................	 ?96	 ?Doctrinal:	 ?An	 ?Expansive	 ?Approach	 ?.................................................................................................	 ?97	 ?Non-??Doctrinal:	 ?Feminist	 ?Discourse	 ?Analysis	 ?..............................................................................	 ?99	 ?Limitations	 ?...............................................................................................................................................	 ?101	 ?Gathering	 ?the	 ?Case	 ?Sample	 ?...............................................................................................................	 ?103	 ?IV.	 ?Case	 ?Sample	 ?Characteristics:	 ?Gendered	 ?Violence	 ?and	 ?Missing	 ?Pieces	 ?...............................	 ?106	 ?V.	 ?Doctrinal	 ?Analysis	 ?......................................................................................................................................	 ?111	 ?A.	 ? The	 ?Principles	 ?of	 ?Sentencing:	 ?An	 ?Asymmetrical	 ?Approach	 ?to	 ?Context	 ?and	 ?Vulnerability	 ?.................................................................................................................................................	 ?115	 ?B.	 ? The	 ?Relevance	 ?and	 ?Fairness	 ?of	 ?Sexual	 ?History	 ?Evidence	 ?.................................................	 ?119	 ?C.	 ? The	 ?Interpretation	 ?and	 ?Application	 ?of	 ?Aggravating	 ?and	 ?Mitigating	 ?Factors	 ?...........	 ?124	 ?Portrayals	 ?of	 ?Violence	 ?.........................................................................................................................	 ?125	 ?Relationships	 ?and	 ?Stranger	 ?Danger	 ?..............................................................................................	 ?142	 ?Causes	 ?of	 ?Offences	 ?and	 ?Treatment	 ?................................................................................................	 ?144	 ?Good	 ?Offenders	 ?......................................................................................................................................	 ?150	 ?Different	 ?Understandings	 ?of	 ?Harm	 ?to	 ?Survivors	 ?.....................................................................	 ?159	 ?D.	 ? Feminist	 ?Considerations	 ?................................................................................................................	 ?167	 ?	 ? vii	 ?VI.	 ?Discourse	 ?Analysis	 ?....................................................................................................................................	 ?171	 ?A.	 ? The	 ?Contributions	 ?of	 ?Offenders	 ?to	 ?Narrative:	 ?Survivor	 ?Blaming	 ?.................................	 ?173	 ?B.	 ? Narratives	 ?of	 ?Offences	 ?.....................................................................................................................	 ?174	 ?Eroticization	 ?and	 ?Minimization	 ?of	 ?Sexual	 ?Violence	 ?...............................................................	 ?175	 ?Agency:	 ?Invisible	 ?Offenders	 ?and	 ?Survivor	 ?Co-??Agents	 ?...........................................................	 ?182	 ?Causes	 ?of	 ?Offences:	 ?Intoxication	 ?and	 ?Risk	 ?..................................................................................	 ?186	 ?C.	 ? Undermining	 ?Findings	 ?of	 ?Guilt	 ?....................................................................................................	 ?191	 ?VII.	 ?Discussion	 ?...................................................................................................................................................	 ?194	 ?Themes:	 ?Sex	 ?and	 ?Context-??Blindness	 ?..................................................................................................	 ?194	 ?The	 ?Adaptation	 ?of	 ?Rape	 ?Myths	 ?.............................................................................................................	 ?198	 ?VIII.	 ?Conclusion	 ?.................................................................................................................................................	 ?203	 ?Rape	 ?Myths	 ?In	 ?Sentencing	 ?Today	 ?........................................................................................................	 ?205	 ?Unfinished	 ?Reforms	 ?...................................................................................................................................	 ?210	 ?Bibliography	 ?......................................................................................................................................................	 ?217	 ?	 ?	 ? 	 ?	 ? viii	 ?Acknowledgements	 ?	 ? Many	 ?other	 ?people	 ?have	 ?made	 ?this	 ?thesis	 ?possible.	 ?A	 ?large	 ?number	 ?are	 ?a	 ?part	 ?of	 ?the	 ?community	 ?at	 ?the	 ?Faculty	 ?of	 ?Law	 ?at	 ?UBC:	 ?I	 ?am	 ?thankful	 ?to	 ?faculty,	 ?staff	 ?and	 ?students	 ?for	 ?fostering	 ?a	 ?supportive	 ?and	 ?stimulating	 ?environment	 ?where	 ?I	 ?felt	 ?encouraged	 ?to	 ?explore	 ?new	 ?ideas	 ?and	 ?challenge	 ?myself.	 ?	 ? I	 ?extend	 ?my	 ?deep	 ?gratitude	 ?to	 ?my	 ?supervisor,	 ?Professor	 ?Janine	 ?Benedet.	 ?My	 ?thesis	 ?could	 ?not	 ?exist	 ?without	 ?her	 ?guidance	 ?and	 ?support:	 ?from	 ?our	 ?first	 ?meeting	 ?up	 ?until	 ?I	 ?submitted	 ?my	 ?thesis	 ?in	 ?its	 ?final	 ?form,	 ?she	 ?has	 ?been	 ?an	 ?incredible	 ?resource	 ?for	 ?her	 ?huge	 ?depth	 ?of	 ?knowledge	 ?about	 ?sexual	 ?assault	 ?law.	 ?Always	 ?generous	 ?with	 ?her	 ?time	 ?and	 ?often	 ?with	 ?great	 ?humour,	 ?she	 ?encouraged	 ?me	 ?to	 ?consider	 ?issues	 ?from	 ?different	 ?perspectives,	 ?challenged	 ?me	 ?to	 ?think	 ?more	 ?critically,	 ?and	 ?helped	 ?me	 ?develop	 ?and	 ?structure	 ?my	 ?ideas.	 ?	 ?	 ? I	 ?am	 ?also	 ?hugely	 ?indebted	 ?to	 ?Professor	 ?Isabel	 ?Grant	 ?for	 ?her	 ?thoughtful	 ?insights	 ?and	 ?comments,	 ?which	 ?greatly	 ?contributed	 ?to	 ?my	 ?thesis,	 ?particularly	 ?how	 ?I	 ?framed	 ?and	 ?presented	 ?my	 ?work.	 ?	 ? I	 ?wish	 ?to	 ?thank	 ?the	 ?law	 ?faculty	 ?for	 ?the	 ?financial	 ?support	 ?they	 ?provided	 ?me	 ?through	 ?the	 ?Law	 ?Faculty	 ?Scholarship.	 ?The	 ?faculty?s	 ?generous	 ?support	 ?allowed	 ?me	 ?the	 ?freedom	 ?to	 ?focus	 ?on	 ?my	 ?studies	 ?and	 ?participate	 ?in	 ?the	 ?graduate	 ?law	 ?community,	 ?including	 ?my	 ?involvement	 ?in	 ?the	 ?UBC	 ?Graduate	 ?Law	 ?Students?	 ?Society	 ?and	 ?annual	 ?UBC	 ?Graduate	 ?Law	 ?Conference,	 ?experiences	 ?that	 ?enriched	 ?my	 ?time	 ?at	 ?UBC.	 ?	 ?	 ? I	 ?also	 ?owe	 ?a	 ?debt	 ?to	 ?Joanne	 ?Chung	 ?for	 ?all	 ?she	 ?has	 ?done	 ?in	 ?helping	 ?me	 ?find	 ?my	 ?way	 ?through	 ?the	 ?program.	 ?	 ? ix	 ?	 ? Finally,	 ?I	 ?am	 ?grateful	 ?to	 ?my	 ?family	 ?and	 ?friends	 ?for	 ?always	 ?supporting	 ?and	 ?encouraging	 ?me.	 ?I	 ?do	 ?not	 ?say	 ?enough	 ?how	 ?thankful	 ?I	 ?am	 ?for	 ?the	 ?wonderful	 ?people	 ?who	 ?cheer	 ?me	 ?on	 ?everyday.	 ?My	 ?love	 ?and	 ?gratitude	 ?to	 ?my	 ?sister,	 ?my	 ?parents,	 ?and	 ?my	 ?friends.	 ?I	 ?am	 ?especially	 ?grateful	 ?to	 ?my	 ?school	 ?buddies:	 ?thank	 ?you	 ?to	 ?Sarah	 ?for	 ?providing	 ?encouragement	 ?and	 ?feedback	 ?throughout	 ?our	 ?time	 ?at	 ?UBC	 ?and	 ?to	 ?George	 ?for	 ?his	 ?always	 ?sage	 ?and	 ?timely	 ?advice.	 ?And	 ?lastly,	 ?I	 ?am	 ?grateful	 ?to	 ?Simon,	 ?my	 ?favourite,	 ?for	 ?his	 ?support	 ?and	 ?confidence	 ?in	 ?me	 ?as	 ?well	 ?as	 ?his	 ?eagerness	 ?to	 ?debate	 ?all	 ?points	 ?of	 ?the	 ?law	 ?at	 ?all	 ?hours	 ?of	 ?the	 ?night.	 ?	 ?	 ? 1	 ?I.	 ?Introduction	 ?	 ? Sexual	 ?violence	 ?is	 ?a	 ?unique	 ?crime:	 ?it	 ?is	 ?prevalent,	 ?committed	 ?by	 ?men	 ?against	 ?women	 ?and	 ?girls,	 ?and	 ?largely	 ?unaddressed	 ?by	 ?the	 ?criminal	 ?justice	 ?system.	 ?All	 ?of	 ?these	 ?aspects	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?violence	 ?manifest	 ?its	 ?underlying	 ?character	 ?as	 ?a	 ?crime	 ?of	 ?inequality.	 ?This	 ?inequality	 ?has	 ?been	 ?perpetuated	 ?and	 ?masked	 ?by	 ?rape	 ?myths	 ?that	 ?tell	 ?a	 ?story	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?violence	 ?as	 ?natural,	 ?not	 ?harmful,	 ?and	 ?the	 ?fault	 ?of	 ?women	 ?and	 ?children	 ?rather	 ?than	 ?the	 ?men	 ?who	 ?commit	 ?it.	 ?Portrayed	 ?in	 ?social	 ?and	 ?legal	 ?discourse	 ?as	 ??commonsense,?	 ?rape	 ?myths	 ?also	 ?tell	 ?us	 ?that	 ?sexual	 ?violence	 ?is	 ?a	 ?lot	 ?like	 ?sex,	 ?marred	 ?by	 ?misunderstanding	 ?or	 ?an	 ?excess	 ?of	 ?testosterone.	 ?Feminist	 ?reformers	 ?have	 ?struggled	 ?to	 ?have	 ?the	 ?law	 ?recognize	 ?that	 ?sexual	 ?violence	 ?is	 ?not	 ?sex	 ?but	 ?violence,	 ?and	 ?gendered	 ?violence	 ?at	 ?that;	 ?ultimately,	 ?however,	 ?this	 ?project	 ?is	 ?unfinished.	 ?	 ?	 ? To	 ?contribute	 ?to	 ?the	 ?existing	 ?knowledge	 ?about	 ?the	 ?use	 ?of	 ?rape	 ?myths	 ?in	 ?the	 ?law,	 ?I	 ?crafted	 ?a	 ?research	 ?project	 ?to	 ?explore	 ?the	 ?judicial	 ?expression	 ?of	 ?rape	 ?myths	 ?in	 ?sentencing.	 ?In	 ?this	 ?thesis,	 ?I	 ?analyze	 ?sentencing	 ?decisions	 ?for	 ?two	 ?purposes:	 ?to	 ?ascertain	 ?whether	 ?judges	 ?reproduced	 ?or	 ?constructed	 ?discriminatory	 ?and	 ?gendered	 ?beliefs	 ?about	 ?sexual	 ?violence	 ?in	 ?their	 ?interpretations	 ?of	 ?legal	 ?doctrine	 ?and	 ?whether	 ?judges	 ?used	 ?discriminatory	 ?constructions	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?violence	 ?in	 ?their	 ?narratives	 ?of	 ?facts.	 ?	 ?	 ? Drawing	 ?on	 ?the	 ?works	 ?of	 ?other	 ?feminist	 ?researchers,	 ?I	 ?found	 ?that	 ?judges	 ?used	 ?a	 ?neoliberal1	 ?approach	 ?while	 ?explaining	 ?their	 ?decisions	 ?for	 ?sentencing	 ?sexual	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?1	 ?By	 ?neoliberalism,	 ?I	 ?refer	 ?to	 ?the	 ?theory	 ?in	 ?which	 ?market	 ?logic	 ?and	 ?ethics,	 ?such	 ?as	 ?the	 ?principles	 ?of	 ?individual	 ?risk,	 ?responsibility,	 ?and	 ?rationality,	 ?are	 ?applied	 ?beyond	 ?the	 ?marketplace	 ?to	 ?non-??economic	 ?institutions	 ?and	 ?discourses,	 ?including	 ?legal	 ?ones:	 ?Lise	 ?Gotell,	 ??Rethinking	 ?Affirmative	 ?Consent	 ?in	 ?	 ? 2	 ?offenders.	 ?In	 ?accordance	 ?with	 ?this	 ?paradigm,	 ?judges	 ?largely	 ?ignored	 ?the	 ?unequal	 ?nature	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?violence,	 ?in	 ?particular,	 ?its	 ?gendered	 ?character	 ?and	 ?use	 ?as	 ?a	 ?tool	 ?of	 ?oppression	 ?of	 ?women	 ?and	 ?girls.	 ?Using	 ?this	 ?lens,	 ?judges	 ?also	 ?sometimes	 ?blurred	 ?the	 ?line	 ?between	 ?consensual	 ?sex	 ?and	 ?violence,	 ?depicting	 ?sexual	 ?violence	 ?as	 ?bad	 ?sex,	 ?just	 ?as	 ?the	 ?rape	 ?myths	 ?endorse.	 ?	 ?	 ? But	 ?before	 ?I	 ?explain	 ?the	 ?approach	 ?I	 ?take	 ?in	 ?this	 ?thesis	 ?as	 ?well	 ?as	 ?my	 ?findings,	 ?I	 ?wish	 ?to	 ?illustrate	 ?the	 ?problem:	 ?the	 ?gendered	 ?violence	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?violence	 ?in	 ?Canada	 ?and	 ?the	 ?rape	 ?myths	 ?that	 ?justify	 ?it.	 ?	 ?A. Sexual	 ?Violence	 ?as	 ?Inequality	 ?	 ? Sexual	 ?violence	 ?is	 ?a	 ?crime	 ?of	 ?inequality,	 ?committed	 ?almost	 ?entirely	 ?by	 ?men	 ?against	 ?women	 ?and	 ?girls.2	 ?Men	 ?commit	 ?sexual	 ?assault	 ?with	 ?frightening	 ?regularity,	 ?and	 ?they	 ?frequently	 ?escape	 ?punishment	 ?for	 ?it.	 ?	 ?	 ? Specifically,	 ?nearly	 ?all	 ?of	 ?those	 ?charged	 ?by	 ?police	 ?for	 ?sexual	 ?offences	 ?are	 ?men.	 ?Women	 ?account	 ?for	 ?86	 ?percent	 ?of	 ?survivors.3	 ?Statistics	 ?Canada?s	 ?2013	 ?Violence	 ?Against	 ?Women	 ?Survey	 ?found	 ?that	 ??[w]omen	 ?were	 ?eleven	 ?times	 ?more	 ?likely	 ?than	 ?men	 ?to	 ?be	 ?a	 ?victim	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?offences?.4	 ?	 ?	 ? The	 ?gendered	 ?nature	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?violence	 ?intersects	 ?with	 ?other	 ?forms	 ?of	 ?inequality	 ?and	 ?vulnerability.	 ?For	 ?example,	 ?58	 ?percent	 ?of	 ?survivors	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?offences	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?Canadian	 ?Sexual	 ?Assault	 ?Law:	 ?Neoliberal	 ?Sexual	 ?Subjects	 ?and	 ?Risky	 ?Women?	 ?(2008)	 ?41	 ?Akron	 ?L	 ?Rev	 ?865	 ?at	 ?874	 ?[?Rethinking	 ?Consent?].	 ?2	 ?Throughout	 ?this	 ?thesis,	 ?when	 ?I	 ?use	 ?the	 ?term	 ??women,?	 ?I	 ?mean	 ?both	 ?women	 ?and	 ?girls.	 ?3	 ?Holly	 ?Johnson,	 ??Limits	 ?of	 ?a	 ?Criminal	 ?Justice	 ?Response:	 ?Trends	 ?in	 ?Police	 ?and	 ?Court	 ?Processing	 ?of	 ?Sexual	 ?Assault?	 ?in	 ?Elizabeth	 ?A	 ?Sheehy,	 ?ed,	 ?Sexual	 ?Assault	 ?in	 ?Canada:	 ?Law,	 ?Legal	 ?Practice	 ?and	 ?Women?s	 ?Activism	 ?(Ottawa:	 ?University	 ?of	 ?Ottawa	 ?Press,	 ?2012)	 ?613	 ?at	 ?613	 ?[?Limits?];	 ?See	 ?also	 ?Marie	 ?Sinha,	 ?Measuring	 ?Violence	 ?Against	 ?Women:	 ?Statistical	 ?Trends,	 ?Statistics	 ?Canada	 ?85-??002-??X	 ?(Minister	 ?of	 ?Industry,	 ?2013)	 ?at	 ?29?31;	 ?Holly	 ?Johnson,	 ?Measuring	 ?Violence	 ?Against	 ?Women:	 ?Statistical	 ?Trends	 ?2006,	 ?Statistics	 ?Canada	 ?85-??570-??XIE	 ?(Minister	 ?of	 ?Industry,	 ?2006)	 ?at	 ?36	 ?[?Statistical	 ?Trends?].	 ?4	 ?Sinha,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?3	 ?at	 ?8.	 ?	 ? 3	 ?are	 ?under	 ?the	 ?age	 ?of	 ?18.	 ?Among	 ?children,	 ?gender	 ?inequality	 ?makes	 ?girls	 ?the	 ?most	 ?vulnerable;	 ?however,	 ?adult	 ?men	 ?also	 ?victimize	 ?boys,	 ?especially	 ?young	 ?boys,	 ?who	 ?account	 ?for	 ?30	 ?percent	 ?of	 ?survivors	 ?under	 ?12	 ?years	 ?old.5	 ?As	 ?Catharine	 ?A.	 ?MacKinnon	 ?succinctly	 ?observed,	 ??[m]en	 ?do	 ?this	 ?to	 ?women	 ?and	 ?to	 ?girls,	 ?boys,	 ?and	 ?other	 ?men,	 ?in	 ?that	 ?order.	 ?Women	 ?hardly	 ?ever	 ?do	 ?this	 ?to	 ?men.?6	 ?	 ? Aboriginal	 ?women	 ?are	 ?also	 ?vulnerable	 ?to	 ?violent	 ?crime,	 ?including	 ?sexual	 ?violence,	 ?and	 ?are	 ?more	 ?often	 ?injured	 ?by	 ?crime	 ?than	 ?non-??Aboriginal	 ?women.	 ?The	 ?high	 ?numbers	 ?of	 ?missing	 ?and	 ?murdered	 ?Aboriginal	 ?women	 ?bear	 ?out	 ?this	 ?tragic	 ?fact.7	 ?Women	 ?in	 ?prostitution,	 ?who	 ?are	 ?disproportionately	 ?Aboriginal,	 ?also	 ?face	 ?extremely	 ?high	 ?rates	 ?of	 ?violence.8	 ?	 ? Although	 ?its	 ?prevalence	 ?is	 ?not	 ?actually	 ?known	 ?due	 ?to	 ?underreporting,	 ?we	 ?do	 ?know	 ?that	 ?sexual	 ?violence	 ?is	 ?commonplace.	 ?Canadian	 ?studies	 ?have	 ?variously	 ?found	 ?that	 ?one	 ?quarter	 ?of	 ?female	 ?university	 ?students	 ?will	 ?experience	 ?rape	 ?or	 ?attempted	 ?rape	 ?while	 ?at	 ?school,9	 ?nearly	 ?40	 ?percent	 ?of	 ?women	 ?have	 ?been	 ?sexually	 ?assaulted	 ?since	 ?they	 ?turned	 ?16,	 ?and	 ?three	 ?percent	 ?of	 ?adult	 ?women	 ?are	 ?sexually	 ?assaulted	 ?every	 ?year.10	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?5	 ?Johnson,	 ??Statistical	 ?Trends?,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?3	 ?at	 ?36?37.	 ?6	 ?Catharine	 ?A	 ?MacKinnon,	 ??Reflections	 ?on	 ?Sex	 ?Equality	 ?Under	 ?Law?	 ?(1990)	 ?100	 ?Yale	 ?LJ	 ?1281	 ?at	 ?1302	 ?[?Reflections?];	 ?Women	 ?do	 ?sometimes	 ?aggress	 ?sexually,	 ?although	 ?the	 ?numbers	 ?are	 ?small	 ?as	 ?a	 ?percentage	 ?of	 ?total	 ?assaults:	 ?Shannon	 ?Brennan	 ?&	 ?Andrea	 ?Taylor-??Butts,	 ?Sexual	 ?Assault	 ?in	 ?Canada:	 ?2004	 ?and	 ?2007,	 ?Canadian	 ?Centre	 ?for	 ?Justice	 ?Statistics	 ?Profile	 ?Series	 ?85F0033M	 ?(Minister	 ?of	 ?Industry,	 ?2008)	 ?at	 ?13.	 ?7	 ?Sinha,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?3	 ?at	 ?19;	 ?See	 ?also	 ?Sherene	 ?H	 ?Razack,	 ??Gendered	 ?Racial	 ?Violence	 ?and	 ?Spatialized	 ?Justice:	 ?The	 ?Murder	 ?of	 ?Pamela	 ?George?	 ?(2000)	 ?15	 ?CJLS	 ?91.	 ?8	 ?Johnson,	 ??Statistical	 ?Trends?,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?3	 ?at	 ?39;	 ?See	 ?also	 ?Razack,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?7.	 ?9	 ?Johnson,	 ??Limits?,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?3	 ?at	 ?615.	 ?10	 ?Johnson,	 ??Statistical	 ?Trends?,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?3	 ?at	 ?24.	 ?	 ? 4	 ?	 ? Sexual	 ?assault	 ?is	 ?part	 ?of	 ?the	 ?larger	 ?problem	 ?of	 ?violence	 ?against	 ?women,	 ?a	 ?larger	 ?category	 ?of	 ?crime	 ?that	 ?is	 ??the	 ?everyday	 ?menu	 ?of	 ?our	 ?criminal	 ?courts.?11	 ?Despite	 ?their	 ?commonality,	 ?the	 ?bulk	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?offences	 ?do	 ?not	 ?make	 ?it	 ?before	 ?the	 ?courts;	 ?fewer	 ?still	 ?result	 ?in	 ?criminal	 ?liability.	 ?	 ?	 ? Reporting	 ?rates	 ?for	 ?sexual	 ?violence	 ?are	 ?very	 ?low.	 ?Victimization	 ?surveys,	 ?which	 ?likely	 ?underestimate	 ?the	 ?incidence	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?violence,	 ?reveal	 ?that	 ?fewer	 ?than	 ?one	 ?out	 ?of	 ?every	 ?ten	 ?sexual	 ?assaults	 ?comes	 ?to	 ?the	 ?attention	 ?of	 ?police.12	 ?Survivors	 ?do	 ?not	 ?report	 ?for	 ?many	 ?personal	 ?reasons;	 ?however,	 ?contributing	 ?to	 ?these	 ?reasons	 ?are	 ?myths	 ?that	 ?blame	 ?and	 ?shame	 ?women	 ?for	 ?sexual	 ?violence	 ?as	 ?well	 ?as	 ?the	 ?prevalence	 ?of	 ?violence	 ?against	 ?them,	 ?so	 ?that	 ?women	 ?fear	 ?they	 ?will	 ?not	 ?be	 ?believed	 ?or	 ?taken	 ?seriously	 ?by	 ?police,	 ?their	 ?families,	 ?and	 ?their	 ?communities,	 ?and	 ?fear	 ?that	 ?offenders	 ?or	 ?others	 ?will	 ?retaliate	 ?against	 ?them.13	 ?	 ? Compounding	 ?the	 ?problem	 ?of	 ?low	 ?reporting	 ?is	 ?the	 ?high	 ?rates	 ?at	 ?which	 ?police	 ?unfound	 ?or	 ?dismiss	 ?complaints	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?offences	 ?and	 ?the	 ?low	 ?rates	 ?at	 ?which	 ?courts	 ?convict.	 ?In	 ?1977,	 ?Lorenne	 ?Clark	 ?and	 ?Debra	 ?Lewis	 ?discovered	 ?a	 ??highly	 ?selective	 ?process	 ?of	 ?elimination?	 ?in	 ?their	 ?watershed	 ?study,	 ?finding	 ?that	 ??[o]nly	 ?a	 ?fraction	 ?of	 ?all	 ?rapes	 ?are	 ?reported;	 ?only	 ?a	 ?fraction	 ?of	 ?reported	 ?rapes	 ?are	 ?classified	 ?as	 ?founded;	 ?only	 ?a	 ?fraction	 ?of	 ?founded	 ?cases	 ?lead	 ?to	 ?an	 ?arrest;	 ?and	 ?only	 ?a	 ?fraction	 ?of	 ?suspects	 ?arrested	 ?are	 ?convicted.?14	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?11	 ?The	 ?Honourable	 ?Claire	 ?L?Heureux-??Dub?,	 ??Still	 ?Punished	 ?for	 ?Being	 ?Female?	 ?in	 ?Elizabeth	 ?A	 ?Sheehy,	 ?ed,	 ?Sexual	 ?Assault	 ?in	 ?Canada:	 ?Law,	 ?Legal	 ?Practice	 ?and	 ?Women?s	 ?Activism	 ?(Ottawa:	 ?University	 ?of	 ?Ottawa	 ?Press,	 ?2012)	 ?1	 ?at	 ?3.	 ?12	 ?Johnson,	 ??Statistical	 ?Trends?,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?3	 ?at	 ?26;	 ?Johnson,	 ??Limits?,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?3	 ?at	 ?617.	 ?13	 ?Johnson,	 ??Limits?,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?3	 ?at	 ?623?624,	 ?626?627;	 ?Johnson,	 ??Statistical	 ?Trends?,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?3	 ?at	 ?57?58;	 ?See	 ?also	 ?Sinha,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?3	 ?at	 ?94?99.	 ?14	 ?Lorenne	 ?M	 ?G	 ?Clark	 ?&	 ?Debra	 ?J	 ?Lewis,	 ?Rape:	 ?The	 ?Price	 ?of	 ?Coercive	 ?Sexuality	 ?(Toronto:	 ?The	 ?Women?s	 ?Press,	 ?1977)	 ?at	 ?57.	 ?	 ? 5	 ?	 ? These	 ?problems	 ?continue	 ?today.	 ?Holly	 ?Johnson	 ?has	 ?recently	 ?confirmed	 ?that	 ?high	 ?rates	 ?of	 ?attrition	 ?for	 ?sexual	 ?offences	 ?exist	 ?in	 ?every	 ?phase	 ?of	 ?the	 ?criminal	 ?justice	 ?system.15	 ?As	 ?she	 ?details,	 ?for	 ?a	 ?sexual	 ?assault	 ?to	 ?result	 ?in	 ?conviction,	 ?a	 ?long	 ?chain	 ?of	 ?events	 ?must	 ?transpire.	 ?First,	 ?a	 ?report	 ?must	 ?be	 ?made	 ?to	 ?police,	 ?a	 ?very	 ?rare	 ?occurrence.	 ?For	 ?the	 ?complaint	 ?to	 ?go	 ?forward,	 ?police	 ?must	 ?make	 ?a	 ?record,	 ?investigate,	 ?and	 ?determine	 ?the	 ?complaint	 ?is	 ?legitimate,	 ?or	 ??founded?:	 ?police	 ?records	 ?and	 ?statistics	 ?show	 ?this	 ?occurs	 ?less	 ?often	 ?for	 ?sexual	 ?assault	 ?than	 ?for	 ?most	 ?other	 ?crimes,	 ?perhaps	 ?85	 ?percent	 ?of	 ?the	 ?time.16	 ?To	 ?pursue	 ?a	 ?founded	 ?complaint,	 ?police	 ?must	 ?lay	 ?a	 ?charge,	 ?which	 ?they	 ?do	 ?in	 ?less	 ?than	 ?fifty	 ?percent	 ?of	 ?founded	 ?sexual	 ?assault	 ?complaints.	 ?After	 ?that,	 ?Crown	 ?counsel	 ?must	 ?prosecute;	 ?they	 ?do	 ?this	 ?in	 ?half	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?assault	 ?complaints	 ?where	 ?charges	 ?are	 ?laid.	 ?Once	 ?prosecuted,	 ?half	 ?of	 ?accused	 ?are	 ?convicted	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?assault.	 ?Given	 ?the	 ?huge	 ?number	 ?of	 ?unreported	 ?sexual	 ?assaults	 ?and	 ?the	 ?attrition	 ?within	 ?the	 ?criminal	 ?justice	 ?system,	 ?nearly	 ?all	 ?occurrences	 ?are	 ?filtered	 ?out:	 ?according	 ?to	 ?Johnson,	 ?99.7	 ?percent	 ?do	 ?not	 ?lead	 ?to	 ?criminal	 ?conviction.17	 ?	 ?	 ? In	 ?nearly	 ?every	 ?case,	 ?offenders	 ?escape	 ?criminal	 ?responsibility;	 ?or,	 ?in	 ?the	 ?words	 ?of	 ?MacKinnon,	 ??[t]he	 ?atrocity	 ?is	 ?de	 ?jure	 ?illegal	 ?but	 ?de	 ?facto	 ?permitted.?18	 ?Although	 ?much	 ?of	 ?the	 ?low	 ?rates	 ?arise	 ?from	 ?non-??reporting,	 ?the	 ?current	 ?situation	 ?nonetheless	 ??amounts	 ?to	 ?impunity	 ?for	 ?sexually	 ?violent	 ?men	 ?in	 ?Canada.?19	 ?The	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?15	 ?Johnson,	 ??Limits?,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?3.	 ?16	 ?Johnson	 ?chose	 ?this	 ??conservative	 ?estimate?	 ?based	 ?on	 ?varying	 ?data	 ?which	 ?overall	 ?suggested	 ?sexual	 ?assaults	 ?are	 ???unfounded?	 ?to	 ?a	 ?far	 ?greater	 ?extent	 ?than	 ?any	 ?other	 ?crime?,	 ?including	 ?other	 ?assaults:	 ?Ibid	 ?at	 ?627?632;	 ?For	 ?another	 ?source	 ?of	 ?information	 ?on	 ?clearance	 ?and	 ?charging	 ?rates,	 ?see:	 ?Sinha,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?3	 ?at	 ?100?103.	 ?17	 ?Johnson,	 ??Limits?,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?3	 ?at	 ?627?632.	 ?18	 ?MacKinnon,	 ??Reflections?,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?6	 ?at	 ?1303.	 ?19	 ?Johnson,	 ??Limits?,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?3	 ?at	 ?633.	 ?	 ? 6	 ??justice	 ?gap?,	 ?more	 ?aptly	 ?described	 ?as	 ?a	 ??chasm?,20	 ?between	 ?the	 ?reality	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?violence	 ?and	 ?criminal	 ?recognition	 ?and	 ?responsibility	 ?is	 ?not	 ?just	 ?bad	 ?luck;21	 ?it	 ?is	 ?a	 ?reflection	 ?of	 ?the	 ?systemic	 ?inequality	 ?and	 ?oppression	 ?of	 ?women,	 ?including	 ?the	 ?silencing	 ?of	 ?their	 ?complaints	 ?and	 ?fears.	 ?	 ? Sexual	 ?violence	 ?is	 ?an	 ?act	 ?of	 ?gender	 ?inequality	 ?that	 ?is	 ?made	 ?possible	 ?by	 ?wider,	 ?societal	 ?inequality:	 ?	 ?Rape	 ?is	 ?an	 ?act	 ?of	 ?dominance	 ?over	 ?women	 ?that	 ?works	 ?systemically	 ?to	 ?maintain	 ?a	 ?gender-??stratified	 ?society	 ?in	 ?which	 ?women	 ?occupy	 ?a	 ?disadvantaged	 ?status	 ?as	 ?the	 ?appropriate	 ?victims	 ?and	 ?targets	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?aggression.22	 ?	 ?Gender	 ?inequality	 ?enables	 ?both	 ?the	 ?prevalence	 ?of	 ?men?s	 ?sexual	 ?violence	 ?against	 ?women	 ?and	 ?the	 ?failure	 ?of	 ?the	 ?criminal	 ?justice	 ?system	 ?to	 ?hold	 ?offenders	 ?accountable:	 ?inequality	 ?makes	 ?women	 ?victims	 ?of	 ?violent	 ?men	 ?and	 ?of	 ?injustice.	 ?Sexual	 ?violence	 ?must	 ?therefore	 ?be	 ?recognized	 ?as	 ?not	 ?merely	 ?the	 ?isolated	 ?actions	 ?of	 ?individual	 ?offenders,	 ?but	 ?the	 ?systemic	 ?actions	 ?of	 ?a	 ?patriarchal	 ?society.	 ?Sexually	 ?violent	 ?men	 ?are	 ?supported	 ?by	 ?ideologies	 ?and	 ?institutions	 ?that	 ?empower	 ?them	 ?and	 ?marginalize	 ?women,	 ?and	 ?this	 ?is	 ?why	 ?they	 ?can	 ??attack	 ?women	 ?and	 ?get	 ?away	 ?with	 ?it.?23	 ?	 ?	 ? Sexual	 ?assault	 ?operates	 ?as	 ??a	 ?mechanism	 ?of	 ?terror	 ?to	 ?control	 ?women?.24	 ?To	 ?be	 ?terrorized,	 ?all	 ?women	 ?do	 ?not	 ?need	 ?to	 ?be	 ?sexually	 ?assaulted;	 ?to	 ?know	 ?that	 ?to	 ?be	 ?raped	 ?is	 ?a	 ?part	 ?of	 ?feminine	 ?identity	 ?is	 ?enough.	 ?Through	 ?language	 ?and	 ?narratives	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?violence,	 ?women	 ?are	 ?socialized	 ?from	 ?an	 ?early	 ?age	 ?into	 ?their	 ?gender	 ?role	 ?as	 ?victims:	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?20	 ?Jennifer	 ?Temkin	 ?&	 ?Barbara	 ?Krah?,	 ?Sexual	 ?Assault	 ?and	 ?the	 ?Justice	 ?Gap:	 ?A	 ?Question	 ?of	 ?Attitude	 ?(Oxford	 ?and	 ?Portland,	 ?Oregon:	 ?Hart	 ?Publishing,	 ?2008)	 ?at	 ?10.	 ?21	 ?Johnson,	 ??Limits?,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?3	 ?at	 ?613.	 ?22	 ?MacKinnon,	 ??Reflections?,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?6	 ?at	 ?1302	 ?[footnote	 ?omitted].	 ?23	 ?Sheila	 ?McIntyre,	 ??Tracking	 ?and	 ?Resisting	 ?Backlash	 ?Against	 ?Equality	 ?Gains	 ?in	 ?Sexual	 ?Offence	 ?Law?	 ?(2000)	 ?20:3	 ?Canadian	 ?Woman	 ?Studies	 ?72	 ?at	 ?78.	 ?24	 ?MacKinnon,	 ??Reflections?,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?6	 ?at	 ?1302.	 ?	 ? 7	 ?Women	 ?are	 ?trained	 ?to	 ?be	 ?rape	 ?victims.	 ?To	 ?simply	 ?learn	 ?the	 ?word	 ??rape?	 ?is	 ?to	 ?take	 ?instruction	 ?in	 ?the	 ?power	 ?relationship	 ?between	 ?males	 ?and	 ?females.	 ?To	 ?talk	 ?about	 ?rape,	 ?even	 ?with	 ?nervous	 ?laughter,	 ?is	 ?to	 ?acknowledge	 ?a	 ?woman?s	 ?special	 ?victim	 ?status.	 ?We	 ?hear	 ?the	 ?whispers	 ?when	 ?we	 ?are	 ?children:	 ?girls	 ?get	 ?raped.	 ?Not	 ?boys.	 ?The	 ?message	 ?becomes	 ?clear.	 ?Rape	 ?has	 ?something	 ?to	 ?do	 ?with	 ?our	 ?sex.	 ?Rape	 ?is	 ?something	 ?awful	 ?that	 ?happens	 ?to	 ?females:	 ?it	 ?is	 ?the	 ?dark	 ?at	 ?the	 ?top	 ?of	 ?the	 ?stairs,	 ?the	 ?undefinable	 ?abyss	 ?that	 ?is	 ?just	 ?around	 ?the	 ?corner,	 ?and	 ?unless	 ?we	 ?watch	 ?our	 ?step	 ?it	 ?might	 ?become	 ?our	 ?destiny.25	 ?	 ?As	 ?a	 ?part	 ?of	 ?their	 ?gendered	 ?identity,	 ?women	 ?learn	 ?to	 ?see	 ?themselves	 ?as	 ?victims	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?violence,	 ?to	 ?fear	 ?sexual	 ?violence	 ?in	 ?their	 ?daily	 ?lives,	 ?to	 ?attempt	 ?to	 ?avoid	 ?it,	 ?and	 ?to	 ?take	 ?the	 ?blame	 ?for	 ?it,	 ?based	 ?on	 ?social	 ?norms	 ?about	 ?appropriate	 ?feminine	 ?chaste	 ?and	 ?risk-??averse	 ?behaviour.26	 ?In	 ?all	 ?these	 ?lessons,	 ?women	 ?most	 ?fundamentally	 ?learn	 ?of	 ?their	 ?inequality:	 ?sexual	 ?violence	 ??remind[s]	 ?women	 ?who	 ?has	 ?power	 ?over	 ?them	 ?and	 ?keep[s]	 ?them	 ?solidly	 ?in	 ?their	 ?places.?27	 ?	 ?	 ? As	 ?I	 ?explore,	 ?sexual	 ?violence	 ?and	 ?the	 ?law?s	 ?failure	 ?to	 ?address	 ?it	 ?have	 ?been	 ?accomplished	 ?in	 ?part	 ?through	 ?our	 ??deeply	 ?engrained	 ?societal	 ?attitudes	 ?that	 ?hold	 ?women	 ?responsible	 ?for	 ?sexual	 ?assault	 ?and	 ?absolve	 ?men	 ?of	 ?wrongdoing?.28	 ?These	 ?attitudes	 ?are	 ?based	 ?on	 ?gender	 ?roles,	 ?or	 ?appropriate	 ?behaviour	 ?for	 ?men	 ?and	 ?women	 ?in	 ?heterosexual	 ?interactions	 ?that	 ?largely	 ?dictate	 ?dominance	 ?and	 ?aggression	 ?in	 ?men	 ?and	 ?passivity	 ?and	 ?subordination	 ?in	 ?women.29	 ?In	 ?the	 ?context	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?violence,	 ?they	 ?are	 ?known	 ?as	 ?rape	 ?myths.	 ?These	 ??commonsense?	 ?beliefs	 ?and	 ?perceptions	 ?continue	 ?to	 ?be	 ?widely	 ?held	 ?among	 ?the	 ?public	 ?and	 ?influence	 ?the	 ?willingness	 ?of	 ?men	 ?to	 ?be	 ?sexually	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?25	 ?Susan	 ?Brownmiller,	 ?Against	 ?Our	 ?Will:	 ?Men,	 ?Women	 ?and	 ?Rape	 ?(New	 ?York:	 ?Fawcett	 ?Books,	 ?1975)	 ?at	 ?309.	 ?26	 ?R.	 ?v.	 ?Seaboyer;	 ?R.	 ?v.	 ?Gayme,	 ?[1991]	 ?2	 ?SCR	 ?577,	 ?1991	 ?CarswellOnt	 ?109	 ?at	 ?paras	 ?160-??162,	 ?L?Heureux-??Dub?	 ?J,	 ?dissenting	 ?[cited	 ?to	 ?CarswellOnt]	 ?[R.	 ?v.	 ?Seaboyer];	 ?MacKinnon,	 ??Reflections?,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?6	 ?at	 ?1302?1303;	 ?Clark	 ?&	 ?Lewis,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?14	 ?at	 ?23.	 ?27	 ?Clark	 ?&	 ?Lewis,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?14	 ?at	 ?28.	 ?28	 ?Johnson,	 ??Limits?,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?3	 ?at	 ?622.	 ?29	 ?Temkin	 ?&	 ?Krah?,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?20	 ?at	 ?33?34;	 ?Brownmiller,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?25	 ?at	 ?309?313;	 ?Susan	 ?Ehrlich,	 ?Representing	 ?Rape:	 ?Language	 ?and	 ?Sexual	 ?Consent	 ?(New	 ?York:	 ?Routledge,	 ?2001)	 ?at	 ?28?30;	 ?Carol	 ?Smart,	 ?Feminism	 ?and	 ?the	 ?Power	 ?of	 ?Law,	 ?Sociology	 ?of	 ?Law	 ?and	 ?Crime	 ?(London:	 ?Routledge,	 ?2002)	 ?at	 ?28?32	 ?[Feminism].	 ?	 ? 8	 ?violent,	 ?of	 ?women	 ?to	 ?engage	 ?the	 ?justice	 ?system	 ?for	 ?help,	 ?and	 ?of	 ?individuals	 ?to	 ?believe	 ?complaints	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?violence.30	 ?Rape	 ?myths	 ?have	 ?been	 ?adopted	 ?and	 ?reproduced	 ?by	 ?legislators,	 ?judges,	 ?and	 ?lawyers	 ?within	 ?legal	 ?doctrine	 ?and	 ?discourse;	 ?as	 ?a	 ?result,	 ?the	 ?law	 ?has	 ?rationalized	 ?and	 ?legitimated	 ?sexual	 ?violence	 ?and	 ?shielded	 ?offenders	 ?from	 ?sanction,	 ?one	 ?social	 ?institution	 ?among	 ?many	 ?enabling	 ?sexual	 ?violence.	 ?The	 ?expression	 ?of	 ?rape	 ?myths	 ?has	 ?been	 ?both	 ?tempered	 ?by	 ?reforms31	 ?and	 ?modified	 ?in	 ?tone	 ?by	 ?the	 ?emerging	 ?neoliberal	 ?paradigm.	 ?The	 ?expression	 ?of	 ?rape	 ?myths	 ?has	 ?decreased	 ?and	 ?has	 ?become	 ?subtler	 ?and	 ?less	 ?centred	 ?on	 ?feminine	 ?virtue.	 ?However,	 ?as	 ?feminist	 ?scholars	 ?have	 ?shown,	 ?the	 ?myths	 ?and	 ?their	 ?rationales	 ?continue	 ?in	 ?the	 ?law,	 ?indicating	 ?the	 ?need	 ?for	 ?further	 ?reforms.	 ?B. Rape	 ?Myths	 ?in	 ?the	 ?Criminal	 ?Justice	 ?System	 ?	 ? Rape	 ?myths	 ?are	 ?made	 ?up	 ?of	 ?a	 ?cluster	 ?of	 ??commonsense?	 ?beliefs	 ?about	 ?sexual	 ?assault	 ?that	 ?ignore	 ?coercion	 ?and	 ?forced	 ?submission,	 ?minimize	 ?offender	 ?responsibility,	 ?and	 ?promote	 ?blame	 ?and	 ?distrust	 ?of	 ?survivors.	 ?Ultimately,	 ?rape	 ?myths	 ?dismiss	 ?sexual	 ?violence	 ?as	 ?simply	 ?a	 ?form	 ?of	 ?sex.	 ?As	 ?I	 ?discuss	 ?in	 ?more	 ?detail	 ?in	 ?what	 ?follows,	 ?they	 ?draw	 ?on	 ?ideas	 ?about	 ?gender,	 ?race,	 ?class,	 ?disability,	 ?and	 ?other	 ?dominant	 ?notions	 ?of	 ?who	 ?has	 ?worth	 ?and	 ?who	 ?does	 ?not.	 ?Rape	 ?myths	 ?perpetuate	 ?and	 ?justify	 ?a	 ?crime	 ?of	 ?inequality	 ?based	 ?on	 ?prejudice.	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?30	 ?Johnson,	 ??Limits?,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?3	 ?at	 ?622?624;	 ?Temkin	 ?&	 ?Krah?,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?20	 ?at	 ?33?38,	 ?41;	 ?Similarly,	 ?international	 ?studies	 ?have	 ?demonstrate	 ?that	 ?lower	 ?status	 ?of	 ?women	 ?is	 ?correlated	 ?with	 ?higher	 ?rates	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?violence.	 ?They	 ?also	 ?demonstrate	 ?the	 ?impact	 ?that	 ?sexual	 ?violence	 ?has	 ?on	 ?making	 ?women	 ?more	 ?fearful	 ?in	 ?their	 ?daily	 ?lives.	 ?See	 ?Carrie	 ?L	 ?Yodanis,	 ??Gender	 ?Inequality,	 ?Violence	 ?Against	 ?Women,	 ?and	 ?Fear	 ?A	 ?Cross-??National	 ?Test	 ?of	 ?the	 ?Feminist	 ?Theory	 ?of	 ?Violence	 ?Against	 ?Women?	 ?(2004)	 ?19:6	 ?J	 ?Interpers	 ?Violence	 ?655.	 ?31	 ?I	 ?refer	 ?to	 ?the	 ?legal	 ?reforms	 ?from	 ?the	 ?1970s	 ?to	 ?1990s,	 ?the	 ?most	 ?important	 ?being	 ?the	 ?reforms	 ?of	 ?the	 ?early	 ?1980s.	 ?See	 ?Chapter	 ?II,	 ?Section	 ?C	 ?for	 ?a	 ?discussion	 ?of	 ?the	 ?reforms.	 ?	 ? 9	 ?	 ? At	 ?their	 ?most	 ?basic,	 ?rape	 ?myths	 ?tell	 ?us	 ?what	 ?counts	 ?as	 ?a	 ??real?	 ?sexual	 ?assault:	 ?when	 ?a	 ?stranger	 ?uses	 ?violence	 ?or	 ?threats	 ?to	 ?rape	 ?a	 ?woman	 ?who	 ?physically	 ?resists,	 ?and	 ?as	 ?a	 ?result	 ?of	 ?the	 ?attack	 ?suffers	 ?physical	 ?harm.	 ?According	 ?to	 ?rape	 ?myths,	 ?if	 ?something	 ?falls	 ?short	 ?of	 ?this	 ?ideal,	 ?it	 ?is	 ?not	 ?a	 ?crime.32	 ?This	 ?larger	 ?myth	 ?is	 ?made	 ?up	 ?of	 ?multiple	 ?beliefs	 ?that	 ?deny	 ?the	 ?violence	 ?of	 ?most	 ?sexual	 ?offences.	 ?In	 ?what	 ?follows,	 ?I	 ?discuss	 ?ten	 ?specific	 ?aspects	 ?of	 ?rape	 ?myths	 ?L?Heureux-??Dub?	 ?J.	 ?identified	 ?at	 ?the	 ?Supreme	 ?Court	 ?of	 ?Canada33	 ?and	 ?which	 ?other	 ?feminist	 ?scholars	 ?have	 ?also	 ?explored.	 ?	 ?	 ? Two	 ?beliefs	 ?relate	 ?to	 ?the	 ?perpetrator.	 ?First,	 ?he	 ?is	 ?a	 ?stranger	 ?to	 ?the	 ?survivor,	 ??who	 ?leaps	 ?out	 ?of	 ?the	 ?bushes	 ?to	 ?attack	 ?his	 ?victim	 ?and	 ?later	 ?leaves	 ?her?,34	 ?on	 ?the	 ?basis	 ?that	 ?men	 ?cannot	 ?and	 ?do	 ?not	 ?rape	 ?friends,	 ?family	 ?members,	 ?or	 ?acquaintances.35	 ?Secondly,	 ?the	 ?perpetrator	 ?is	 ?either	 ?mentally	 ?ill	 ?or	 ?evil,36	 ??consumed	 ?with	 ?lust,	 ?and	 ?totally	 ?unable	 ?to	 ?control	 ?his	 ?animal	 ?passions.?37	 ?Typically,	 ?he	 ?is	 ?also	 ?racialized	 ?or	 ?Aboriginal,	 ?unemployed	 ?or	 ?poor,	 ?and	 ?unmarried;	 ?he	 ?is	 ?not	 ?a	 ?white	 ?middle-??class	 ?professional	 ?with	 ?a	 ?wife	 ?and	 ?kids.38	 ?	 ?	 ? At	 ?the	 ?core	 ?of	 ?rape	 ?myths	 ?is	 ?disbelief	 ?of	 ?the	 ?survivor.	 ?As	 ?a	 ?part	 ?of	 ?this,	 ?L?Heureux-??Dub?	 ?J.	 ?identified	 ?the	 ?long-??standing	 ?dichotomy	 ?between	 ?the	 ?Madonna	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?32	 ?Temkin	 ?&	 ?Krah?,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?20	 ?at	 ?31?32.	 ?33	 ?R.	 ?v.	 ?Seaboyer,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?26,	 ?L?Heureux-??Dub?	 ?J,	 ?dissenting.	 ?34	 ?Ibid	 ?at	 ?para	 ?151.	 ?35	 ?Ibid	 ?at	 ?para	 ?149.	 ?36	 ?Ibid	 ?at	 ?para	 ?151.	 ?37	 ?Clark	 ?&	 ?Lewis,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?14	 ?at	 ?134.	 ?38	 ?See	 ?e.g.	 ?Ibid	 ?at	 ?143?144;	 ?Constance	 ?Backhouse,	 ?Petticoats	 ?and	 ?Prejudice:	 ?Women	 ?and	 ?Law	 ?in	 ?Nineteenth	 ?Century	 ?Canada	 ?(Toronto:	 ?Published	 ?for	 ?Osgoode	 ?Society	 ?by	 ?Women?s	 ?Press,	 ?1991)	 ?at	 ?98	 ?[Petticoats	 ?and	 ?Prejudice];	 ?Patricia	 ?Marshall,	 ??Sexual	 ?Assault,	 ?the	 ?Charter	 ?and	 ?Sentencing	 ?Reform?	 ?(1988)	 ?63	 ?CR-??ART	 ?216	 ?at	 ?220?222;	 ?Temkin	 ?&	 ?Krah?,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?20	 ?at	 ?47;	 ?Constance	 ?Backhouse,	 ?Carnal	 ?Crimes:	 ?Sexual	 ?Assault	 ?Law	 ?in	 ?Canada,	 ?1900-??1975	 ?(Toronto:	 ?Published	 ?for	 ?the	 ?Osgoode	 ?Society	 ?for	 ?Canadian	 ?Legal	 ?History	 ?by	 ?Irwin	 ?Law,	 ?2008)	 ?at	 ?90,	 ?246?247	 ?[Carnal	 ?Crimes];	 ?Josephine	 ?L	 ?Savarese,	 ??Doing	 ?No	 ?Violence	 ?to	 ?the	 ?Sentence	 ?Imposed:	 ?Racialized	 ?Sex	 ?Worker	 ?Complainants,	 ?Racialized	 ?Offenders,	 ?and	 ?the	 ?Feminization	 ?of	 ?the	 ?Homo	 ?Sacer	 ?in	 ?Two	 ?Sexual	 ?Assault	 ?Cases?	 ?(2010)	 ?22	 ?CJWL	 ?365	 ?at	 ?381?384.	 ?	 ? 10	 ?and	 ?the	 ?whore.	 ?To	 ?fit	 ?into	 ?the	 ?archetypal	 ?and	 ?therefore	 ?believable	 ?complainant,	 ??the	 ?Madonna?,	 ?survivors	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?assault	 ?must	 ?be	 ?respectable	 ?in	 ?every	 ?sense.39	 ?They	 ?must	 ?conform	 ?to	 ?notions	 ?of	 ?proper	 ?feminine	 ?behaviour,	 ?particularly	 ?the	 ?requirements	 ?for	 ?chaste,	 ?sober,	 ?and	 ?risk-??adverse	 ?conduct.	 ?Ideally,	 ?they	 ?should	 ?also	 ?be	 ?white	 ?and	 ?middle-??class.40	 ?No	 ?woman	 ?can	 ?meet	 ?the	 ?impossible	 ?standards	 ?held	 ?up	 ?as	 ?the	 ?ideal,	 ?which	 ?is	 ?the	 ?point	 ?of	 ?a	 ?norm	 ?meant	 ?to	 ?police	 ?women?s	 ?behaviour	 ?and	 ?blame	 ?them	 ?for	 ?men?s	 ?violence.	 ?By	 ?failing	 ?to	 ?meet	 ?an	 ?impossible	 ?ideal,	 ?all	 ?women	 ?can	 ?be	 ?relegated	 ?to	 ?the	 ?status	 ?of	 ?whores.	 ?As	 ?explained	 ?by	 ?Susan	 ?Brownmiller,	 ?survivors	 ?can	 ?then	 ?be	 ?blamed	 ?because	 ?they	 ??ask	 ?for?	 ?sexual	 ?violence	 ?by	 ?seductive	 ?or	 ?careless	 ?behaviour.41	 ?	 ?	 ? According	 ?to	 ?L?Heureux-??Dub?	 ?J.,	 ?rape	 ?myths	 ?also	 ?tell	 ?us	 ?that	 ?women	 ?will	 ?violently	 ?resist	 ?sexual	 ?assault,	 ?and	 ?when	 ?they	 ?do,	 ?they	 ?can	 ?prevent	 ?it.	 ?Therefore,	 ?when	 ?there	 ?is	 ?no	 ?evidence	 ?of	 ?resistance,	 ?claims	 ?of	 ?rape	 ?are	 ?likely	 ?to	 ?be	 ?false.	 ?Women	 ?make	 ?false	 ?claims	 ?because	 ?they	 ?are	 ??fickle	 ?and	 ?full	 ?of	 ?spite?:	 ?they	 ?allege	 ?rape	 ?against	 ?men	 ?they	 ?have	 ?had	 ?consensual	 ?sex	 ?with	 ?to	 ?be	 ?spiteful	 ?or	 ?to	 ?avoid	 ?punishment;	 ?and	 ?they	 ?allege	 ?it	 ?against	 ?men	 ?they	 ?have	 ?not	 ?had	 ?sex	 ?with	 ?because	 ?they	 ?fantasize	 ?about	 ?rape.42	 ?At	 ?their	 ?most	 ?basic,	 ?these	 ?beliefs	 ?are	 ?premised	 ?on	 ??the	 ?cherished	 ?male	 ?assumption	 ?that	 ?female	 ?persons	 ?tend	 ?to	 ?lie.?43	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?39	 ?R.	 ?v.	 ?Seaboyer,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?26	 ?at	 ?paras	 ?150-??151,	 ?L?Heureux-??Dub?	 ?J,	 ?dissenting.	 ?40	 ?Clark	 ?&	 ?Lewis,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?14	 ?at	 ?111,	 ?117?124;	 ?Temkin	 ?&	 ?Krah?,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?20	 ?at	 ?45?47;	 ?R.	 ?v.	 ?Seaboyer,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?26	 ?at	 ?para	 ?151,	 ?L?Heureux-??Dub?	 ?J,	 ?dissenting.	 ?See	 ?generally	 ?Backhouse,	 ?Carnal	 ?Crimes,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?38;	 ?Rakhi	 ?Ruparelia,	 ??All	 ?That	 ?Glitters	 ?is	 ?Not	 ?Gold:	 ?The	 ?False	 ?Promise	 ?of	 ?Victim	 ?Impact	 ?Statements?	 ?in	 ?Elizabeth	 ?A	 ?Sheehy,	 ?ed,	 ?Sexual	 ?Assault	 ?in	 ?Canada:	 ?Law,	 ?Legal	 ?Practice	 ?and	 ?Women?s	 ?Activism	 ?(Ottawa:	 ?University	 ?of	 ?Ottawa	 ?Press,	 ?2012)	 ?665.	 ?41	 ?Brownmiller,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?25	 ?at	 ?311?313.	 ?42	 ?R.	 ?v.	 ?Seaboyer,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?26	 ?at	 ?paras	 ?147,	 ?151,	 ?L?Heureux-??Dub?	 ?J,	 ?dissenting.	 ?43	 ?Brownmiller,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?25	 ?at	 ?369.	 ?	 ? 11	 ?	 ? Underlying	 ?the	 ?related	 ?notions	 ?that	 ?women	 ?both	 ?want	 ?to	 ?be	 ?raped	 ?and	 ?cannot	 ?be	 ?raped	 ?against	 ?their	 ?will	 ?is	 ?the	 ?cultural	 ?construction	 ?of	 ?normal	 ?heterosexual	 ?activity	 ?consisting	 ?of	 ?men	 ?aggressively	 ?seducing	 ?or	 ?overpowering	 ?women	 ?who	 ?passively	 ?accept	 ?and	 ?privately	 ?want	 ?to	 ?be	 ??taken.?	 ?When	 ?women	 ?want	 ?sexual	 ?assault	 ?and	 ?men	 ?are	 ?supposed	 ?to	 ?act	 ?on	 ?sexual	 ?aggression,	 ?forced	 ?sexual	 ?touching	 ?is	 ?not	 ?harmful	 ?but	 ?enjoyable;	 ?certainly	 ?it	 ?is	 ?not	 ?violence.44	 ?	 ?	 ? L?Heureux-??Dub?	 ?J.	 ?also	 ?identified	 ?two	 ?ideas	 ?about	 ?reporting.	 ?First,	 ?women	 ?are	 ?seen	 ?as	 ??emotional?;	 ?therefore,	 ?when	 ?reporting,	 ?women	 ?who	 ?are	 ?not	 ?lying	 ?will	 ?be	 ?hysterical.	 ?Secondly,	 ?rape	 ?myths	 ?dictate	 ?two	 ?mutually	 ?exclusive	 ?requirements	 ?of	 ?women:	 ?to	 ?be	 ?too	 ?ashamed	 ?to	 ?report,	 ?or	 ?to	 ?be	 ?too	 ?hysterical	 ?to	 ?not	 ?report.45	 ?However,	 ?generally,	 ?to	 ?be	 ?believed,	 ?rape	 ?myths	 ?expect	 ?women	 ??to	 ?report	 ?the	 ?assault	 ?to	 ?the	 ?police	 ?immediately	 ?and	 ?to	 ?be	 ?visibly	 ?upset	 ?and	 ?emotional	 ?about	 ?the	 ?experience.?46	 ?	 ?	 ? Our	 ?society	 ?claims	 ?to	 ?see	 ?rape	 ?as	 ?a	 ?horrific	 ?crime	 ?requiring	 ?swift	 ?and	 ?severe	 ?justice	 ?but	 ?this	 ?condemnation	 ?only	 ?follows	 ?when	 ?sexual	 ?violence	 ?meets	 ?the	 ?stereotypical	 ?dictates	 ?of	 ??real?	 ?rape.	 ?Therefore,	 ?although	 ?we	 ?as	 ?a	 ?society	 ?claim	 ?to	 ?despise	 ?and	 ?abjure	 ?sexual	 ?violence,	 ?in	 ?reality,	 ?we	 ?seldom	 ?do.47	 ?More	 ?frequently,	 ?we	 ?see	 ?sexual	 ?assault	 ?as	 ?a	 ?clumsy	 ?and	 ?failed	 ?attempt	 ?at	 ?normal	 ?heterosexual	 ?seduction	 ?that	 ?women	 ?invite,	 ?and	 ?which	 ?women	 ?misrepresent	 ?as	 ?rape	 ??in	 ?postcoital	 ?spite.?48	 ?These	 ?sexual	 ?assaults	 ?are	 ??dismissed	 ?with	 ?a	 ?knowing	 ?wink	 ?as	 ?a	 ?natural	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?44	 ?Ibid	 ?at	 ?311?313.	 ?45	 ?R.	 ?v.	 ?Seaboyer,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?26	 ?at	 ?para	 ?151,	 ?L?Heureux-??Dub?	 ?J,	 ?dissenting.	 ?46	 ?Temkin	 ?&	 ?Krah?,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?20	 ?at	 ?32.	 ?47	 ?Clark	 ?&	 ?Lewis,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?14	 ?at	 ?23?24.	 ?48	 ?Brownmiller,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?25	 ?at	 ?313.	 ?	 ? 12	 ?consequences	 ?of	 ?the	 ?sexual	 ?game	 ?in	 ?which	 ?man	 ?pursues	 ?and	 ?woman	 ?is	 ?pursued.?49	 ?In	 ?essence,	 ?we	 ?blur	 ?the	 ?lines	 ?between	 ?sex	 ?and	 ?sexual	 ?violence,	 ?often	 ?seeing	 ?them	 ?as	 ?one	 ?and	 ?the	 ?same.	 ?	 ?	 ? Rape	 ?myths	 ?are	 ?not	 ?only	 ?based	 ?on	 ?misogynist	 ?ideas	 ?of	 ?women	 ?and	 ?heteronormativity,	 ?they	 ?are	 ?also	 ?wrong,	 ?given	 ?what	 ?is	 ?known	 ?about	 ?sexual	 ?violence.	 ?Rather	 ?than	 ?stranger	 ?attacks	 ?being	 ?the	 ?norm,	 ?in	 ?most	 ?cases,	 ?sexual	 ?violence	 ?occurs	 ?between	 ?acquaintances,	 ?friends,	 ?and	 ?family.50	 ?As	 ?well,	 ?survivors	 ?often	 ?do	 ?not	 ?physically	 ?resist.	 ?Perpetrators,	 ?nearly	 ?always	 ?men,	 ?usually	 ?have	 ?a	 ?size	 ?advantage	 ?over	 ?women	 ?and	 ?children;	 ?offenders	 ?may	 ?overpower	 ?survivors	 ?such	 ?that	 ?they	 ?cannot	 ?actively	 ?resist,	 ?and	 ?furthermore	 ?survivors	 ?often	 ?have	 ?realistic	 ?fears	 ?that	 ?resistance	 ?will	 ?result	 ?in	 ?greater	 ?harm.	 ?As	 ?well,	 ?perpetrators	 ?often	 ?have	 ?the	 ?advantage	 ?of	 ?experience	 ?and	 ?socialization:	 ?women	 ?have	 ?been	 ?socialized	 ?to	 ?be	 ?passive	 ?and	 ?gentle	 ?rather	 ?than	 ?aggressive	 ?but	 ?men	 ?have	 ?not.51	 ?The	 ?patriarchy	 ?has	 ?specifically	 ?endowed	 ?men	 ?with	 ?power	 ?and	 ?authority	 ?over	 ?women	 ?and	 ?children	 ?and	 ?has	 ?socialized	 ?them	 ?to	 ?use	 ?it;	 ?their	 ?power	 ?and	 ?authority	 ?can	 ?be	 ?used	 ?to	 ?force	 ?sexual	 ?contact	 ?without	 ?violence	 ?or	 ?apparent	 ?resistance.52	 ?	 ? Consequently,	 ?survivors	 ?are	 ?often	 ?not	 ?physically	 ?injured.53	 ?Police	 ?reports	 ?show	 ?that	 ?most	 ?sexual	 ?offences	 ?are	 ?forced	 ?sexual	 ?touching,	 ?and	 ?offences	 ?that	 ?cause	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?49	 ?Clark	 ?&	 ?Lewis,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?14	 ?at	 ?24.	 ?50	 ?Sinha,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?3	 ?at	 ?30.	 ?51	 ?Brownmiller,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?25	 ?at	 ?360?361;	 ?See	 ?also	 ?Backhouse,	 ?Carnal	 ?Crimes,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?38	 ?at	 ?290;	 ?Paula	 ?E	 ?Pasquali,	 ?No	 ?Rhyme	 ?or	 ?Reason:	 ?The	 ?Sentencing	 ?of	 ?Sexual	 ?Assault	 ?(Ottawa:	 ?Canadian	 ?Research	 ?Institute	 ?for	 ?the	 ?Advancement	 ?of	 ?Women,	 ?1995)	 ?at	 ?27;	 ?Temkin	 ?&	 ?Krah?,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?20	 ?at	 ?31?32.	 ?52	 ?Catharine	 ?A	 ?MacKinnon,	 ??A	 ?Sex	 ?Equality	 ?Approach	 ?to	 ?Sexual	 ?Assault?	 ?(2003)	 ?989:1	 ?Annals	 ?of	 ?the	 ?New	 ?York	 ?Academy	 ?of	 ?Sciences	 ?265	 ?at	 ?268?269	 ?[?Equality	 ?Approach?].	 ?53	 ?Temkin	 ?&	 ?Krah?,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?20	 ?at	 ?31?32.	 ?	 ? 13	 ?survivors	 ?serious	 ?bodily	 ?harm	 ?or	 ?involve	 ?weapons	 ?are	 ?less	 ?frequent.54	 ?Even	 ?so,	 ?one	 ?must	 ?consider	 ?this	 ?data	 ?with	 ?some	 ?skepticism,	 ?due	 ?to	 ?significant	 ?concerns	 ?with	 ?both	 ?reporting	 ?and	 ?police	 ?under-??classifying	 ?sexual	 ?offences	 ?based	 ?on	 ?harm.55	 ?	 ?	 ? It	 ?is	 ?possible	 ?that	 ?sexual	 ?assault	 ?is	 ?more	 ?violent	 ?that	 ?we	 ?appreciate.	 ?As	 ?the	 ?personal	 ?accounts	 ?of	 ?acquaintance	 ?rape	 ?in	 ?Jody	 ?Raphael?s	 ?book	 ?Rape	 ?is	 ?Rape56	 ?make	 ?clear,	 ?although	 ?acquaintance	 ?rape	 ?is	 ?often	 ?portrayed	 ?as	 ?arising	 ?from	 ?misunderstandings	 ?about	 ?consent	 ?rather	 ?than	 ?violence,	 ?sexual	 ?assaults	 ?by	 ?acquaintances	 ?are	 ?often	 ?very	 ?violent	 ?and	 ?cause	 ?physical	 ?injury.	 ?Perhaps,	 ?by	 ?using	 ?masculinist	 ?definitions	 ?of	 ?consent,	 ?violence	 ?and	 ?harm,	 ?or	 ?understanding	 ?sexual	 ?violence	 ?from	 ?the	 ?perspective	 ?of	 ?offenders,	 ?we	 ?dismiss	 ?this.57	 ?There	 ?is	 ?no	 ?doubt	 ?that	 ?all	 ?sexual	 ?offences	 ?are	 ?indeed	 ?violent	 ?and	 ?harmful;	 ?however,	 ?the	 ?degree	 ?of	 ?violence	 ?and	 ?physical	 ?harm	 ?on	 ?average	 ?may	 ?be	 ?less	 ?clear.	 ?	 ?	 ? Also	 ?contrary	 ?to	 ?the	 ?myths,	 ?there	 ?is	 ?no	 ?one	 ?typical	 ?response	 ?to	 ?sexual	 ?violence:	 ?survivors	 ?may	 ?be	 ?distraught	 ?or	 ?calm	 ?and	 ?numb.58	 ?Some	 ?survivors	 ?also	 ?do	 ?not	 ?report	 ?immediately,	 ?and,	 ?as	 ?we	 ?have	 ?seen,	 ?the	 ?majority	 ?of	 ?survivors	 ?do	 ?not	 ?report	 ?at	 ?all,	 ?accounting	 ?for	 ?a	 ?large	 ?amount	 ?of	 ?the	 ?justice	 ?gap.59	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ? Yet	 ?rape	 ?myths	 ?persist.	 ?As	 ?identified	 ?by	 ?Jennifer	 ?Temkin	 ?and	 ?Barbara	 ?Krah?,	 ?rape	 ?myths	 ?construct	 ?a	 ?fictional	 ??real?	 ?rape	 ?that	 ?is	 ??not	 ?only	 ?descriptive,	 ?specifying	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?54	 ?Sinha,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?3	 ?at	 ?29,	 ?31;	 ?Johnson,	 ??Statistical	 ?Trends?,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?3	 ?at	 ?26;	 ?Johnson,	 ??Limits?,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?3	 ?at	 ?618?619.	 ?55	 ?Johnson,	 ??Limits?,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?3	 ?at	 ?619;	 ?Johnson,	 ??Statistical	 ?Trends?,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?3	 ?at	 ?26;	 ?See	 ?generally	 ?Janice	 ?Du	 ?Mont,	 ??Charging	 ?and	 ?Sentencing	 ?in	 ?Sexual	 ?Assault	 ?Cases:	 ?An	 ?Exploratory	 ?Examination?	 ?(2003)	 ?15	 ?CJWL	 ?305.	 ?56	 ?Jody	 ?Raphael,	 ?Rape	 ?Is	 ?Rape:	 ?How	 ?Denial,	 ?Distortion,	 ?and	 ?Victim	 ?Blaming	 ?Are	 ?Fueling	 ?a	 ?Hidden	 ?Acquaintance	 ?Rape	 ?Crisis	 ?(Chicago:	 ?Chicago	 ?Review	 ?Press,	 ?2013).	 ?57	 ?See	 ?e.g.	 ?Ehrlich,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?29	 ?at	 ?121?148.	 ?58	 ?Temkin	 ?&	 ?Krah?,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?20	 ?at	 ?32?33.	 ?59	 ?Clark	 ?&	 ?Lewis,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?14	 ?at	 ?90?91;	 ?Sinha,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?3	 ?at	 ?94?97;	 ?Johnson,	 ??Statistical	 ?Trends?,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?3	 ?at	 ?57?58;	 ?Johnson,	 ??Limits?,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?3	 ?at	 ?626?627.	 ?	 ? 14	 ?the	 ?characteristics	 ?of	 ?a	 ?typical	 ?rape,	 ?but	 ?prescriptive	 ?in	 ?that	 ?all	 ?too	 ?often	 ?it	 ?lays	 ?down	 ?the	 ?criteria	 ?a	 ?case	 ?must	 ?meet	 ?in	 ?order	 ?to	 ?be	 ?judged	 ?to	 ?qualify	 ?as	 ?rape.?60	 ?When	 ?a	 ?sexual	 ?assault	 ?diverges	 ?from	 ?the	 ?common	 ?understanding	 ?of	 ?a	 ??real?	 ?rape,	 ?people	 ?are	 ?less	 ?inclined	 ?to	 ?believe	 ?it	 ?occurred	 ?or	 ?that	 ?it	 ?amounts	 ?to	 ?a	 ?crime.61	 ?	 ?	 ? The	 ?criminal	 ?justice	 ?system	 ?is	 ?not	 ?immune	 ?from	 ?this	 ?thinking:	 ?rape	 ?myths	 ?have	 ?influenced	 ?police	 ?and	 ?legal	 ?decision-??making,	 ?and	 ?specifically	 ?as	 ?I	 ?examine,	 ?sentencing	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?offenders.	 ?The	 ?law	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?offences	 ?and	 ?sentencing	 ?has,	 ?in	 ?the	 ?past,	 ?reproduced	 ?and	 ?constructed	 ?rape	 ?myths	 ?in	 ?legal	 ?doctrine	 ?and	 ?discourse,	 ?classifying	 ?sexual	 ?violence	 ?as	 ?harmless,	 ?normal	 ?sex.	 ?My	 ?question	 ?is	 ?whether	 ?that	 ?continues	 ?today	 ?in	 ?sentencing.	 ?C. Description	 ?of	 ?Thesis	 ?	 ?	 ? Sexual	 ?violence	 ?against	 ?women	 ?continues	 ?to	 ?be	 ?prevalent	 ?and	 ?largely	 ?outside	 ?the	 ?auspices	 ?of	 ?the	 ?criminal	 ?justice	 ?system.	 ?As	 ?I	 ?explain	 ?below,	 ?other	 ?feminist	 ?scholars	 ?have	 ?demonstrated	 ?that	 ?rape	 ?myths	 ?historically	 ?guided	 ?the	 ?development	 ?of	 ?the	 ?law	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?offences.	 ?My	 ?project	 ?is	 ?to	 ?determine	 ?if	 ?they	 ?continue	 ?to	 ?influence	 ?sentencing	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?offenders	 ?in	 ?B.C.,	 ?considered	 ?in	 ?light	 ?of	 ?the	 ?past	 ?use	 ?of	 ?myths	 ?in	 ?the	 ?law	 ?and	 ?the	 ?previous	 ?work	 ?of	 ?feminist	 ?scholars.	 ?	 ?	 ? This	 ?thesis	 ?is	 ?divided	 ?into	 ?eight	 ?parts.	 ?In	 ?Chapter	 ?I,	 ?I	 ?introduce	 ?the	 ?problem	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?violence	 ?and	 ?its	 ?gendered	 ?character,	 ?and	 ?the	 ?use	 ?of	 ?rape	 ?myths	 ?in	 ?the	 ?criminal	 ?justice	 ?system.	 ?I	 ?also	 ?outline	 ?my	 ?research	 ?objective	 ?and	 ?findings.	 ?Next,	 ?in	 ?Chapter	 ?II,	 ?I	 ?explain	 ?the	 ?history	 ?and	 ?evolution	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?offence	 ?law	 ?and	 ?sentencing	 ?law	 ?in	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?60	 ?Temkin	 ?&	 ?Krah?,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?20	 ?at	 ?32	 ?[emphasis	 ?in	 ?original].	 ?61	 ?Ibid.	 ?	 ? 15	 ?Canada,	 ?specifically	 ?how	 ?rape	 ?myths	 ?have	 ?been	 ?embedded	 ?in	 ?the	 ?law	 ?and	 ?how	 ?feminist	 ?advocates	 ?have	 ?sought	 ?to	 ?eliminate	 ?their	 ?use.	 ?I	 ?focus	 ?on	 ?sentencing	 ?prior	 ?to	 ?the	 ?major	 ?legal	 ?reforms	 ?to	 ?provide	 ?a	 ?point	 ?of	 ?comparison	 ?for	 ?recent	 ?cases;	 ?I	 ?also	 ?highlight	 ?relevant	 ?feminist	 ?literature	 ?on	 ?rape	 ?myths	 ?to	 ?identify	 ?current	 ?concerns.	 ?Chapter	 ?III	 ?contains	 ?an	 ?explanation	 ?of	 ?my	 ?conceptual	 ?framework,	 ?based	 ?on	 ?a	 ?feminist	 ?approach	 ?and	 ?the	 ?theory	 ?of	 ?law	 ?as	 ?discourse,	 ?as	 ?well	 ?as	 ?my	 ?methodology.	 ?My	 ?analyses	 ?of	 ?the	 ?case	 ?sample	 ?are	 ?found	 ?in	 ?Chapters	 ?IV	 ?to	 ?VI.	 ?Finally,	 ?in	 ?Chapter	 ?VII,	 ?I	 ?discuss	 ?overarching	 ?themes	 ?and	 ?how	 ?rape	 ?myths	 ?have	 ?adapted	 ?since	 ?the	 ?1970s,	 ?and	 ?I	 ?outline	 ?my	 ?concluding	 ?thoughts	 ?in	 ?Chapter	 ?VIII.	 ?	 ?	 ?Research	 ?Objective	 ?and	 ?Approach	 ?	 ? As	 ?a	 ?woman	 ?and	 ?a	 ?feminist,	 ?I	 ?am	 ?concerned	 ?about	 ?inequality	 ?within	 ?sexual	 ?assault	 ?law.	 ?I	 ?am	 ?particularly	 ?interested	 ?in	 ?the	 ?use	 ?of	 ?rape	 ?myths	 ?in	 ?sentencing,	 ?a	 ?site	 ?that,	 ?as	 ?noted	 ?by	 ?Christine	 ?Boyle,	 ?can	 ??reveal	 ?the	 ?most	 ?about	 ?the	 ?reality	 ?of	 ?the	 ?law	 ?on	 ?sexual	 ?assault.?62	 ?	 ?	 ? My	 ?project	 ?is	 ?to	 ?determine	 ?whether	 ?courts	 ?currently	 ?use	 ?myths	 ?about	 ?sexual	 ?violence	 ?when	 ?sentencing	 ?sexual	 ?offenders.	 ?As	 ?I	 ?discuss	 ?in	 ?more	 ?detail	 ?in	 ?Chapter	 ?II,	 ?feminist	 ?scholars	 ?have	 ?demonstrated	 ?that,	 ?despite	 ?legislative	 ?reforms	 ?and	 ?judicial	 ?re-??conceptualizations	 ?of	 ?consent,	 ?rape	 ?myths	 ?continue	 ?to	 ?influence	 ?sexual	 ?assault	 ?trials,	 ?sometimes	 ?in	 ?a	 ?modified	 ?form	 ?that	 ?reflects	 ?neoliberal	 ?expectations	 ?of	 ?feminine	 ?risk-??avoidance	 ?and	 ?individual	 ?rationality	 ?and	 ?responsibility.63	 ?Whether	 ?rape	 ?myths	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?62	 ?Christine	 ?Boyle,	 ?Sexual	 ?Assault	 ?(Toronto:	 ?Carswell,	 ?1984)	 ?at	 ?171	 ?[footnote	 ?omitted].	 ?63	 ?Gotell,	 ??Rethinking	 ?Consent?,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?1	 ?at	 ?875?882;	 ?Elizabeth	 ?Comack	 ?&	 ?Tracey	 ?Peter,	 ??How	 ?the	 ?Criminal	 ?Justice	 ?System	 ?Responds	 ?to	 ?Sexual	 ?Assault	 ?Survivors:	 ?The	 ?Slippage	 ?between	 ?Responsibilization	 ?and	 ?Blaming	 ?the	 ?Victim?	 ?(2005)	 ?17	 ?CJWL	 ?283	 ?at	 ?298.	 ?	 ? 16	 ?inform	 ?current	 ?sentencing	 ?decisions,	 ?particularly	 ?in	 ?B.C.,	 ?is	 ?unclear	 ?because	 ?this	 ?aspect	 ?of	 ?judicial	 ?decision-??making	 ?has	 ?attracted	 ?less	 ?attention	 ?from	 ?feminist	 ?scholars.	 ?	 ? To	 ?understand	 ?whether	 ?B.C.	 ?courts	 ?currently	 ?use	 ?myths	 ?about	 ?sexual	 ?violence	 ?when	 ?sentencing	 ?sexual	 ?offenders,	 ?I	 ?analyze	 ?both	 ?doctrine	 ?and	 ?discourse.	 ?This	 ?distinction	 ?is	 ?somewhat	 ?artificial:	 ?as	 ?I	 ?explore	 ?in	 ?Chapter	 ?III,	 ?the	 ?law,	 ?made	 ?up	 ?of	 ?institutional	 ?language,	 ?is	 ?discourse.64	 ?However,	 ?this	 ?distinction	 ?clarifies	 ?my	 ?two	 ?purposes	 ?for	 ?analyzing	 ?the	 ?cases:	 ?how	 ?judges	 ?apply	 ?the	 ?law	 ?in	 ?terms	 ?of	 ?relevance	 ?and	 ?aggravating	 ?and	 ?mitigating	 ?factors,	 ?and	 ?what	 ?stories	 ?judges	 ?tell	 ?about	 ?sexual	 ?violence	 ?based	 ?on	 ?their	 ?language.	 ?	 ? As	 ?I	 ?explore	 ?in	 ?this	 ?thesis,	 ?legal	 ?doctrine	 ?and	 ?discourse	 ?are	 ?not	 ?objective,	 ?neutral	 ?or	 ?universal;	 ?they	 ?are	 ?partial	 ?and	 ?situated	 ?in	 ?the	 ?experiences	 ?and	 ?perspectives	 ?of	 ?lawmakers.	 ?Through	 ?their	 ?voices	 ?and	 ?pens	 ?they	 ?have	 ?ingrained	 ?the	 ?structural	 ?vulnerability	 ?of	 ?women	 ?to	 ?sexual	 ?violence	 ?and	 ?the	 ?prejudice	 ?of	 ?dominant	 ?cultural	 ?norms	 ?and	 ?social	 ?institutions	 ?into	 ?the	 ?law.65	 ?Because	 ?judges	 ?are	 ?situated	 ?within	 ?our	 ?broader	 ?culture	 ?and	 ?within	 ?the	 ?criminal	 ?justice	 ?system,	 ?their	 ?intention	 ?to	 ?discriminate	 ?is	 ?not	 ?necessary	 ?for	 ?them	 ?to	 ?express	 ?rape	 ?myths	 ?in	 ?doctrine	 ?or	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?64	 ?Linda	 ?Coates,	 ?Janet	 ?Beavin	 ?Bavelas	 ?&	 ?James	 ?Gibson,	 ??Anomalous	 ?Language	 ?in	 ?Sexual	 ?Assault	 ?Trial	 ?Judgments?	 ?(1994)	 ?5:2	 ?Discourse	 ?&	 ?Society	 ?189	 ?at	 ?189;	 ?Penelope	 ?Pether,	 ??Critical	 ?Discourse	 ?Analysis,	 ?Rape	 ?Law	 ?and	 ?the	 ?Jury	 ?Instruction	 ?Simplification	 ?Project?	 ?(1999)	 ?24	 ?S	 ?Ill	 ?U	 ?LJ	 ?53	 ?at	 ?62.	 ?	 ?65	 ?See	 ?generally	 ?Constance	 ?Backhouse,	 ??Nineteenth-??Century	 ?Canadian	 ?Rape	 ?Law	 ?1800-??1892?	 ?in	 ?David	 ?H	 ?Flaherty,	 ?ed,	 ?Essays	 ?in	 ?the	 ?History	 ?of	 ?Canadian	 ?Law	 ?(Toronto:	 ?Published	 ?for	 ?the	 ?Osgoode	 ?Society	 ?by	 ?University	 ?of	 ?Toronto	 ?Press,	 ?1983)	 ?200	 ?[?Nineteenth-??Century?];	 ?Backhouse,	 ?Carnal	 ?Crimes,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?38;	 ?Boyle,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?62;	 ?Brownmiller,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?25;	 ?Ehrlich,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?29;	 ?R.	 ?v.	 ?Seaboyer,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?26,	 ?L?Heureux-??Dub?	 ?J.,	 ?dissenting.	 ?	 ? 17	 ?discourse.	 ?Rape	 ?myths	 ?in	 ?sentencing	 ?judgments	 ?signify	 ?their	 ?power	 ?and	 ?prevalence	 ?rather	 ?than	 ?the	 ?intention	 ?of	 ?judges	 ?to	 ?repeat	 ?them.66	 ?	 ?	 ? I	 ?have	 ?not	 ?studied	 ?the	 ?entirety	 ?of	 ?the	 ?law	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?offences;	 ?of	 ?necessity,	 ?I	 ?have	 ?studied	 ?a	 ?small	 ?piece:	 ?recent	 ?B.C.	 ?sentencing	 ?cases.	 ?I	 ?analyze	 ?a	 ?two-??year	 ?sample,	 ?cases	 ?from	 ?2011	 ?and	 ?2012,	 ?to	 ?add	 ?to	 ?the	 ?existing	 ?feminist	 ?scholarship	 ?on	 ?the	 ?continued	 ?presence	 ?of	 ?rape	 ?myths	 ?in	 ?the	 ?law.	 ?I	 ?analyze	 ?these	 ?cases	 ?in	 ?the	 ?context	 ?of	 ?the	 ?history	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?offence	 ?and	 ?sentencing	 ?law,	 ?with	 ?a	 ?focus	 ?on	 ?sentencing	 ?prior	 ?to	 ?the	 ?1980s	 ?Criminal	 ?Code67	 ?reforms,	 ?to	 ?consider	 ?overarching	 ?themes	 ?and	 ?continuing	 ?concerns.	 ?	 ?	 ? I	 ?do	 ?not	 ?seek	 ?to	 ?determine	 ?the	 ?proportion	 ?of	 ?cases	 ?that	 ?reflect	 ?rape	 ?myths;	 ?rather,	 ?I	 ?focus	 ?on	 ?identifying	 ?themes	 ?and	 ?even	 ?exceptional	 ?examples.	 ?I	 ?contend	 ?that	 ?inequality	 ?perpetuated	 ?by	 ?courts	 ?is	 ?problematic	 ?if	 ?it	 ?occurs	 ?at	 ?all,	 ?so	 ?it	 ?is	 ?unnecessary	 ?to	 ?establish	 ?any	 ?specific	 ?percentage	 ?as	 ?a	 ?required	 ?minimum.	 ?	 ? I	 ?also	 ?did	 ?not	 ?set	 ?out	 ?to	 ?study	 ?sentencing	 ?outcomes.	 ?As	 ?I	 ?explain	 ?in	 ?more	 ?detail	 ?in	 ?Chapter	 ?II,	 ?my	 ?decision	 ?is	 ?based	 ?on	 ?feminist	 ?concerns	 ?about	 ?the	 ?harm	 ?and	 ?discrimination	 ?the	 ?criminal	 ?justice	 ?system	 ?perpetrates,	 ?particularly	 ?through	 ?incarceration.	 ?Like	 ?other	 ?feminist	 ?researchers,	 ?I	 ?am	 ?concerned	 ?about	 ?the	 ?discrimination	 ?against	 ?Aboriginal,	 ?racialized,	 ?and	 ?poor	 ?offenders	 ?in	 ?sentencing	 ?generally68	 ?as	 ?well	 ?as	 ?the	 ?criminal	 ?justice	 ?system?s	 ?failure	 ?to	 ?show	 ?it	 ?can	 ?rehabilitate	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?66	 ?Coates,	 ?Beavin	 ?Bavelas	 ?&	 ?Gibson,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?64	 ?at	 ?189,	 ?197?198;	 ?Linda	 ?Coates	 ?&	 ?Allan	 ?Wade,	 ??Telling	 ?it	 ?like	 ?it	 ?isn?t:	 ?obscuring	 ?perpetrator	 ?responsibility	 ?for	 ?violent	 ?crime?	 ?(2004)	 ?15:5	 ?Discourse	 ?&	 ?Society	 ?3	 ?at	 ?26.	 ?67	 ?Criminal	 ?Code,	 ?RSC	 ?1985,	 ?c	 ?C-??46.	 ?68	 ?Laureen	 ?Snider,	 ??Feminism,	 ?Punishment	 ?and	 ?the	 ?Potential	 ?of	 ?Empowerment?	 ?(1994)	 ?9	 ?CJLS	 ?75	 ?at	 ?86?87;	 ?Dianne	 ?L	 ?Martin,	 ??Retribution	 ?Revisited:	 ?A	 ?Reconsideration	 ?of	 ?Feminist	 ?Criminal	 ?Law	 ?Reform	 ?Strategies?	 ?(1998)	 ?36	 ?Osgoode	 ?Hall	 ?L	 ?J	 ?151	 ?at	 ?152?153,	 ?162?164,	 ?171.	 ?	 ? 18	 ?offenders.69	 ?I	 ?have	 ?also	 ?been	 ?persuaded	 ?that	 ?harsher	 ?penalties	 ?operate	 ?as	 ?a	 ?barrier	 ?to	 ?conviction,70	 ?and	 ?conviction	 ?is	 ?something	 ?I	 ?consider	 ?important	 ?to	 ?promote	 ?offender	 ?responsibility	 ?and	 ?justice	 ?for	 ?survivors.	 ?In	 ?this	 ?thesis,	 ?I	 ?do	 ?not	 ?suggest	 ?offenders	 ?should	 ?be	 ?given	 ?longer	 ?sentences;	 ?rather	 ?I	 ?suggest	 ?sentencing	 ?decisions	 ?should	 ?be	 ?free	 ?of	 ?rape	 ?myths	 ?and	 ?should	 ?appreciate	 ?the	 ?context	 ?of	 ?inequality	 ?that	 ?fosters	 ?sexual	 ?violence.	 ?In	 ?short,	 ?sentencing	 ?should	 ?be	 ?fair	 ?to	 ?both	 ?offenders	 ?and	 ?survivors.	 ?Findings	 ?	 ? In	 ?the	 ?past	 ?and	 ?now,	 ?there	 ?is	 ?a	 ?tendency	 ?among	 ?judges	 ?to	 ?view	 ?some	 ?sexual	 ?offences	 ?as	 ?sex.	 ?This	 ?tendency	 ?is	 ?revealed	 ?in	 ?courts?	 ?reluctance	 ?to	 ?convict	 ?sexual	 ?offenders	 ?and	 ?the	 ?way	 ?they	 ?sentence	 ?convicted	 ?offenders,	 ?my	 ?topic.	 ?Like	 ?others	 ?studying	 ?sentencing,	 ?my	 ?analysis	 ?of	 ?B.C.	 ?cases	 ?from	 ?the	 ?1970s	 ?and	 ?2011	 ?and	 ?2012	 ?shows	 ?that	 ?courts	 ?treat	 ?and	 ?portray	 ?some	 ?crimes	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?violence	 ?as	 ?not	 ?that	 ?serious,	 ?the	 ?offender	 ?not	 ?that	 ?blameworthy,	 ?or	 ?the	 ?survivor	 ?not	 ?that	 ?harmed,	 ?based	 ?on	 ?rape	 ?myths.	 ?Still	 ?infecting	 ?our	 ?notion	 ?of	 ??commonsense?	 ?and	 ?our	 ?legal	 ?understanding	 ?of	 ?harm	 ?and	 ?blame,	 ?the	 ?myths	 ?have	 ?proven	 ?tenacious	 ?and	 ?difficult	 ?to	 ?ferret	 ?out	 ?and	 ?eliminate.	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ? Feminist	 ?reformers	 ?have	 ?fought	 ?to	 ?eliminate	 ?prejudicial	 ?tropes	 ?from	 ?the	 ?law	 ?and	 ?to	 ?have	 ?the	 ?law	 ?recognize	 ?sexual	 ?offences	 ?as	 ?violence,	 ?not	 ?sex;	 ?however,	 ?the	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?69	 ?Constance	 ?Backhouse,	 ??A	 ?Feminist	 ?Remedy	 ?for	 ?Sexual	 ?Assault:	 ?A	 ?Quest	 ?for	 ?Answers?	 ?in	 ?Elizabeth	 ?A	 ?Sheehy,	 ?ed,	 ?Sexual	 ?Assault	 ?in	 ?Canada:	 ?Law,	 ?Legal	 ?Practice	 ?and	 ?Women?s	 ?Activism	 ?(Ottawa:	 ?University	 ?of	 ?Ottawa	 ?Press,	 ?2012)	 ?725	 ?at	 ?737	 ?[?Feminist	 ?Remedy?];	 ?Martin,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?68	 ?at	 ?164;	 ?Snider,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?68	 ?at	 ?77,	 ?82.	 ?70	 ?Boyle,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?62	 ?at	 ?12,	 ?14;	 ?Janet	 ?Lynn	 ?Drysdale,	 ?Rape	 ?and	 ?the	 ?Law	 ?in	 ?Ontario,	 ?1892-??1930	 ?(LL.M.,	 ?York	 ?University,	 ?1988)	 ?[unpublished]	 ?at	 ?5?12;	 ?Smart,	 ?Feminism,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?29	 ?at	 ?45;	 ?See	 ?also	 ?Clayton	 ?C	 ?Ruby,	 ?Gerald	 ?J	 ?Chan	 ?&	 ?Nader	 ?R	 ?Hasan,	 ?Sentencing,	 ?8th	 ?ed	 ?(Markham,	 ?Ont:	 ?LexisNexis	 ?Canada,	 ?2012),	 ?sec	 ?1.28,	 ?1.31	 ?[high	 ?conviction	 ?rates	 ?not	 ?harsh	 ?sentences	 ?deter	 ?crime].	 ?	 ? 19	 ?influence	 ?of	 ?the	 ?myths	 ?and	 ?the	 ?notion	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?violence	 ?as	 ?a	 ?form	 ?of	 ?(bad)	 ?sex	 ?remain.	 ?They	 ?peep	 ?out	 ?from	 ?behind	 ?the	 ?language	 ?of	 ?non-??violence,	 ?risk,	 ?intoxication,	 ?and	 ??good?	 ?offenders.	 ?But	 ?as	 ?feminist	 ?advocates	 ?have	 ?long	 ?argued,	 ?sexual	 ?violence	 ?is	 ?not	 ?just	 ?bad	 ?sex,	 ?not	 ?for	 ?survivors	 ?and	 ?not	 ?for	 ?women	 ?in	 ?general.	 ?	 ? I	 ?speculate	 ?that	 ?rape	 ?myths	 ?are	 ?difficult	 ?to	 ?eliminate	 ?in	 ?part	 ?because	 ?the	 ?paradigm	 ?of	 ?the	 ?law	 ?is	 ?largely	 ?a	 ?liberal	 ?one.	 ?That	 ?is,	 ?sexual	 ?crimes	 ?are	 ?treated	 ?as	 ?individual	 ?acts	 ?isolated	 ?from	 ?larger	 ?social	 ?structures,	 ?including	 ?those	 ?that	 ?create	 ?or	 ?maintain	 ?inequalities	 ?and	 ?vulnerabilities.	 ?This	 ?approach	 ?does	 ?not	 ?right	 ?inequalities.	 ?It	 ?also	 ?does	 ?not	 ?eliminate	 ?gender	 ?norms	 ?that	 ?men	 ?are	 ?aggressive,	 ?sex-??seeking,	 ?barely	 ?under	 ?control	 ?Casanovas	 ?and	 ?women	 ?are	 ?passive	 ?and	 ?coy	 ?sexualized	 ?objects	 ?who	 ?cannot	 ?be	 ?trusted	 ?to	 ?communicate	 ?their	 ?wants	 ?and	 ?desires.	 ?	 ?	 ? In	 ?the	 ?case	 ?sample,	 ?I	 ?found	 ?rape	 ?myths.	 ?They	 ?were	 ?most	 ?conspicuous	 ?in	 ?sexual	 ?offences	 ?by	 ?men	 ?against	 ?adolescents	 ?who	 ?were	 ?strangers	 ?to	 ?them	 ?or	 ?bare	 ?acquaintances.	 ?In	 ?these	 ?cases,	 ?I	 ?saw	 ?judges	 ?portray	 ?sex	 ?offences	 ?as	 ?technically	 ?illegal	 ?but	 ?not	 ?truly	 ?harmful	 ?because	 ?survivors	 ??agreed?	 ?or	 ??consented?	 ?and	 ?offenders	 ?did	 ?not	 ?use	 ??violence?	 ?or	 ??force.?	 ?In	 ?some	 ?cases,	 ?judges	 ?accepted	 ?the	 ?vulnerability	 ?of	 ?adolescents	 ?that	 ?makes	 ?consent	 ?impossible	 ?as	 ?a	 ?matter	 ?of	 ?law	 ?but	 ?not	 ?of	 ?fact;	 ?they	 ?therefore	 ?glossed	 ?over	 ?offenders?	 ?exploitation	 ?and	 ?portrayed	 ?survivors	 ?as	 ?less	 ?harmed	 ?by	 ?offences	 ?they	 ?had	 ??asked	 ?for.?	 ?In	 ?these	 ?cases,	 ?they	 ?left	 ?the	 ?inequality	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?violence	 ?and	 ?its	 ?violent	 ?character	 ?largely	 ?unstated	 ?and	 ?therefore,	 ?unexamined.	 ?With	 ?supposed	 ?agreement	 ?and	 ?no	 ?overt	 ?physical	 ?violence,	 ?the	 ?law	 ?considered	 ?this	 ?a	 ?grey	 ?area	 ?between	 ?sex	 ?and	 ?harmful	 ?sexual	 ?violence.	 ?	 ? 20	 ?	 ? The	 ?court?s	 ?different	 ?approach	 ?to	 ?considering	 ?harm	 ?to	 ?survivors	 ?was	 ?also	 ?discernible	 ?in	 ?some	 ?cases	 ?of	 ?particularly	 ?vulnerable	 ?women	 ?taking	 ??risks.?	 ?Specifically,	 ?it	 ?is	 ?noteworthy	 ?that	 ?in	 ?three	 ?cases	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?assaults	 ?against	 ?women	 ?in	 ?prostitution,	 ?courts	 ?determined	 ?survivors	 ?were	 ?not	 ?seriously	 ?harmed,	 ?had	 ?recovered	 ?well	 ?from	 ?their	 ?trauma,	 ?or	 ?had	 ?improved	 ?their	 ?lives	 ?since	 ?the	 ?assault,	 ?findings	 ?not	 ?typically	 ?made	 ?for	 ?other	 ?survivors.	 ?In	 ?another	 ?case	 ?about	 ??risk,?	 ?a	 ?judge	 ?scolded	 ?a	 ?single	 ?mother	 ?subjected	 ?to	 ?a	 ?sexualized	 ?workplace	 ?for	 ?not	 ?avoiding	 ?sexual	 ?assault	 ?by	 ?her	 ?boss,	 ?which	 ?apparently	 ?she	 ?should	 ?have	 ?seen	 ?coming.	 ?Like	 ?adolescents	 ?who	 ?associated	 ?with	 ?predatory	 ?men,	 ?perhaps	 ?courts	 ?saw	 ?these	 ?women	 ?as	 ?willfully	 ?running	 ?the	 ?risk	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?violence.	 ?	 ?	 ? The	 ?myths	 ?were	 ?also	 ?visible	 ?in	 ?portrayals	 ?of	 ?offenders	 ?as	 ?fundamentally	 ??good.?	 ?Based	 ?on	 ?stereotypes,	 ?courts	 ?mitigated	 ?sentences	 ?of	 ?men	 ?with	 ?families,	 ?jobs,	 ?and	 ?churches.	 ?Ultimately,	 ?this	 ?thinking	 ?reinforced	 ?myths	 ?about	 ?what	 ?rapists	 ?look	 ?like	 ?and	 ?whether	 ?the	 ?conduct	 ?of	 ?otherwise	 ?good	 ?men	 ?amounts	 ?to	 ?sexual	 ?violence,	 ?not	 ?sex.	 ?It	 ?also	 ?reinforced	 ?the	 ?social	 ?privilege	 ?of	 ?certain	 ?men.	 ?	 ? In	 ?some	 ?cases	 ?in	 ?the	 ?sample,	 ?courts	 ?used	 ?sexual	 ?history	 ?and	 ?other	 ?evidence	 ?that	 ?sexualized	 ?survivors	 ?and	 ?painted	 ?offenders	 ?as	 ?good	 ?men	 ?not	 ?prone	 ?to	 ?sexual	 ?violence.	 ?As	 ?well,	 ?in	 ?mitigation	 ?or	 ?to	 ?situate	 ?offences	 ?in	 ?relation	 ?to	 ?other	 ?cases,	 ?courts	 ?characterized	 ?offences	 ?as	 ?non-??violent,	 ?mistakes,	 ?or	 ?not	 ?predatory	 ?based	 ?on	 ?myths.	 ?They	 ?joined	 ?offenders	 ?(and	 ?psychologists)	 ?in	 ?blaming	 ?violence	 ?on	 ?intoxication	 ?rather	 ?than	 ?offender	 ?agency,	 ?seeing	 ?sexual	 ?violence	 ?as	 ?something	 ?that	 ?happens	 ?when	 ?men	 ?lose	 ?control,	 ?not	 ?when	 ?they	 ?are	 ?controlling	 ?and	 ?dominating	 ?	 ? 21	 ?someone	 ?else.	 ?Courts	 ?placed	 ?less	 ?emphasis	 ?on	 ?harm	 ?to	 ?the	 ?survivor	 ?than	 ?on	 ?the	 ?offender?s	 ?circumstances,	 ?and	 ?sometimes	 ?omitted	 ?harm	 ?from	 ?the	 ?discussion	 ?entirely.	 ?	 ? I	 ?do	 ?not	 ?debate	 ?the	 ?doctrine	 ?that	 ?offenders	 ?guilty	 ?of	 ?the	 ?same	 ?crime	 ?can	 ?have	 ?different	 ?levels	 ?of	 ?blameworthiness;	 ?however,	 ?it	 ?is	 ?a	 ?problem	 ?if	 ?blameworthiness	 ?turns	 ?on	 ?prejudicial	 ?and	 ?sexist	 ?assumptions.	 ?	 ? The	 ?myths	 ?that	 ?were	 ?evident	 ?in	 ?doctrine	 ?were	 ?reinforced	 ?by	 ?discourse,	 ?which	 ?followed	 ?similar	 ?themes.	 ?In	 ?some	 ?cases,	 ?judges	 ?described	 ?acts	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?violence	 ?using	 ?language	 ?that	 ?expressed	 ?consent,	 ?mutuality,	 ?and	 ?eroticism.	 ?They	 ?also	 ?used	 ?language	 ?for	 ?sexual	 ?violence	 ?that	 ?was	 ?neutral	 ?and	 ?vague,	 ?using	 ?broad	 ?and	 ?commonplace	 ?terms	 ?for	 ?touching	 ?without	 ?positive	 ?or	 ?negative	 ?connotations.	 ?These	 ?terms	 ?hid	 ?the	 ?forceful,	 ?violent,	 ?and	 ?unilateral	 ?nature	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?offences.	 ?In	 ?some	 ?cases,	 ?courts	 ?obscured	 ?the	 ?agency	 ?of	 ?offenders	 ?with	 ?grammar	 ?that	 ?removed	 ?offenders	 ?from	 ?crimes	 ?or	 ?made	 ?the	 ?actor	 ?unclear,	 ?sometimes	 ?making	 ?sexually	 ?assaultive	 ?acts	 ?appear	 ?to	 ?occur	 ?spontaneously.	 ?In	 ?some	 ?judicial	 ?language,	 ?causes	 ?were	 ?discursively	 ?portrayed	 ?as	 ?outside	 ?of	 ?offenders,	 ?blaming	 ?violence	 ?on	 ?intoxication.	 ?Courts	 ?also	 ?regularly	 ?used	 ?terms	 ?that	 ?undermined	 ?findings	 ?of	 ?guilt,	 ?casting	 ?doubt	 ?and	 ?suspicion	 ?on	 ?survivors.	 ?Ultimately,	 ?legal	 ?discourse	 ?suggested	 ?the	 ?question:	 ?was	 ?it	 ?really	 ?just	 ?bad	 ?sex?	 ?	 ?	 ? Cases	 ?that	 ?looked	 ?the	 ?least	 ?like	 ?the	 ?stereotypical	 ??real?	 ?sexual	 ?assault	 ?were	 ?where	 ?myths	 ?tended	 ?to	 ?crop	 ?up.	 ?In	 ?the	 ?most	 ?undeniably	 ?violent	 ?and	 ?horrific	 ?cases,	 ?judges	 ?readily	 ?recognized	 ?violence	 ?and	 ?harm.	 ?It	 ?was	 ?in	 ?the	 ?less	 ?obviously	 ?violent	 ?cases	 ?that	 ?courts	 ?used	 ?rape	 ?myths.	 ?It	 ?appears,	 ?then,	 ?in	 ?sentencing	 ?cases,	 ?feminist	 ?reforms	 ?have	 ?failed	 ?to	 ?ensure	 ?courts	 ?recognize	 ?the	 ?gender	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?violence	 ?and	 ?all	 ?	 ? 22	 ?sexual	 ?offences	 ?as	 ?harmful	 ?and	 ?blameworthy	 ?violence,	 ?and	 ?most	 ?clearly	 ?have	 ?failed	 ?to	 ?protect	 ?especially	 ?vulnerable	 ?women	 ?from	 ?rape	 ?myths.	 ?	 ?	 ? I	 ?do	 ?not	 ?suggest	 ?courts	 ?intentionally	 ?relied	 ?on	 ?rape	 ?myths:	 ?they	 ?are	 ?pervasive	 ?in	 ?our	 ?culture	 ?and	 ?the	 ?law	 ?and,	 ?raised	 ?to	 ?the	 ?level	 ?of	 ?commonsense,	 ?often	 ?go	 ?unnoticed.	 ?Judges	 ?do	 ?not	 ?construct	 ?and	 ?narrate	 ?offences	 ?as	 ?a	 ?solitary	 ?venture.	 ?However,	 ?I	 ?suggest	 ?that	 ?judicial	 ?inattention	 ?to	 ?gender	 ?inequality,	 ?the	 ?context	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?violence,	 ?played	 ?a	 ?role	 ?in	 ?enabling	 ?myths	 ?to	 ?continue	 ?and	 ?enabling	 ?courts	 ?to	 ?portray	 ?some	 ?sexual	 ?violence	 ?as	 ?like	 ?consensual	 ?sex.	 ?D. A	 ?Note	 ?on	 ?Language	 ?	 ? My	 ?thesis	 ?is	 ?focused	 ?on	 ?both	 ?doctrine	 ?and	 ?discourse;	 ?as	 ?a	 ?result,	 ?language	 ?is	 ?important.	 ?I	 ?tried	 ?to	 ?be	 ?thoughtful	 ?about	 ?the	 ?language	 ?I	 ?use.	 ?I	 ?wish	 ?to	 ?explain	 ?certain	 ?word	 ?choices,	 ?specifically	 ?my	 ?use	 ?of	 ??rape?	 ?and	 ??survivor.?	 ?	 ? The	 ?term	 ?rape	 ?no	 ?longer	 ?has	 ?a	 ?specific	 ?meaning	 ?in	 ?the	 ?law:	 ?with	 ?the	 ?reforms	 ?of	 ?the	 ?1980s,	 ?the	 ?offence	 ?of	 ?rape	 ?was	 ?abolished	 ?in	 ?favour	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?assault,	 ?which	 ?criminalizes	 ?all	 ?nonconsensual	 ?sexual	 ?touching.	 ?However,	 ?the	 ?meaning	 ?of	 ??rape?	 ?in	 ?common	 ?parlance	 ?remains	 ?the	 ?same:	 ?it	 ?still	 ?usefully	 ?expresses	 ?a	 ?particular	 ?type	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?assault.	 ?As	 ?well,	 ?the	 ?word	 ?rape	 ?is	 ?powerful.	 ?Its	 ?use	 ?can	 ?be	 ?a	 ?political	 ?choice	 ?for	 ?feminists	 ?scholars71	 ?to	 ?capture	 ??an	 ?important	 ?shared	 ?social	 ?understanding	 ?of	 ?the	 ?meaning	 ?and	 ?impact	 ?of	 ?rape	 ?for	 ?women?,	 ?a	 ?meaning	 ?which	 ?may	 ?have	 ?been	 ?lost	 ?in	 ?the	 ?gender-??neutral	 ?term	 ??sexual	 ?assault.?72	 ?Moreover,	 ?it	 ?more	 ?accurately	 ?describes	 ?the	 ?force	 ?and	 ?violence	 ?of	 ?nonconsensual	 ?vaginal	 ?and	 ?anal	 ?penetration	 ?than	 ??intercourse?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?71	 ?Elizabeth	 ?Sheehy,	 ??Editorial?	 ?(2011)	 ?23:1	 ?CJWL	 ?iii	 ?at	 ?iv.	 ?72	 ?Johnson,	 ??Limits?,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?3	 ?at	 ?621.	 ?	 ? 23	 ?or	 ??penetration?,	 ?an	 ?issue	 ?I	 ?discuss	 ?in	 ?my	 ?analysis.	 ?Therefore,	 ?I	 ?have	 ?chosen	 ?to	 ?use	 ?it	 ?in	 ?this	 ?thesis.	 ?	 ? I	 ?have	 ?also	 ?chosen	 ?to	 ?call	 ?individuals	 ?who	 ?have	 ?experienced	 ?sexual	 ?violence	 ??survivors.?	 ?I	 ?use	 ?this	 ?word	 ?instead	 ?of	 ?the	 ?more	 ?common	 ?term	 ??victim,?	 ?which	 ?is	 ?the	 ?correct	 ?term	 ?pursuant	 ?to	 ?the	 ?Criminal	 ?Code.73	 ?I	 ?have	 ?followed	 ?others	 ?in	 ?questioning	 ?the	 ?label	 ??victim?	 ?because	 ?it	 ?can	 ?be	 ?disempowering,	 ?rendering	 ?individuals	 ?as	 ?passive	 ?(and	 ?stereotypically	 ?feminized)	 ?objects	 ?worthy	 ?of	 ?pity	 ?and	 ?even	 ?scorn.	 ?In	 ?contrast,	 ?the	 ?term	 ??survivor?	 ?has	 ?been	 ?embraced	 ?for	 ?its	 ?connotations	 ?of	 ?resilience	 ?and	 ?resistance.74	 ?I	 ?also	 ?question	 ?the	 ?term	 ?victim	 ?because	 ?of	 ?its	 ?appropriation	 ?by	 ?the	 ?victims?	 ?rights	 ?movement,	 ?which	 ?I	 ?discuss	 ?in	 ?more	 ?detail	 ?in	 ?Chapter	 ?II.	 ?Within	 ?this	 ?movement,	 ??victim?	 ?has	 ?come	 ?to	 ?convey	 ?the	 ?understanding	 ?of	 ?crime	 ?as	 ?atomistic	 ?and	 ?isolated	 ?occurrences,	 ?rather	 ?than	 ?the	 ?feminist	 ?conception	 ?of	 ?crime	 ?as	 ?contextual	 ?and	 ?based	 ?on	 ?socially	 ?constructed	 ?vulnerability	 ?and	 ?marginalization.75	 ?	 ?	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?73	 ?Criminal	 ?Code,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?67,	 ?s	 ?722(4).	 ?74	 ?Ruparelia,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?40	 ?at	 ?670?671.	 ?75	 ?Ibid	 ?at	 ?668?670;	 ?See	 ?also	 ?Lise	 ?Gotell,	 ??The	 ?Discursive	 ?Disappearance	 ?of	 ?Sexualized	 ?Violence:	 ?Feminist	 ?Law	 ?Reform,	 ?Judicial	 ?Resistance,	 ?and	 ?Neo-??Liberal	 ?Sexual	 ?Citizenship?	 ?in	 ?Dorothy	 ?E	 ?Chunn,	 ?Susan	 ?B	 ?Boyd	 ?&	 ?Hester	 ?Lessard,	 ?eds,	 ?Reaction	 ?and	 ?Resistance:	 ?Feminism,	 ?Law,	 ?and	 ?Social	 ?Change	 ?(UBC	 ?Press,	 ?2007)	 ?127	 ?at	 ?132	 ?[?Disappearance?];	 ?Martin,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?68	 ?at	 ?158?159.	 ?	 ? 24	 ?II.	 ?Context	 ?	 ? In	 ?this	 ?chapter,	 ?I	 ?consider	 ?the	 ?law	 ?both	 ?past	 ?and	 ?present	 ?to	 ?explore	 ?the	 ?expression	 ?of	 ?rape	 ?myths	 ?and	 ?ongoing	 ?concerns	 ?about	 ?their	 ?use	 ?in	 ?the	 ?law.	 ?	 ?	 ? As	 ?I	 ?explain	 ?below,	 ?the	 ?law	 ?has	 ?throughout	 ?history	 ?told	 ?a	 ?particular	 ?story	 ?about	 ?sexual	 ?violence.	 ?This	 ?story	 ?is	 ?premised	 ?on	 ?the	 ?gender	 ?inequality	 ?that	 ?underlies	 ?sexual	 ?violence,	 ?which	 ?denies	 ?the	 ?female	 ?experience	 ?in	 ?favour	 ?of	 ?a	 ?masculine	 ?point	 ?of	 ?view:	 ?it	 ?sees	 ?survivors,	 ?the	 ?harm	 ?they	 ?suffer,	 ?and	 ?perpetrators?	 ?culpability	 ?from	 ?the	 ?privileged	 ?perspective	 ?of	 ?those	 ?who	 ?benefitted	 ?from	 ?gender	 ?inequality.	 ?From	 ?this	 ?vantage	 ?point,	 ?sexual	 ?violence	 ?was	 ?harmful	 ?if	 ?it	 ?harmed	 ?male	 ?interests.	 ?Lawmakers	 ?protected	 ?their	 ?male	 ?interests	 ?by	 ?encoding	 ?a	 ?narrow	 ?understanding	 ?of	 ??real?	 ?sexual	 ?violence	 ?into	 ?the	 ?law.	 ?	 ? With	 ?the	 ?women?s	 ?movement,	 ?rape	 ?myths	 ?and	 ?the	 ?injustice	 ?perpetrated	 ?by	 ?the	 ?law	 ?against	 ?survivors	 ?came	 ?to	 ?be	 ?recognized.	 ?Feminist	 ?advocates	 ?pushed	 ?for	 ?legal	 ?reforms,	 ?and	 ?were	 ?in	 ?part	 ?successful.	 ?Due	 ?to	 ?their	 ?efforts,	 ?the	 ?law	 ?has	 ?lost	 ?its	 ?blatant	 ?discrimination;	 ?however,	 ?feminist	 ?scholars	 ?have	 ?argued	 ?that	 ?the	 ?continuing	 ?unequal	 ?position	 ?of	 ?women	 ?and	 ?currency	 ?of	 ?rape	 ?myths	 ?have	 ?limited	 ?how	 ?judges	 ?interpret	 ?the	 ?reforms,	 ?influencing	 ?the	 ?law	 ?in	 ?both	 ?doctrine	 ?and	 ?discourse.	 ?	 ?A. Sexual	 ?Assault	 ?Law	 ?of	 ?the	 ?Past	 ?	 ? The	 ?gender	 ?inequality	 ?that	 ?characterizes	 ?sexual	 ?violence	 ?has	 ?also	 ?characterized	 ?the	 ?law.	 ?As	 ?I	 ?explore,	 ?a	 ?survivor	 ?who	 ?reported	 ?sexual	 ?violence	 ?had	 ?her	 ??victimization	 ?measured	 ?against	 ?the	 ?current	 ?rape	 ?mythologies?	 ?by	 ?police,	 ?lawyers,	 ?	 ? 25	 ?and	 ?judges.76	 ?Myths	 ?were	 ?formalized	 ?in	 ?the	 ?substantive	 ?law	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?offences	 ?as	 ?well	 ?as	 ?the	 ?particular	 ?evidentiary	 ?rules	 ?that	 ?governed	 ?sexual	 ?offence	 ?trials.	 ?These	 ?laws	 ??made	 ?it	 ?extremely	 ?difficult	 ?for	 ?the	 ?complainant	 ?to	 ?establish	 ?her	 ?credibility	 ?and	 ?fend	 ?off	 ?inquiry	 ?and	 ?speculation	 ?regarding	 ?her	 ??morality?	 ?or	 ??character.?"77	 ?Myths	 ?shaped	 ?how	 ?professionals	 ?in	 ?the	 ?criminal	 ?justice	 ?system	 ?expected	 ?a	 ??real?	 ?rape,	 ?a	 ??real?	 ?complainant,	 ?and	 ?a	 ??real?	 ?perpetrator	 ?to	 ?look;	 ?as	 ?a	 ?result,	 ?with	 ?any	 ?deviation	 ?from	 ?the	 ?script,	 ?survivors	 ?were	 ?less	 ?likely	 ?to	 ?be	 ?believed	 ?and	 ?have	 ?their	 ?assaults	 ?recognized	 ?by	 ?the	 ?law.78	 ?	 ? As	 ?Boyle	 ?pointed	 ?out,	 ?until	 ?recently,	 ?the	 ?law	 ?was	 ?drafted	 ?and	 ?interpreted	 ?almost	 ?entirely	 ?by	 ?men;	 ?therefore,	 ?it	 ?was	 ?inevitable	 ?that	 ?the	 ?law	 ?reflected	 ?their	 ?perspectives	 ?and	 ?experiences.79	 ?As	 ?men,	 ?lawmakers	 ?could	 ?readily	 ?identify	 ?with	 ?male	 ?family	 ?members	 ?of	 ?survivors	 ?and	 ?even	 ?accused	 ?men,	 ?but	 ?not	 ?female	 ?survivors.	 ?As	 ?a	 ?result,	 ?the	 ?law	 ?evolved	 ?to	 ?protect	 ?the	 ?interests	 ?of	 ?survivors?	 ?family	 ?members,	 ?men	 ?with	 ?rights	 ?over	 ?women?s	 ?sexuality	 ?and	 ?reproduction,	 ?and	 ?the	 ?interests	 ?of	 ?men	 ?accused	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?offences,	 ?seen	 ?as	 ?easy	 ?victims	 ?of	 ?false	 ?charges	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?assault	 ?but	 ?not	 ?of	 ?other	 ?crimes.	 ?The	 ?law	 ?did	 ?not	 ?develop	 ?to	 ?protect	 ?women	 ?and	 ?children	 ?from	 ?sexual	 ?violence.80	 ?Substantive	 ?Law:	 ?Sexual	 ?Offences	 ?to	 ?Protect	 ?Male	 ?Interests	 ?	 ? The	 ?substantive	 ?law	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?offences	 ?was	 ?premised	 ?largely	 ?on	 ?the	 ?status	 ?of	 ?female	 ?sexuality	 ?and	 ?reproduction	 ?as	 ?the	 ?property	 ?of	 ?men.	 ?The	 ?law?s	 ?primary	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?76	 ?R.	 ?v.	 ?Seaboyer;	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?26	 ?at	 ?para	 ?146,	 ?L?Heureux-??Dub?	 ?J.,	 ?dissenting.	 ?77	 ?Ibid,	 ?para	 ?175.	 ?78	 ?Ibid,	 ?paras	 ?146-??173.	 ?79	 ?Boyle,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?62	 ?at	 ?4.	 ?80	 ?Ibid	 ?at	 ?5?6;	 ?See	 ?also	 ?Brownmiller,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?25	 ?at	 ?17?30;	 ?Clark	 ?&	 ?Lewis,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?14	 ?at	 ?111?120.	 ?	 ? 26	 ?concern	 ?with	 ?male	 ?interests	 ?is	 ?evident	 ?in	 ?the	 ?past	 ?substantive	 ?offences	 ?whose	 ?focal	 ?points	 ?were	 ?penetration	 ?and	 ?chastity;	 ?when	 ?these	 ?were	 ?perceived	 ?to	 ?be	 ?absent,	 ?actions	 ?were	 ?not	 ?criminal	 ?or	 ?were	 ?considered	 ?less	 ?serious	 ?offences.	 ?	 ?	 ? In	 ?1800,	 ?Upper	 ?Canada	 ?adopted	 ?English	 ?criminal	 ?law	 ?in	 ?its	 ?entirety.81	 ?This	 ?included	 ?the	 ?offence	 ?of	 ?rape,	 ?which	 ?was	 ?left	 ?undefined	 ?until	 ?1892.	 ?When	 ?it	 ?was	 ?defined,	 ?it	 ?was	 ?limited	 ?to	 ?a	 ?male	 ?having	 ?nonconsensual	 ?sexual	 ?intercourse	 ?with	 ?a	 ?woman	 ?not	 ?his	 ?wife;	 ?this	 ?definition	 ?remained	 ?in	 ?the	 ?law	 ?until	 ?the	 ?1980s.82	 ?The	 ?Criminal	 ?Code	 ?also	 ?criminalized	 ?attempts	 ?to	 ?commit	 ?rape,	 ?an	 ?offence	 ?that	 ?was	 ?often	 ?relied	 ?on	 ?when	 ?it	 ?was	 ?difficult	 ?to	 ?prove	 ?the	 ?necessary	 ?elements	 ?of	 ?rape	 ?or	 ?when	 ?juries	 ?or	 ?judges	 ?were	 ?simply	 ?unwilling	 ?to	 ?convict	 ?for	 ?rape.83	 ?	 ? 	 ?	 ? Since	 ?its	 ?adoption	 ?of	 ?the	 ?criminal	 ?law	 ?from	 ?England,	 ?Canada	 ?has	 ?also	 ?criminalized	 ?the	 ?offence	 ?commonly	 ?known	 ?as	 ?statutory	 ?rape,	 ?initially	 ?called	 ??carnal	 ?knowledge?	 ?of	 ?an	 ?underage	 ?girl.84	 ?The	 ?age	 ?of	 ?consent	 ?was	 ?raised	 ?over	 ?time:	 ?from	 ?10	 ?years	 ?old,	 ?to	 ?12,	 ?then	 ?to	 ?14,85	 ?and	 ?then,	 ?in	 ?some	 ?circumstances,	 ?to	 ?16	 ?or	 ?even	 ?18.	 ?However,	 ?as	 ?discussed	 ?by	 ?Boyle,	 ?protection	 ?of	 ?girls	 ?over	 ?14	 ?was	 ?only	 ?historically	 ?provided	 ?to	 ?those	 ?who	 ?were	 ??chaste.?86	 ?The	 ?Criminal	 ?Code	 ?also	 ?ostensibly	 ?outlawed	 ?sexual	 ?intercourse	 ?with	 ?women	 ?with	 ?mental	 ?disabilities,	 ?as	 ?well	 ?as	 ??seduction?	 ?of	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?81	 ?Backhouse,	 ??Nineteenth-??Century?,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?65	 ?at	 ?201;	 ?Boyle,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?62	 ?at	 ?11;	 ?See	 ?generally	 ?Bruce	 ?A	 ?MacFarlane,	 ?QC,	 ??Historical	 ?Development	 ?of	 ?the	 ?Offence	 ?of	 ?Rape?	 ?in	 ?Josiah	 ?Wood	 ?&	 ?Richard	 ?C	 ?C	 ?Peck,	 ?eds,	 ?100	 ?Years	 ?of	 ?the	 ?Criminal	 ?Code	 ?in	 ?Canada:	 ?Essays	 ?Commemorating	 ?the	 ?Centenary	 ?of	 ?the	 ?Criminal	 ?Code	 ?in	 ?Canada	 ?(Ottawa:	 ?Canadian	 ?Bar	 ?Association,	 ?1993),	 ?online:	 ?<http://canadiancriminallaw.com/articles/abstracts/Hist_rape.htm>	 ?[cited	 ?to	 ?online].	 ?82	 ?Boyle,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?62	 ?at	 ?11?13;	 ?Backhouse,	 ??Nineteenth-??Century?,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?65	 ?at	 ?234.	 ?See	 ?e.g.	 ?Criminal	 ?Code,	 ?RSC	 ?1970	 ?c	 ?C-??34	 ?[Criminal	 ?Code	 ?1970].	 ?83	 ?Backhouse,	 ??Nineteenth-??Century?,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?65	 ?at	 ?206,	 ?208;	 ?Drysdale,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?70	 ?at	 ?10?11,	 ?151?152.	 ?84	 ?Boyle,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?62	 ?at	 ?18;	 ?Backhouse,	 ??Nineteenth-??Century?,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?65	 ?at	 ?201?202.	 ?85	 ?Boyle,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?62	 ?at	 ?18?19;	 ?Backhouse,	 ??Nineteenth-??Century?,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?65	 ?at	 ?204,	 ?206?207,	 ?209?211.	 ?86	 ?Boyle,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?62	 ?at	 ?18?20	 ?citing	 ?Criminal	 ?Code,	 ?SC	 ?1920,	 ?c	 ?43,	 ?ss	 ?8,	 ?17.	 ?	 ? 27	 ?young	 ?women	 ?and	 ?girls	 ?in	 ?certain	 ?relationships	 ?of	 ?subordinance	 ?with	 ?the	 ?offender	 ?or	 ?on	 ?the	 ?promise	 ?of	 ?marriage.87	 ?The	 ?offence	 ??indecent	 ?assault	 ?of	 ?a	 ?female?	 ?was	 ?applied	 ?to	 ?sexual	 ?violence	 ?when	 ?there	 ?was	 ?no	 ?proof	 ?of	 ?penetration	 ?and	 ?the	 ?offence	 ?of	 ?buggery	 ?and	 ??indecent	 ?assault	 ?of	 ?a	 ?male?	 ?when	 ?a	 ?male	 ?was	 ?victimized.88	 ?	 ?	 ? Although	 ?specific	 ?offences	 ?were	 ?delineated,	 ?what	 ?offence	 ?police,	 ?judges,	 ?and	 ?juries	 ?would	 ?charge	 ?and	 ?convict	 ?a	 ?perpetrator	 ?of,	 ?a	 ?rare	 ?occurrence,89	 ?varied	 ?based	 ?on	 ?discriminatory	 ?evidentiary	 ?rules	 ?and	 ?judgments	 ?about	 ?offenders?	 ?and	 ?survivors?	 ?characters	 ?and	 ?conduct:	 ?as	 ?found	 ?by	 ?Janet	 ?Lynn	 ?Drysdale,	 ?crimes	 ?that	 ?were	 ?factually	 ??indistinguishable	 ?ended	 ?in	 ?different	 ?verdicts,	 ?for	 ?rape,	 ?attempted	 ?rape,	 ?indecent	 ?assault	 ?and	 ?even	 ?common	 ?assault.?90	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ? Fundamentally,	 ?the	 ?notion	 ?of	 ?the	 ?harm	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?violence	 ?rested	 ?on	 ?male	 ?property	 ?interests.	 ?Most	 ?offences	 ?centred	 ?on	 ?sexual	 ?intercourse,	 ?or	 ?vaginal	 ?penetration	 ?by	 ?a	 ?penis.	 ?The	 ?law	 ?therefore	 ?criminalized	 ?unsanctioned	 ?access	 ?to	 ?female	 ?reproductive	 ?capacity	 ?rather	 ?than	 ?violence	 ?as	 ?experienced	 ?by	 ?survivors.91	 ?Seduction	 ?offences	 ?and	 ?certain	 ?exploitation	 ?of	 ?youth	 ?offences	 ?often	 ?explicitly	 ?applied	 ?to	 ??chaste?	 ?complainants	 ?only,	 ?and	 ?therefore,	 ?complainants	 ?with	 ?future	 ?marital	 ?value:92	 ?other	 ?women	 ?were	 ?seen	 ?as	 ??fair	 ?game?	 ?for	 ?men,	 ?with	 ?no	 ?real	 ?harm	 ?arising	 ?from	 ?their	 ?assault.93	 ?As	 ?well,	 ?no	 ?offence	 ?prohibited	 ?sexual	 ?violence	 ?between	 ?spouses:	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?87	 ?Ibid	 ?at	 ?20?24.	 ?88	 ?Ibid	 ?at	 ?16?17.	 ?89	 ?Ibid	 ?at	 ?14;	 ?Drysdale,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?70	 ?at	 ?7;	 ?See	 ?generally	 ?Clark	 ?&	 ?Lewis,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?14.	 ?90	 ?Drysdale,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?70	 ?at	 ?151?152.	 ?91	 ?Boyle,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?62	 ?at	 ?11?12,	 ?27;	 ?Nancy	 ?Goldsberry,	 ?Rape	 ?in	 ?British	 ?Columbia:	 ?A	 ?Report	 ?to	 ?the	 ?Ministry	 ?of	 ?the	 ?Attorney-??General	 ?(Victoria,	 ?BC:	 ?Ministry	 ?of	 ?the	 ?Attorney-??General,	 ?1979)	 ?at	 ?111?112;	 ?Pasquali,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?51	 ?at	 ?25?26.	 ?92	 ?Boyle,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?62	 ?at	 ?18?20,	 ?24?25;	 ?Clark	 ?&	 ?Lewis,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?14	 ?at	 ?115?120.	 ?93	 ?Janine	 ?Benedet,	 ??The	 ?Age	 ?of	 ?Innocence:	 ?A	 ?Cautious	 ?Defense	 ?of	 ?Raising	 ?the	 ?Age	 ?of	 ?Consent	 ?in	 ?Canadian	 ?Sexual	 ?Assault	 ?Law?	 ?(2010)	 ?13:4	 ?New	 ?Criminal	 ?Law	 ?Review:	 ?An	 ?International	 ?and	 ?	 ? 28	 ?the	 ?law	 ?did	 ?not	 ?recognize	 ?assaults	 ?by	 ?husbands	 ?against	 ?their	 ?wives	 ?because	 ?male	 ?interests	 ?were	 ?not	 ?harmed.94	 ?	 ?Distrust	 ?and	 ?the	 ?Exceptional	 ?Evidentiary	 ?Requirements	 ?in	 ?Sexual	 ?Offence	 ?Trials	 ?	 ? Evidentiary	 ?laws	 ?further	 ?limited	 ?the	 ?sort	 ?of	 ?women	 ?and	 ?children	 ?the	 ?law	 ?was	 ?prepared	 ?to	 ?believe	 ?and	 ?protect,	 ?based	 ?on	 ?male	 ?lawmakers?	 ?fears	 ?of	 ?convicting	 ?innocent	 ?men	 ?of	 ?false	 ?rape	 ?claims.	 ?According	 ?to	 ?lawmakers,	 ?complainants	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?violence	 ?were	 ?to	 ?be	 ?distrusted.95	 ?Their	 ?suspicion	 ?was	 ?reflected	 ?in	 ?the	 ?use	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?history	 ?evidence	 ?against	 ?complainants,	 ?as	 ?well	 ?as	 ?the	 ?explicit	 ?requirements	 ?for	 ?evidence	 ?of	 ?corroboration	 ?and	 ?immediate	 ?complaint	 ?and	 ?the	 ?implicit	 ?requirement	 ?for	 ?evidence	 ?of	 ?physical	 ?resistance.	 ?	 ? Distrust	 ?is	 ?obvious	 ?in	 ?the	 ?statements	 ?of	 ?some	 ?judges	 ?and	 ?jurists.	 ?For	 ?example,	 ?according	 ?to	 ?English	 ?judge	 ?Baron	 ?Huddleston,	 ?most	 ?rape	 ?complaints	 ?were	 ?fabrications	 ?women	 ?concocted	 ??for	 ?the	 ?purpose	 ?of	 ?shielding	 ?their	 ?own	 ?shame?,	 ??extorting	 ?money?	 ?or	 ??getting	 ?their	 ?expenses	 ?paid	 ?and	 ?a	 ?trip	 ?to	 ?the	 ?assize	 ?town?,	 ?or	 ?simply	 ?for	 ??no	 ?conceivable	 ?motive	 ?whatever.?96	 ?Similarly,	 ?J.A.	 ?Wigmore	 ?attributed	 ?women?s	 ?predilection	 ?to	 ?falsely	 ?allege	 ?rape	 ?to	 ?their	 ??inherent	 ?defects?	 ?and	 ??diseased	 ?derangements	 ?or	 ?abnormal	 ?instincts?,	 ?among	 ?other	 ?psychological	 ?infirmities.97	 ?Children	 ?were	 ?equally	 ?untrustworthy,	 ?with	 ?jurists	 ?opining	 ?that	 ?it	 ?was	 ?commonsense	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?Interdisciplinary	 ?Journal	 ?665	 ?at	 ?673	 ?[?Age	 ?of	 ?Innocence?];	 ?See	 ?also	 ?Clark	 ?&	 ?Lewis,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?14	 ?at	 ?120?124.	 ?94	 ?Boyle,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?62	 ?at	 ?8;	 ?Clark	 ?&	 ?Lewis,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?14	 ?at	 ?120?121.	 ?95	 ?R.	 ?v.	 ?Seaboyer,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?26	 ?at	 ?para	 ?175,	 ?L?Heureux-??Dub?	 ?J,	 ?dissenting.	 ?96	 ?James	 ?Crankshaw,	 ?The	 ?Criminal	 ?Code	 ?of	 ?Canada	 ?and	 ?the	 ?Canada	 ?Evidence	 ?Act,	 ?1893:	 ?with	 ?an	 ?extra	 ?appendix	 ?containing	 ?the	 ?Extradition	 ?Act,	 ?the	 ?Extradition	 ?convention	 ?with	 ?the	 ?United	 ?States,	 ?the	 ?Fugitive	 ?Offenders?	 ?Act	 ?and	 ?the	 ?House	 ?of	 ?Commons	 ?debates	 ?on	 ?the	 ?code	 ?and	 ?an	 ?analytical	 ?index	 ?(Montreal:	 ?Whiteford	 ?&	 ?Th?oret,	 ?1894)	 ?at	 ?189.	 ?97	 ?Boyle,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?62	 ?at	 ?6	 ?citing	 ?J.A.	 ?Wigmore,	 ?Evidence	 ?in	 ?Trials	 ?at	 ?Common	 ?Law,	 ?rev	 ?ed	 ?(1970),	 ?s	 ?924,	 ?736-??737.	 ?	 ? 29	 ?that	 ?children	 ?were	 ?prone	 ?to	 ??glibness,	 ?mistakenness,	 ?suggestibility,	 ?[and]	 ?proclivity	 ?to	 ?grasp	 ?for	 ?reward	 ?and	 ?to	 ?seek	 ?notoriety?.98	 ?	 ?	 ? Based	 ?on	 ?distrust	 ?of	 ?women	 ?and	 ?child	 ?complainants,	 ?legislatures	 ?and	 ?judges	 ?concocted	 ?unique	 ?procedural	 ?rules	 ?for	 ?sexual	 ?offence	 ?trials,	 ?all	 ?aimed	 ?at	 ?dismissing	 ?complaints	 ?and	 ?acquitting	 ?men.	 ?As	 ?a	 ?result,	 ?the	 ?laws	 ?against	 ?sexual	 ?offences	 ?were	 ?rarely	 ?enforced.99	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ? Among	 ?the	 ?most	 ?powerful	 ?of	 ?these	 ?tactics	 ?was	 ?defence	 ?counsel?s	 ?use	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?history	 ?evidence	 ?to	 ?discredit	 ?survivors.	 ?Sexual	 ?history	 ?was	 ?considered	 ?relevant	 ?to	 ?consent	 ?and	 ?to	 ?the	 ?survivor?s	 ?credibility.	 ?As	 ?stated	 ?by	 ?L?Heureux-??Dub?	 ?J.,	 ??women	 ?who	 ?had	 ?consensual	 ?sex	 ?outside	 ?of	 ?marriage	 ?were	 ?thought,	 ?in	 ?essence,	 ?to	 ?have	 ?a	 ?dual	 ?propensity	 ?to	 ?consent	 ?to	 ?sexual	 ?relations	 ?at	 ?large	 ?and	 ?to	 ?lie.?100	 ?Although	 ?judges	 ?had	 ?some	 ?discretion	 ?to	 ?limit	 ??degrading?	 ?questioning	 ?to	 ?undermine	 ?a	 ?complainant?s	 ?credibility,101	 ?their	 ?hands	 ?were	 ?tied	 ?on	 ?the	 ?issue	 ?of	 ?consent,	 ?a	 ?material	 ?issue.102	 ?The	 ?questions	 ?of	 ?defence	 ?counsel	 ?were	 ?often	 ?degrading:103	 ?some	 ?defence	 ?counsel	 ?developed	 ?tactics	 ?to	 ?generally	 ??hurl	 ?as	 ?much	 ?dirt	 ?as	 ?possible?	 ?at	 ?complainants104	 ?to	 ?intimidate	 ?them	 ?against	 ?pursing	 ?claims	 ?or	 ?to	 ?make	 ?them	 ?appear	 ?unbelievable.105	 ?	 ?	 ? These	 ?tactics	 ?were	 ?often	 ?successful,	 ?as	 ?evidenced	 ?in	 ?the	 ?1917	 ?gang	 ?rape	 ?case	 ?chronicled	 ?by	 ?Constance	 ?Backhouse	 ?in	 ?her	 ?history	 ?of	 ?Canadian	 ?sexual	 ?assault	 ?law.	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?98	 ?Backhouse,	 ?Carnal	 ?Crimes,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?38	 ?at	 ?173;	 ?See	 ?also	 ?Boyle,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?62	 ?at	 ?161.	 ?99	 ?Boyle,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?62	 ?at	 ?14;	 ?Drysdale,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?70	 ?at	 ?12?13;	 ?Backhouse,	 ??Nineteenth-??Century?,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?65	 ?at	 ?213?227;	 ?Backhouse,	 ?Carnal	 ?Crimes,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?38;	 ?Clark	 ?&	 ?Lewis,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?14.	 ?100	 ?R.	 ?v.	 ?Seaboyer,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?26	 ?at	 ?para	 ?176,	 ?L?Heureux-??Dub?	 ?J,	 ?dissenting.	 ?101	 ?Boyle,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?62	 ?at	 ?15.	 ?102	 ?R.	 ?v.	 ?Seaboyer,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?26	 ?at	 ?para	 ?176,	 ?L?Heureux-??Dub?	 ?J,	 ?dissenting.	 ?103	 ?For	 ?example,	 ?asking	 ?complainants	 ?is	 ?they	 ?were	 ?prostitutes:	 ?Ibid	 ?at	 ?para	 ?231.	 ?104	 ?Ibid	 ?at	 ?para	 ?241,	 ?citing	 ?House	 ?of	 ?Commons	 ?Debates,	 ?1st	 ?Sess,	 ?30th	 ?Parl,	 ?Vol.	 ?9	 ?(19	 ?November	 ?1975)	 ?at	 ?9252	 ?(Bill	 ?Jarvis).	 ?105	 ?Comack	 ?&	 ?Peter,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?63	 ?at	 ?297?298;	 ?McIntyre,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?23	 ?at	 ?80?81.	 ?	 ? 30	 ?Based	 ?on	 ?the	 ?(likely	 ?false)	 ?evidence	 ?that	 ?the	 ?14-??year-??old	 ?survivor	 ?had	 ?previously	 ?engaged	 ?in	 ?mutual	 ?masturbation	 ?with	 ?her	 ?boyfriend,	 ?the	 ?judge	 ?dismissed	 ?the	 ?charge	 ?and	 ?characterized	 ?the	 ?complainant	 ?as	 ?too	 ?disreputable	 ?to	 ?deserve	 ?the	 ?law?s	 ?protection:	 ?	 ?	 ?She	 ?has	 ?shown	 ?a	 ?lewd	 ?and	 ?lascivious	 ?disposition	 ?by	 ?offering	 ?herself	 ?to	 ?prostitution	 ?and	 ?showing	 ?by	 ?her	 ?manners	 ?that	 ?she	 ?could	 ?not	 ?be	 ?put	 ?on	 ?the	 ?same	 ?footing	 ?with	 ?pure	 ?women	 ?for	 ?the	 ?protection	 ?of	 ?whom	 ?the	 ?law	 ?has	 ?been	 ?framed.106	 ?With	 ?the	 ?use	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?history	 ?evidence	 ?and	 ?the	 ?expectations	 ?for	 ?chasteness,	 ?women	 ?and	 ?even	 ?girls	 ?with	 ?any	 ?sexual	 ?experience	 ?(consensual	 ?or	 ?not)	 ?were	 ?essentially	 ?unrapeable.107	 ?Even	 ?sexually	 ?inexperienced	 ?women	 ?were	 ?not	 ?immune	 ?because	 ?the	 ?notion	 ?of	 ?chastity	 ?included	 ?general	 ?ideas	 ?of	 ?respectability	 ?beyond	 ?sex.	 ?As	 ?Backhouse	 ?found,	 ?questions	 ?or	 ?allegations	 ?intended	 ?to	 ?paint	 ?the	 ?survivor	 ?as	 ?disreputable	 ?could	 ?include	 ?that	 ?she	 ?consumed	 ?alcohol	 ?or	 ?lived	 ?in	 ?a	 ?poor	 ?neighbourhood,	 ?for	 ?example.108	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ? The	 ?general	 ?distrust	 ?of	 ?complainants	 ?was	 ?also	 ?apparent	 ?in	 ?two	 ?evidentiary	 ?rules	 ?unique	 ?to	 ?sexual	 ?offences:	 ?recent	 ?complaint	 ?and	 ?corroboration.	 ?Contrary	 ?to	 ?the	 ?general	 ?evidentiary	 ?rule	 ?against	 ?prior	 ?consistent	 ?statements,	 ?in	 ?sexual	 ?offence	 ?trials	 ?Crown	 ?counsel	 ?were	 ?required	 ?to	 ?submit	 ?evidence	 ?that	 ?the	 ?survivor	 ?immediately	 ?reported	 ?the	 ?offence	 ?in	 ?order	 ?to	 ?rebut	 ?the	 ?presumption	 ?she	 ?was	 ?lying.	 ?Based	 ?on	 ?the	 ?myth	 ??real?	 ?survivors	 ?would	 ?complain	 ?at	 ??the	 ?first	 ?reasonable	 ?opportunity?,	 ?if	 ?they	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?106	 ?Backhouse,	 ?Carnal	 ?Crimes,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?38	 ?at	 ?77	 ?citing	 ?Rex	 ?v.	 ?Fiola	 ?(1918),	 ?29	 ?CCC	 ?125,	 ?41	 ?D.L.R.	 ?73	 ?at	 ?128,	 ?130	 ?(Q	 ?Ct	 ?SP)	 ?[cite	 ?to	 ?CCC].	 ?107	 ?Ibid.	 ?108	 ?Ibid	 ?at	 ?27?28,	 ?68?70.	 ?	 ? 31	 ?delayed,	 ?evidence	 ?of	 ?complaint	 ?was	 ?inadmissible	 ?and	 ?judges	 ?and	 ?juries	 ?had	 ?to	 ?make	 ?an	 ?adverse	 ?inference	 ?about	 ?the	 ?survivor?s	 ?credibility.109	 ?	 ? Similarly,	 ?the	 ?law	 ?required	 ?corroboration	 ?of	 ?complaints.	 ?Again	 ?contrary	 ?to	 ?the	 ?general	 ?common	 ?law	 ?rule,	 ?uncorroborated	 ?testimony	 ?was	 ?insufficient	 ?for	 ?conviction	 ?of	 ??sexual	 ?intercourse	 ?with	 ?the	 ?feeble-??minded?,	 ?seduction,	 ?incest,	 ?and	 ?other	 ?offences.	 ?For	 ?sexual	 ?offences	 ?for	 ?which	 ?it	 ?was	 ?not	 ?required,	 ?its	 ?absence	 ?gave	 ?rise	 ?to	 ?a	 ?judicial	 ?duty	 ?to	 ?warn	 ?juries	 ?about	 ?the	 ?dangers	 ?of	 ?relying	 ?on	 ?such	 ?testimony.110	 ?	 ? Although	 ?often	 ?an	 ?unstated	 ?requirement,	 ?survivors	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?offences	 ?typically	 ?had	 ?to	 ?demonstrate	 ?they	 ?resisted	 ?violent	 ?attacks	 ?by	 ?evidence	 ?of	 ?their	 ?physical	 ?injuries.	 ?This	 ?standard,	 ?a	 ?gloss	 ?to	 ?the	 ?Criminal	 ?Code,	 ?was	 ?often	 ?set	 ?high,	 ?with	 ?bruises,	 ?cuts,	 ?and	 ?even	 ?fractured	 ?bones	 ?seen	 ?as	 ?part	 ?and	 ?parcel	 ?of	 ?consensual	 ?intercourse	 ?because	 ?men	 ?were	 ?entitled	 ?to	 ?use	 ?force	 ?to	 ?get	 ?women	 ?to	 ?submit	 ?and	 ?women	 ?would	 ?resist	 ?to	 ?feign	 ?chastity.111	 ?Resistance	 ?requirements	 ?could	 ?operate	 ?particularly	 ?stringently	 ?in	 ?cases	 ?of	 ?working	 ?class	 ?or	 ?impoverished	 ?women,	 ?with	 ?forensic	 ?medical	 ?specialists	 ?asserting,	 ??[w]omen	 ?of	 ?the	 ?lower	 ?classes	 ?are	 ?accustomed	 ?to	 ?rough	 ?play?.112	 ?	 ? The	 ?law	 ?developed	 ?informed	 ?by	 ?masculinist	 ?and	 ?discriminatory	 ?notions	 ?of	 ?women?s	 ?and	 ?children?s	 ?value	 ?and	 ?credibility,	 ?and,	 ?according	 ?to	 ?men,	 ?what	 ?constituted	 ?force,	 ?violence,	 ?and	 ?consent	 ?in	 ?sexual	 ?activity.	 ?Judges	 ?protected	 ?men	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?109	 ?Boyle,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?62	 ?at	 ?14,	 ?152?153;	 ?R.	 ?v.	 ?Seaboyer,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?26	 ?at	 ?para	 ?179,	 ?L?Heureux-??Dub?	 ?J,	 ?dissenting.	 ?110	 ?Ibid	 ?at	 ?15?16,	 ?49,	 ?155?158;	 ?R.	 ?v.	 ?Seaboyer,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?26	 ?at	 ?para	 ?180,	 ?L?Heureux-??Dub?	 ?J,	 ?dissenting.	 ?111	 ?Backhouse,	 ?Carnal	 ?Crimes,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?38	 ?at	 ?147,	 ?290?291.	 ?112	 ?Ibid	 ?at	 ?40	 ?citing	 ?J.	 ?Dixon	 ?Mann,	 ?Forensic	 ?Medicine	 ?and	 ?Toxicology,	 ?2d	 ?ed	 ?(London:	 ?Charles	 ?Griffing,	 ?1898)	 ?at	 ?102.	 ?	 ? 32	 ?from	 ?legal	 ?responsibility	 ?for	 ?their	 ?violence	 ?and	 ?tried	 ?survivors,	 ?not	 ?offenders,	 ?for	 ?their	 ?purported	 ?misdeeds.113	 ?	 ?B. The	 ?Past	 ?Approach	 ?to	 ?Sentencing	 ?Sexual	 ?Offenders	 ?	 ? Historically,	 ?Canada	 ?legislated	 ?draconian	 ?penalties	 ?for	 ?sexual	 ?offenders.	 ?However,	 ?judges	 ?and	 ?juries	 ?infrequently	 ?meted	 ?them	 ?out:	 ?courts	 ?convicted	 ?rarely	 ?and	 ?when	 ?they	 ?did	 ?they	 ?shielded	 ?offenders	 ?from	 ?the	 ?harshest	 ?punishments.	 ?As	 ?in	 ?the	 ?determination	 ?of	 ?guilt	 ?or	 ?innocence,	 ?rape	 ?myths	 ?and	 ?other	 ?forms	 ?of	 ?prejudice	 ?influenced	 ?judges	 ?and	 ?juries	 ?when	 ?they	 ?sentenced	 ?offenders,	 ?which	 ?I	 ?explore	 ?below.	 ?The	 ?History	 ?of	 ?Sentencing	 ?for	 ?Sexual	 ?Offences	 ?in	 ?Canada	 ?	 ? Canada?s	 ?past	 ?sanctions	 ?for	 ?sexual	 ?offenders,	 ?in	 ?keeping	 ?with	 ?the	 ?English	 ?law	 ?before	 ?it,	 ?were	 ?brutal.	 ?However,	 ?few	 ?sexual	 ?offenders	 ?were	 ?subjected	 ?to	 ?these	 ?penalties,	 ?whose	 ?harshness	 ?arguably	 ?contributed	 ?to	 ?low	 ?conviction	 ?rates.	 ?	 ? The	 ?death	 ?penalty	 ?was	 ?the	 ?punishment	 ?for	 ?rape	 ?for	 ?nearly	 ?all	 ?of	 ?English	 ?history.114	 ?It	 ?was	 ?adopted	 ?by	 ?Upper	 ?Canada	 ?in	 ?1800	 ?as	 ?the	 ?sole	 ?punishment	 ?for	 ?rape	 ?and	 ?carnal	 ?knowledge	 ?of	 ?a	 ?girl	 ?under	 ?ten	 ?years	 ?old.115	 ?In	 ?1873,	 ?the	 ?law	 ?was	 ?amended	 ?to	 ?add	 ?imprisonment,	 ?from	 ?anywhere	 ?from	 ?seven	 ?years	 ?to	 ?life,	 ?as	 ?an	 ?alternative	 ?to	 ?the	 ?death	 ?penalty	 ?for	 ?these	 ?offences,	 ?and	 ?in	 ?1877,	 ?carnal	 ?knowledge	 ?of	 ?a	 ?girl	 ?became	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?113	 ?Clark	 ?&	 ?Lewis,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?14	 ?at	 ?24;	 ?See	 ?also	 ?MacFarlane,	 ?Q.C.,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?81	 ?at	 ?49.	 ?114	 ?MacFarlane,	 ?Q.C.,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?81	 ?at	 ?13.	 ?115	 ?Backhouse,	 ??Nineteenth-??Century?,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?65	 ?at	 ?201?204,	 ?207;	 ?See	 ?also	 ?Boyle,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?62	 ?at	 ?11?12.	 ?	 ? 33	 ?a	 ?non-??capital	 ?offence.116	 ?Rape,	 ?however,	 ?remained	 ?a	 ?capital	 ?offence	 ?until	 ?1954,	 ?when	 ?life	 ?imprisonment	 ?and	 ?whipping	 ?became	 ?the	 ?maximum	 ?penalties.117	 ?	 ? Although	 ?the	 ?death	 ?penalty	 ?was	 ?prescribed	 ?for	 ?rapists	 ?for	 ?a	 ?long	 ?time,	 ??few	 ?if	 ?any	 ?rapists	 ?have	 ?ever	 ?been	 ?hanged?118	 ?in	 ?Canada	 ?because	 ?the	 ?executive	 ?branch	 ?of	 ?government,	 ?which	 ?had	 ?to	 ?approve	 ?executions,	 ?nearly	 ?always	 ?commuted	 ?sentences.	 ?No	 ?offenders	 ?convicted	 ?of	 ?rape	 ?have	 ?been	 ?executed	 ?in	 ?the	 ?Canadas	 ?since	 ?the	 ?middle	 ?of	 ?the	 ?nineteenth	 ?century,119	 ?possibly	 ?since	 ?the	 ?union	 ?of	 ?Upper	 ?and	 ?Lower	 ?Canada	 ?in	 ?1841.120	 ?Once	 ?the	 ?law	 ?gave	 ?judges	 ?the	 ?option	 ?of	 ?sentencing	 ?offenders	 ?to	 ?imprisonment	 ?in	 ?1873,	 ?convicts	 ?were	 ?spared	 ?from	 ?having	 ?to	 ?apply	 ?for	 ?clemency;	 ?immediately	 ?after	 ?imprisonment	 ?became	 ?an	 ?option,	 ?courts	 ?rarely	 ?if	 ?ever	 ?sentenced	 ?rapists	 ?to	 ?death.121	 ?Nor	 ?did	 ?they	 ?sentence	 ?many	 ?to	 ?life:	 ?on	 ?average,	 ?courts	 ?imposed	 ?sentences	 ?of	 ?between	 ?seven	 ?and	 ?ten	 ?years.122	 ?	 ?	 ? Beginning	 ?in	 ?1892,	 ?whipping	 ?was	 ?an	 ?available	 ?penalty	 ?for	 ?incest,	 ?indecent	 ?assault,	 ?and	 ?carnal	 ?knowledge	 ?of	 ?girls	 ?under	 ?certain	 ?ages.	 ?It	 ?was	 ?added	 ?as	 ?punishment	 ?for	 ?attempted	 ?rape	 ?in	 ?1920	 ?and	 ?rape	 ?in	 ?1921.123	 ?Initially,	 ?whipping	 ?was	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?116	 ?Backhouse,	 ??Nineteenth-??Century?,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?65	 ?at	 ?207?211;	 ?Boyle,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?62	 ?at	 ?11?13.	 ?117	 ?Backhouse,	 ??Feminist	 ?Remedy?,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?69	 ?at	 ?731;	 ?Boyle,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?62	 ?at	 ?13;	 ?See	 ?also	 ?Carolyn	 ?Strange,	 ?The	 ?Politics	 ?of	 ?Punishment:	 ?The	 ?Death	 ?Penalty	 ?in	 ?Canada,	 ?1867-??1976,	 ?Canadian	 ?Legal	 ?History	 ?Project	 ?Working	 ?Paper	 ?Series	 ?92-??10	 ?(Winnipeg:	 ?Faculty	 ?of	 ?Law,	 ?University	 ?of	 ?Manitoba,	 ?1992)	 ?at	 ?4?5.	 ?118	 ?C	 ?W	 ?Topping,	 ??The	 ?Death	 ?Penalty	 ?in	 ?Canada?	 ?(1952)	 ?284	 ?Annals	 ?of	 ?the	 ?American	 ?Academy	 ?of	 ?Political	 ?and	 ?Social	 ?Science	 ?147	 ?at	 ?148;	 ?See	 ?also	 ?Backhouse,	 ??Nineteenth-??Century?,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?65	 ?at	 ?211.	 ?119	 ?Backhouse,	 ?Petticoats	 ?and	 ?Prejudice,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?38	 ?at	 ?98;	 ?Strange,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?117	 ?at	 ?4?5;	 ?The	 ?idea	 ?that	 ?no	 ?rapists	 ?have	 ?ever	 ?been	 ?hanged	 ?in	 ?Canada	 ?post-??Dominion	 ?is	 ?supported	 ?by	 ?the	 ?statement	 ?that	 ?Louis	 ?Riel	 ?was	 ?the	 ?only	 ?offender	 ?convicted	 ?of	 ?anything	 ?other	 ?than	 ?murder,	 ?in	 ?his	 ?case,	 ?treason,	 ?to	 ?be	 ?executed	 ?in	 ?Canada:	 ?Kenneth	 ?B	 ?Leyton-??Brown,	 ?The	 ?Practice	 ?of	 ?Execution	 ?in	 ?Canada	 ?(Vancouver:	 ?UBC	 ?Press,	 ?2010)	 ?at	 ?12,	 ?157.	 ?120	 ?Backhouse,	 ??Feminist	 ?Remedy?,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?69	 ?at	 ?728.	 ?121	 ?Drysdale,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?70	 ?at	 ?50.	 ?122	 ?Backhouse,	 ??Nineteenth-??Century?,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?65	 ?at	 ?225?226;	 ?See	 ?also	 ?Drysdale,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?70	 ?at	 ?152?162.	 ?123	 ?Backhouse,	 ??Feminist	 ?Remedy?,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?69	 ?at	 ?729?730;	 ?Drysdale,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?70	 ?at	 ?51?53;	 ?See	 ?also	 ?Boyle,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?62	 ?at	 ?13.	 ?	 ? 34	 ?frequently	 ?ordered	 ?and	 ?carried	 ?out,	 ?with	 ?judges	 ?imposing	 ?five	 ?to	 ?30	 ?lashes.	 ?It	 ?became	 ?less	 ?popular	 ?over	 ?time,124	 ?until	 ?it	 ?was	 ?abolished	 ?in	 ?1972.125	 ?	 ? In	 ?1948,	 ?Parliament	 ?introduced	 ?indeterminate	 ?sentences	 ?for	 ?individuals	 ?convicted	 ?of	 ?certain	 ?sexual	 ?offences	 ?who	 ?could,	 ?according	 ?to	 ?psychiatric	 ?evidence,	 ?be	 ?labeled	 ?as	 ??criminal	 ?sexual	 ?psychopaths.?	 ?The	 ?year	 ?before,	 ?it	 ?introduced	 ?the	 ?designation	 ?of	 ??habitual	 ?offender?	 ?for	 ?other,	 ?nonsexual,	 ?offences.	 ?The	 ?two	 ?categories	 ?were	 ?later	 ?collapsed	 ?into	 ?the	 ??dangerous	 ?offender?	 ?classification.126	 ?	 ? As	 ?I	 ?discussed	 ?earlier	 ?in	 ?this	 ?chapter,	 ?the	 ?laws	 ?did	 ?not	 ?apply	 ?as	 ?evenly	 ?as	 ?the	 ?legislation	 ?would	 ?suggest,	 ?with	 ?many	 ?men	 ?escaping	 ?conviction	 ?based	 ?on	 ?discriminatory	 ?rape	 ?myths;127	 ?thus,	 ?although	 ?punishments	 ?were	 ?draconian,	 ?they	 ?were	 ?rarely	 ?(and	 ?unevenly)	 ?imposed.	 ?Canadian	 ?judges	 ?followed	 ?the	 ?example	 ?of	 ?their	 ?English	 ?peers,	 ?convicting	 ?offenders	 ?of	 ?lesser	 ?offences	 ?or	 ?acquitting	 ?them	 ?altogether	 ?to	 ?temper	 ?the	 ?harshness	 ?of	 ?penalties,	 ?and	 ?in	 ?particular,	 ?the	 ?death	 ?penalty.128	 ?Consequently,	 ?the	 ?harsh	 ?approach	 ?of	 ?the	 ?legislature	 ?in	 ?the	 ?sentences	 ?it	 ?prescribed	 ?could	 ?be	 ?interpreted	 ?not	 ?as	 ?a	 ?deterrent	 ?to	 ?crime,	 ?but	 ??as	 ?a	 ?deterrent	 ?to	 ?convictions.?129	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?124	 ?Backhouse,	 ??Feminist	 ?Remedy?,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?69	 ?at	 ?730;	 ?Backhouse,	 ?Carnal	 ?Crimes,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?38	 ?at	 ?281,	 ?428?429.	 ?125	 ?Boyle,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?62	 ?at	 ?13	 ?citing	 ?Criminal	 ?Law	 ?Amendment	 ?Act,	 ?SC	 ?1972,	 ?c	 ?13,	 ?s	 ?70	 ?[Criminal	 ?Law	 ?Amendment	 ?Act	 ?1972].	 ?126	 ?Backhouse,	 ??Feminist	 ?Remedy?,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?69	 ?at	 ?730?731	 ?citing	 ?Criminal	 ?Code,	 ?SC	 ?1948,	 ?c	 ?39,	 ?s	 ?43,	 ?amending	 ?s	 ?1054A,	 ?SC	 ?1976-??77,	 ?c	 ?53,	 ?s	 ?14;	 ?Michael	 ?Jackson,	 ??The	 ?Sentencing	 ?of	 ?Dangerous	 ?and	 ?Habitual	 ?Offenders	 ?in	 ?Canada?	 ?(1997)	 ?9:5	 ?Federal	 ?Sentencing	 ?Reporter	 ?256	 ?at	 ?256?257.	 ?127	 ?See	 ?generally	 ?MacFarlane,	 ?Q.C.,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?81	 ?at	 ?13?65;	 ?Backhouse,	 ?Carnal	 ?Crimes,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?38.	 ?128	 ?Drysdale,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?70	 ?at	 ?11?13,	 ?41;	 ?MacFarlane,	 ?Q.C.,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?81	 ?at	 ?13	 ?(footnote	 ?38);	 ?Backhouse,	 ??Nineteenth-??Century?,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?65	 ?at	 ?211.	 ?129	 ?Boyle,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?62	 ?at	 ?12;	 ?See	 ?also	 ?Smart,	 ?Feminism,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?29	 ?at	 ?45.	 ?	 ? 35	 ?Rape	 ?Myths	 ?in	 ?Sentencing	 ?in	 ?the	 ?Past	 ?	 ? The	 ?myths	 ?that	 ?prevented	 ?convictions	 ?also	 ?shaped	 ?what	 ?judges	 ?and	 ?juries	 ?perceived	 ?as	 ?appropriate	 ?punishment.	 ?Although	 ?punishments	 ?were	 ?often	 ?severe,	 ?they	 ?were	 ?not	 ?imposed	 ?uniformly;	 ?like	 ?criminal	 ?liability,	 ?punishment	 ?depended	 ?on	 ?assessments	 ?of	 ?the	 ?survivor?s	 ?value	 ?and	 ?credibility	 ?as	 ?well	 ?as	 ?the	 ?blameworthiness	 ?of	 ?the	 ?offender	 ?and	 ?the	 ?seriousness	 ?of	 ?the	 ?offence.	 ?Offenders	 ?who	 ?were	 ?convicted	 ?may	 ?have	 ?suffered	 ?from	 ?falling	 ?on	 ?the	 ?wrong	 ?side	 ?of	 ?myths,	 ?sacrifices	 ?to	 ?the	 ?law?s	 ?illusion	 ?of	 ?treating	 ?sexual	 ?violence	 ?seriously;	 ?others	 ?benefitted	 ?from	 ?myths	 ?that	 ?portrayed	 ?them	 ?as	 ?normal	 ?or	 ?good	 ?men,	 ?survivors	 ?as	 ?unchaste,	 ?and	 ?their	 ?offences	 ?as	 ?closer	 ?to	 ?acceptable	 ?seduction.	 ?	 ? Although	 ?rape	 ?myths	 ?impacted	 ?sentencing,	 ?sentences	 ?for	 ?convicted	 ?offenders	 ?were	 ?often	 ?lengthy.	 ?Drysdale	 ?found	 ?that	 ?in	 ?the	 ?late	 ?nineteenth	 ?and	 ?early	 ?twentieth	 ?century	 ?prison	 ?sentences	 ?for	 ?rape	 ?were	 ?frequently	 ?long	 ?or	 ?coupled	 ?with	 ?whipping;	 ?sentences	 ?were	 ?shorter	 ?for	 ?attempted	 ?rape	 ?and	 ?indecent	 ?assault.130	 ?Backhouse,	 ?studying	 ?twentieth	 ?century	 ?cases,	 ?similarly	 ?found	 ?a	 ?wide	 ?range	 ?of	 ?sentences,	 ?with	 ?an	 ?average	 ?of	 ?between	 ?five	 ?and	 ?ten	 ?years	 ?for	 ?rape.	 ?For	 ?other	 ?sexual	 ?offences,	 ?courts	 ?often	 ?ordered	 ?shorter	 ?terms	 ?of	 ?incarceration,	 ?suspended	 ?sentences,	 ?or	 ?fines.131	 ?	 ?	 ? Much	 ?like	 ?today,	 ?judges	 ?weighed	 ?factors	 ?about	 ?the	 ?offence	 ?and	 ?offender	 ?to	 ?fashion	 ?a	 ?fit	 ?sentence.	 ?In	 ?doing	 ?so,	 ?they	 ?often	 ?expressed	 ?myths	 ?about	 ?sexual	 ?violence	 ?based	 ?on	 ?notions	 ?of	 ?gender,	 ?sexuality,	 ?class,	 ?and	 ?race.	 ?Drysdale	 ?found	 ?that	 ?judges	 ?in	 ?Ontario	 ?in	 ?1892	 ?to	 ?1930	 ?took	 ?a	 ?hard	 ?line	 ?towards	 ?men	 ?who	 ?had	 ?offended	 ?against	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?130	 ?Drysdale,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?70	 ?at	 ?152?153,	 ?161?162.	 ?131	 ?Backhouse,	 ?Carnal	 ?Crimes,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?38	 ?at	 ?281;	 ?See	 ?also	 ?Backhouse,	 ??Feminist	 ?Remedy?,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?69	 ?at	 ?729.	 ?	 ? 36	 ?young	 ?girls,	 ?particularly	 ?in	 ?cases	 ?of	 ?incest.	 ?She	 ?found	 ?that	 ?courts	 ?treated	 ?crimes	 ?against	 ?less	 ??innocent?	 ?survivors	 ?less	 ?seriously:	 ?judges	 ?sometimes	 ?used	 ?evidence	 ?of	 ?survivors?	 ??inculpatory?	 ?conduct	 ?to	 ?mitigate	 ?sentence	 ?length.132	 ?In	 ?this	 ?vein,	 ?Backhouse	 ?cited	 ?a	 ?1928	 ?B.C.	 ?Court	 ?of	 ?Appeal	 ?case	 ?in	 ?which	 ?the	 ?court	 ?reduced	 ?the	 ?life	 ?sentences	 ?of	 ?two	 ?teenagers	 ?convicted	 ?of	 ?rape	 ?to	 ?three	 ?years	 ??due	 ?to	 ?the	 ??thoroughly	 ?immoral?	 ?background	 ?of	 ?the	 ?seventeen-??year-??old	 ?complainant.?133	 ?	 ?	 ? Judges	 ?also	 ?considered	 ?offenders?	 ?characters	 ?and	 ?social	 ?standing,	 ?demonstrating	 ?narrow	 ?ideas	 ?about	 ??real?	 ?rapists.	 ?Drysdale	 ?found	 ?judges	 ?reduced	 ?sentences	 ?on	 ?the	 ?basis	 ?of	 ?good	 ?character	 ?evidence,	 ?for	 ?example,	 ?evidence	 ?that	 ?the	 ?offender	 ?was	 ?a	 ?good	 ?husband	 ?or	 ?was	 ?respected	 ?in	 ?the	 ?community.134	 ?Backhouse	 ?also	 ?found	 ?that	 ?judges	 ?were	 ?lenient	 ?with	 ?employed,	 ?middle-??class	 ?offenders	 ?from	 ??respectable?	 ?families,	 ?more	 ?frequently	 ?giving	 ?them	 ?suspended	 ?sentences	 ?and	 ?fines.135	 ?Conversely,	 ?poor	 ?and	 ?indigent	 ?offenders	 ?did	 ?not	 ?fare	 ?well	 ?in	 ?sentencing,	 ?and	 ?nor	 ?did	 ?Black	 ?and	 ?Aboriginal	 ?offenders.	 ?For	 ?example,	 ?Drysdale	 ?found	 ?a	 ?case	 ?where	 ?a	 ?Black	 ?offender	 ?was	 ?sentenced	 ?to	 ?death	 ?at	 ?a	 ?time	 ?when	 ?the	 ?penalty	 ?was	 ?rarely	 ?ordered.136	 ?As	 ?noted	 ?by	 ?Backhouse,	 ?racism	 ?was	 ?the	 ?whole	 ?motivation	 ?behind	 ?Canada?s	 ?retention	 ?of	 ?the	 ?death	 ?penalty:	 ?it	 ?was	 ?thought	 ?to	 ?be	 ?necessary	 ?to	 ?deter	 ?assaults	 ?of	 ?white	 ?women	 ?by	 ?Black	 ?men.137	 ?	 ?	 ? Sentencing	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?offenders	 ?has	 ?historically	 ?been	 ?severe.	 ?This	 ?seems	 ?inconsistent	 ?with	 ?low	 ?rates	 ?of	 ?conviction;	 ?however,	 ?harsh	 ?penalties	 ?made	 ?judges	 ?and	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?132	 ?Drysdale,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?70	 ?at	 ?162?163.	 ?133	 ?Backhouse,	 ?Carnal	 ?Crimes,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?38	 ?at	 ?426	 ?(endnote	 ?41)	 ?citing	 ?Rex	 ?v.	 ?Stonehouse	 ?and	 ?Pasquale,	 ?[1928]	 ?1	 ?WWR	 ?161,	 ?39	 ?BCR	 ?279	 ?(BCCA).	 ?134	 ?Drysdale,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?70	 ?at	 ?165?166.	 ?135	 ?Backhouse,	 ?Carnal	 ?Crimes,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?38	 ?at	 ?281.	 ?136	 ?Drysdale,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?70	 ?at	 ?163?164.	 ?137	 ?Backhouse,	 ?Petticoats	 ?and	 ?Prejudice,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?38	 ?at	 ?98.	 ?	 ? 37	 ?juries	 ?resistant	 ?to	 ?convict.138	 ?Offenders	 ?who	 ?were	 ?convicted	 ?may	 ?have	 ?been	 ?scapegoats	 ?for	 ?the	 ?broader	 ?problem	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?violence,	 ?with	 ?courts	 ?treating	 ?those	 ?who	 ?fit	 ?the	 ?prototype	 ?of	 ?the	 ?ideal	 ?rapist	 ?or	 ?whose	 ?survivor	 ?fit	 ?the	 ?notion	 ?of	 ?the	 ?ideal	 ?victim	 ?more	 ?harshly,	 ?often	 ?along	 ?racist	 ?lines.	 ?Arguably,	 ?these	 ?problems	 ?have	 ?continued.139	 ?To	 ?consider	 ?the	 ?extent	 ?to	 ?which	 ?rape	 ?myths	 ?persisted,	 ?I	 ?examine	 ?sentencing	 ?in	 ?the	 ?1970s	 ?in	 ?more	 ?detail,	 ?before	 ?considering	 ?the	 ?major	 ?legal	 ?reforms	 ?and	 ?ongoing	 ?feminist	 ?concerns.	 ?Sentencing	 ?Prior	 ?to	 ?the	 ?1982	 ?Reforms	 ?	 ? Sentencing	 ?in	 ?the	 ?1970s	 ?remained	 ?the	 ?same	 ?as	 ?it	 ?had	 ?been	 ?in	 ?the	 ?decades	 ?prior:	 ?the	 ?Criminal	 ?Code	 ?prescribed	 ?the	 ?same	 ?penalties	 ?and	 ?judges	 ?ordered	 ?similar	 ?sentences	 ?and	 ?considered	 ?similar	 ?factors	 ?as	 ?they	 ?had	 ?before.	 ?As	 ?I	 ?explore	 ?in	 ?what	 ?follows,	 ?judges	 ?in	 ?some	 ?sentencing	 ?cases	 ?considered	 ?factors	 ?whose	 ?relevance	 ?and	 ?importance	 ?were	 ?grounded	 ?in	 ?rape	 ?myths,	 ?viewing	 ?offenders	 ?and	 ?survivors	 ?in	 ?light	 ?of	 ?their	 ?compliance	 ?with	 ?heterosexual	 ?gender	 ?norms	 ?such	 ?as	 ?the	 ?chastity	 ?and	 ?worth	 ?of	 ?survivors	 ?and	 ?the	 ?goodness	 ?of	 ?offenders.	 ?	 ? The	 ?sexual	 ?offence	 ?laws	 ?in	 ?Canada	 ?did	 ?not	 ?change	 ?greatly	 ?between	 ?the	 ?beginning	 ?of	 ?the	 ?nineteenth	 ?century	 ?and	 ?the	 ?1970s.	 ?In	 ?particular,	 ?the	 ?offence	 ?of	 ?rape	 ?was	 ?substantially	 ?the	 ?same	 ?as	 ?it	 ?had	 ?been	 ?in	 ?Canada?s	 ?first	 ?Criminal	 ?Code	 ?in	 ?1892.140	 ?Although	 ?the	 ?Criminal	 ?Law	 ?Amendment	 ?Act	 ?abolished	 ?corporal	 ?punishment	 ?in	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?138	 ?Boyle,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?62	 ?at	 ?12,	 ?14;	 ?Drysdale,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?70	 ?at	 ?5?12;	 ?See	 ?also	 ?Smart,	 ?Feminism,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?29	 ?at	 ?45.	 ?139	 ?Martin,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?68	 ?at	 ?160,	 ?163?164;	 ?Ruparelia,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?40	 ?at	 ?684?686;	 ?Drysdale,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?70	 ?at	 ?152.	 ?140	 ?Boyle,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?62	 ?at	 ?13	 ?citing	 ?Criminal	 ?Code,	 ?SC	 ?1892,	 ?c	 ?29,	 ?s	 ?266(1).	 ?	 ? 38	 ?1972,141	 ?by	 ?then	 ?it	 ?was	 ?rarely	 ?ordered.142	 ?Sentences	 ?looked	 ?much	 ?the	 ?same	 ?as	 ?they	 ?had	 ?before.143	 ?	 ? In	 ?the	 ?1970s,	 ?the	 ?most	 ?serious	 ?penalty,	 ?life	 ?imprisonment,	 ?was	 ?only	 ?available	 ?for	 ?rape	 ?and	 ?sexual	 ?intercourse	 ?with	 ?a	 ?woman	 ?under	 ?the	 ?age	 ?of	 ?14,	 ?with	 ?14	 ?operating	 ?as	 ?the	 ?age	 ?of	 ?consent.	 ?Most	 ?other	 ?sexual	 ?offences	 ?attracted	 ?maximum	 ?sentences	 ?of	 ?two	 ?or	 ?five	 ?years.144	 ?Parliament	 ?had	 ?not	 ?prescribed	 ?minimum	 ?sentences	 ?for	 ?sexual	 ?offences	 ?but	 ?had	 ?given	 ?judges	 ?discretion	 ?to	 ?impose	 ?sentences	 ?as	 ?they	 ?saw	 ?fit.145	 ?Indeed,	 ?fines,	 ?discharges,	 ?probation,	 ?suspended	 ?sentences	 ?and	 ?even	 ?restitution	 ?orders	 ?were	 ?available,146	 ?although	 ?restitution	 ?orders	 ?were	 ?rare.147	 ?	 ?	 ? According	 ?to	 ?Nancy	 ?Goldsberry,	 ?the	 ?sentences	 ?B.C.	 ?judges	 ?imposed	 ?in	 ?the	 ?1970s	 ?ran	 ?the	 ?gamut	 ?of	 ?possibilities.	 ?She	 ?found	 ?that,	 ?in	 ?B.C.	 ?in	 ?1973,	 ?slightly	 ?less	 ?than	 ?half	 ?of	 ?all	 ?offenders	 ?convicted	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?offences	 ?were	 ?given	 ?fines	 ?or	 ?suspended	 ?sentences,	 ?usually	 ?with	 ?probation;	 ?38	 ?percent	 ?were	 ?sentenced	 ?to	 ?provincial	 ?terms	 ?of	 ?imprisonment,	 ?or	 ?less	 ?than	 ?two	 ?years;	 ?and	 ?18	 ?percent	 ?were	 ?given	 ?federal	 ?sentences	 ?between	 ?two	 ?and	 ?14	 ?years	 ?in	 ?a	 ?penitentiary.148	 ?	 ?	 ? 	 ?The	 ?type	 ?of	 ?sentence	 ?courts	 ?ordered	 ?might	 ?well	 ?have	 ?followed	 ?from	 ?prejudice	 ?and	 ?myths,	 ?which	 ?influenced	 ?the	 ?construction	 ?of	 ?the	 ?seriousness	 ?of	 ?offences	 ?and	 ?the	 ?blameworthiness	 ?of	 ?offenders	 ?and	 ?survivors	 ?in	 ?law	 ?and	 ?legal	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?141	 ?Ibid	 ?citing	 ?Criminal	 ?Law	 ?Amendment	 ?Act	 ?1972,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?125,	 ?s	 ?70.	 ?142	 ?Backhouse,	 ?Carnal	 ?Crimes,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?38	 ?at	 ?281,	 ?428?429;	 ?Backhouse,	 ??Feminist	 ?Remedy?,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?69	 ?at	 ?730.	 ?143	 ?Exceptions	 ?were	 ?the	 ?introduction	 ?of	 ?indefinite	 ?sentences:	 ?Backhouse,	 ??Feminist	 ?Remedy?,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?69	 ?at	 ?730?731;	 ?and	 ?increases	 ?in	 ?some	 ?maximum	 ?penalties:	 ?Backhouse,	 ?Carnal	 ?Crimes,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?38	 ?at	 ?430?431.	 ?144	 ?Criminal	 ?Code	 ?1970,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?82,	 ?ss	 ?144,	 ?145,	 ?146(1),	 ?146(2),	 ?148,	 ?149,	 ?150(2),	 ?151,	 ?152,	 ?153,	 ?156,	 ?157.	 ?145	 ?Ibid,	 ?s	 ?645(1)&(2).	 ?146	 ?Ibid,	 ?ss	 ?646(1)&(2),	 ?662.1(1),	 ?&	 ?663(1)&(2).	 ?147	 ?Backhouse,	 ?Carnal	 ?Crimes,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?38	 ?at	 ?281?282.	 ?148	 ?Goldsberry,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?91	 ?at	 ?109.	 ?	 ? 39	 ?discourse.	 ?The	 ?use	 ?of	 ?myths	 ?in	 ?sentencing	 ?was	 ?apparent	 ?in	 ?Boyle?s	 ?study	 ?in	 ?the	 ?early	 ?1980s	 ?as	 ?well	 ?as	 ?my	 ?own	 ?research	 ?on	 ?sentencing	 ?cases	 ?from	 ?B.C.	 ?courts	 ?in	 ?the	 ?1970s.	 ?	 ?	 ? Boyle	 ?conducted	 ?a	 ?significant	 ?study	 ?of	 ?sexism	 ?within	 ?sexual	 ?assault	 ?law.	 ?As	 ?a	 ?part	 ?of	 ?her	 ?research,	 ?she	 ?examined	 ?sentencing	 ?decisions	 ?prior	 ?to	 ?the	 ?1982	 ?legislative	 ?reforms,149	 ?focusing	 ?on	 ?judicial	 ?identification	 ?and	 ?weighing	 ?of	 ?aggravating	 ?and	 ?mitigating	 ?factors.	 ?Contrary	 ?to	 ?other	 ?studies,	 ?she	 ?found	 ?that	 ?judges	 ?regularly	 ?considered	 ?harm	 ?to	 ?survivors	 ?in	 ?general	 ?or	 ?harm	 ?to	 ?the	 ?specific	 ?survivor.	 ?However,	 ?she	 ?also	 ?found	 ?that	 ?judges	 ?sometimes	 ?considered	 ?the	 ?survivor?s	 ?character	 ?in	 ?sentencing,	 ?meaning	 ?that	 ?they	 ?considered	 ?offences	 ?against	 ?women	 ?who	 ?were	 ?sexually	 ?experienced	 ?or	 ?who	 ?socialized	 ?and	 ?consumed	 ?alcohol	 ?with	 ?men	 ?less	 ?blameworthy.	 ?She	 ?also	 ?confirmed	 ?that	 ?courts	 ?found	 ?sexual	 ?offences	 ?against	 ?acquaintances	 ?less	 ?blameworthy	 ?than	 ?offences	 ?against	 ?strangers.150	 ?	 ? In	 ?my	 ?own	 ?study	 ?of	 ?sentencing	 ?decisions	 ?from	 ?B.C.	 ?courts	 ?in	 ?the	 ?1970s,151	 ?I	 ?too	 ?found	 ?that	 ?courts	 ?sometimes	 ?relied	 ?on	 ?rape	 ?myths	 ?in	 ?sentencing	 ?and	 ?reviewing	 ?sentences	 ?for	 ?sexual	 ?offenders.	 ?In	 ?many	 ?cases,	 ?courts	 ?decried	 ?sexual	 ?offences	 ?as	 ?reprehensible	 ?and	 ?expressed	 ?empathy	 ?for	 ?survivors;	 ?however,	 ?the	 ?level	 ?of	 ?opprobrium	 ?in	 ?some	 ?cases	 ?appeared	 ?to	 ?be	 ?based	 ?on	 ?rape	 ?myths.	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?149	 ?Boyle,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?62	 ?at	 ?v,	 ?172	 ?citing	 ?Bill	 ?C-??127,	 ?An	 ?Act	 ?to	 ?amend	 ?the	 ?Criminal	 ?Code	 ?in	 ?relation	 ?to	 ?sexual	 ?offences	 ?and	 ?other	 ?offences	 ?against	 ?the	 ?person	 ?and	 ?to	 ?amend	 ?certain	 ?other	 ?Acts	 ?in	 ?relation	 ?thereto	 ?or	 ?in	 ?consequence	 ?thereof,	 ?1st	 ?Sess,	 ?32nd	 ?Parl,	 ?1982,	 ?SC	 ?1980-??81-??82-??83,	 ?c	 ?125.	 ?150	 ?Ibid	 ?at	 ?175?177.	 ?151	 ?I	 ?analyzed	 ?50	 ?sentencing	 ?cases,	 ?which	 ?were	 ?largely	 ?Court	 ?of	 ?Appeal	 ?cases,	 ?from	 ?Quicklaw	 ?and	 ?Westlaw.	 ?I	 ?searched	 ?for	 ?cases	 ?with	 ?the	 ?terms	 ??rape?,	 ??sexual	 ?intercourse?,	 ??carnal	 ?knowledge?,	 ??indecent	 ?assault?,	 ??gross	 ?indecency?,	 ?and	 ??incest?,	 ?including	 ?variations	 ?of	 ?those	 ?words,	 ?e.g.,	 ??indecently	 ?assault?,	 ?within	 ?the	 ?same	 ?paragraph	 ?as	 ??sentence?.	 ?I	 ?compared	 ?my	 ?results	 ?against	 ?the	 ?list	 ?of	 ?cases	 ?from	 ?B.C.	 ?in	 ?the	 ?1970s	 ?provided	 ?by	 ?Constance	 ?Backhouse	 ?on	 ?her	 ?website,	 ?http://www.constancebackhouse.ca/fileadmin/final_cases/final_cases.html.	 ?	 ? 40	 ?	 ? Unlike	 ?Boyle	 ?in	 ?her	 ?study,	 ?I	 ?found	 ?that	 ?courts	 ?sometimes	 ?failed	 ?to	 ?note	 ?the	 ?impact	 ?of	 ?offences	 ?on	 ?survivors.152	 ?For	 ?example,	 ?the	 ?court	 ?failed	 ?to	 ?mention	 ?the	 ?harm	 ?the	 ?young	 ?survivor	 ?in	 ?R.	 ?v.	 ?E.J.B.	 ?suffered,	 ?even	 ?though	 ?this	 ?was	 ?the	 ?second	 ?time	 ?her	 ?stepfather	 ?had	 ?been	 ?before	 ?the	 ?courts	 ?for	 ?sexually	 ?abusing	 ?her.153	 ?In	 ?only	 ?a	 ?few	 ?cases	 ?did	 ?courts	 ?note	 ?that	 ?survivors	 ?suffered	 ?psychological	 ?trauma,	 ?a	 ?type	 ?of	 ?harm	 ?they	 ?generally	 ?only	 ?considered	 ?in	 ?cases	 ?where	 ?survivors	 ?were	 ?young	 ?and	 ??chaste.?154	 ?Courts	 ?also	 ?failed	 ?to	 ?consider	 ?physical	 ?harm,	 ?in	 ?some	 ?cases	 ?even	 ?when	 ?survivors	 ?appeared	 ?to	 ?have	 ?suffered	 ?significant	 ?physical	 ?injury.155	 ?This	 ?can	 ?be	 ?seen	 ?in	 ?R.	 ?v.	 ?Commodore:	 ?the	 ?offender	 ?attempted	 ?to	 ?rape	 ?the	 ?survivor	 ?after	 ?he	 ?and	 ?a	 ?group	 ?of	 ?men	 ?beat	 ?her	 ?to	 ?the	 ?ground	 ?and	 ?left	 ?her	 ?nearly	 ?unconscious;156	 ?although	 ?the	 ?court	 ?noted	 ?the	 ?offender	 ?badly	 ?beat	 ?her,	 ?it	 ?did	 ?not	 ?consider	 ?whether	 ?she	 ?suffered	 ?physical	 ?or	 ?psychological	 ?harm	 ?as	 ?an	 ?aggravating	 ?factor	 ?or	 ?a	 ?factor	 ?that	 ?indicated	 ?the	 ?need	 ?for	 ?a	 ?more	 ?serious	 ?sentence.	 ?	 ?	 ? In	 ?some	 ?cases	 ?in	 ?the	 ?1970	 ?case	 ?sample,	 ?judgments	 ?suggested	 ?that	 ?survivors	 ?contributed	 ?to	 ?offences	 ?or	 ?were	 ?less	 ?harmed	 ?by	 ?them,	 ?subtly	 ?shaming	 ?or	 ?blaming	 ?survivors.	 ?This	 ?occurred	 ?most	 ?flagrantly	 ?in	 ?the	 ?case	 ?of	 ?a	 ?16-??year-??old	 ?male	 ?survivor	 ?of	 ?indecent	 ?assault:	 ?the	 ?trial	 ?judge	 ?determined	 ?that	 ?he	 ?was	 ?a	 ??practicing	 ?homosexual?,	 ?and	 ?therefore	 ?implied	 ?that,	 ?as	 ?a	 ?result,	 ?he	 ?was	 ?less	 ?harmed	 ?than	 ?the	 ?other	 ?survivors	 ?of	 ?the	 ?offender?s	 ?assaults.157	 ?Since	 ?the	 ?court	 ?perceived	 ?that	 ?the	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?152	 ?See	 ?e.g.	 ?R.	 ?v.	 ?Capot-??Blanc,	 ?[1978]	 ?BCJ	 ?272	 ?(QL)(CA);	 ?R.	 ?v.	 ?Hill,	 ?[1979]	 ?BCJ	 ?980	 ?(QL)	 ?(SC).	 ?153	 ?R.	 ?v.	 ?E.J.B.,	 ?[1978]	 ?BCJ	 ?672	 ?at	 ?paras	 ?3-??4	 ?(QL)(CA).	 ?154	 ?See	 ?e.g.	 ?R.	 ?v.	 ?Crockett,	 ?[1977]	 ?BCJ	 ?742	 ?at	 ?para	 ?4	 ?(QL)(CA);	 ?R.	 ?v.	 ?Bruce,	 ?[1978]	 ?BCJ	 ?743	 ?at	 ?paras	 ?3,	 ?6	 ?(QL)(CA);	 ?R.	 ?v.	 ?Moulton,	 ?[1979]	 ?BCJ	 ?186	 ?at	 ?paras	 ?2,	 ?3,	 ?5	 ?(QL)(CA).	 ?155	 ?See	 ?e.g.	 ?R.	 ?v.	 ?D.P.S.,	 ?[1977]	 ?BCJ	 ?871	 ?at	 ?para	 ?1	 ?(QL)(CA).	 ?156	 ?R.	 ?v.	 ?Commodore,	 ?[1979]	 ?BCJ	 ?664	 ?at	 ?paras	 ?2-??5,	 ?7-??8	 ?(QL)(CA).	 ?157	 ?R.	 ?v.	 ?Palmer,	 ?[1979]	 ?BCJ	 ?No	 ?758	 ?at	 ?para	 ?7	 ?(QL)	 ?(CA).	 ?	 ?	 ? 41	 ?survivor	 ?failed	 ?to	 ?adhere	 ?to	 ?norms	 ?of	 ?male	 ?sexuality,	 ?it	 ?apparently	 ?did	 ?not	 ?consider	 ?it	 ?to	 ?be	 ?a	 ?particularly	 ?harmful	 ?crime	 ?against	 ?him.	 ?	 ?	 ? In	 ?other	 ?cases,	 ?courts	 ?appear	 ?to	 ?have	 ?used	 ?survivors?	 ?transgressions	 ?against	 ?the	 ?norms	 ?of	 ?female	 ?sexuality	 ?to	 ?undermine	 ?survivors?	 ?experiences	 ?of	 ?harm.	 ?For	 ?example,	 ?in	 ?one	 ?case,	 ?the	 ?court	 ?described	 ?the	 ?13-??year-??old	 ?survivor	 ?as	 ?not	 ?a	 ?virgin	 ?and	 ?as	 ?participating	 ?with	 ??enthusiasm?	 ?in	 ?the	 ?sexual	 ?offence	 ?she	 ?was	 ?unable	 ?to	 ?consent	 ?to.158	 ?In	 ?another	 ?case,	 ?the	 ?court	 ?emphasized	 ?that	 ?the	 ?survivor	 ?was	 ??intimate?	 ?with	 ?the	 ?offender?s	 ?roommate,	 ?and,	 ?like	 ?the	 ?offender,	 ?socialized	 ?at	 ?the	 ?Yale	 ?Hotel,	 ?a	 ??rough	 ?place?,	 ?with	 ?members	 ?of	 ?a	 ?motorcycle	 ?gang.159	 ?Although	 ?I	 ?did	 ?not	 ?find,	 ?as	 ?other	 ?researchers	 ?have,	 ?cases	 ?in	 ?which	 ?judges	 ?explicitly	 ?mitigated	 ?sentences	 ?due	 ?to	 ?the	 ?survivors?	 ?behaviour,160	 ?I	 ?did	 ?find	 ?that	 ?judges	 ?sometimes	 ?sexualized	 ?survivors	 ?to	 ?suggest	 ?they	 ?were	 ?not	 ?harmed	 ?by	 ?sexual	 ?violence	 ?or	 ?they	 ?precipitated	 ?sexual	 ?attacks.	 ?	 ?	 ? Although	 ?courts	 ?often	 ?recognized	 ?sexual	 ?offences	 ?as	 ?violent,	 ?they	 ?failed	 ?to	 ?consistently	 ?do	 ?so	 ?in	 ?cases	 ?against	 ?girls	 ?below	 ?the	 ?age	 ?of	 ?consent.	 ?Judge	 ?sometimes	 ?characterized	 ?these	 ?offences	 ?as	 ?non-??violent	 ?or	 ?failed	 ?to	 ?identify	 ?offenders?	 ?abuses	 ?of	 ?authority	 ?and	 ?dependence.161	 ?	 ?	 ? Judges	 ?also	 ?expressed	 ?notions	 ?about	 ?offenders	 ?that	 ?revealed	 ?rape	 ?myths.	 ?Courts	 ?portrayed	 ?respectable	 ?middle-??class	 ?offenders	 ?as	 ?non-??violent	 ?or	 ?good	 ?candidates	 ?for	 ?rehabilitation,	 ?often	 ?using	 ?evidence	 ?of	 ?a	 ?good	 ?family	 ?background,	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?158	 ?R.	 ?v.	 ?B.A.K.,	 ?[1979]	 ?1	 ?WWR	 ?197,	 ?[1978]	 ?BCJ	 ?No	 ?1048	 ?at	 ?paras	 ?1,	 ?3,	 ?22	 ?(QL)	 ?(SC).	 ?159	 ?R.	 ?v.	 ?D.P.S.,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?155	 ?at	 ?para	 ?1.	 ?See	 ?also	 ?R.	 ?v.	 ?Miner,	 ?[1979]	 ?BCJ	 ?533	 ?at	 ?para	 ?4	 ?(QL)(CA)	 ?[the	 ?court	 ?noted	 ?the	 ?survivor,	 ?attacked	 ?on	 ?a	 ?date,	 ?was	 ?a	 ?divorced	 ?women	 ?with	 ?four	 ?children]	 ?and	 ?R.	 ?v.	 ?Commodore,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?156	 ?at	 ?para	 ?2	 ?[the	 ?survivor	 ?was	 ?a	 ?woman	 ?in	 ?a	 ?parked	 ?car	 ?with	 ?a	 ?young	 ?man].	 ?160	 ?Boyle,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?62	 ?at	 ?176?177;	 ?Marshall,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?38	 ?at	 ?222?223,	 ?230?233;	 ?Drysdale,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?70	 ?at	 ?162?163.	 ?161	 ?See	 ?e.g.	 ?R.	 ?v.	 ?LeBlanc,	 ?[1976]	 ?BCJ	 ?580	 ?at	 ?para	 ?3	 ?(QL)(CA);	 ?R.	 ?v.	 ?B.A.K.,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?158	 ?at	 ?para	 ?22.	 ?	 ? 42	 ?marriage,	 ?and	 ?fatherhood	 ?as	 ?mitigating	 ?factors	 ?or	 ?suggestive	 ?of	 ?the	 ?need	 ?for	 ?lenience.162	 ?In	 ?R.	 ?v.	 ?D.P.S.	 ?the	 ?court	 ?used	 ?the	 ?offender?s	 ?improved	 ?manners	 ?in	 ?prison,	 ?namely	 ?his	 ??work	 ?habits,	 ?personal	 ?hygiene	 ?and	 ?attitude	 ?towards	 ?staff?,	 ?as	 ?indicative	 ?of	 ?his	 ?potential	 ?for	 ?rehabilitation,	 ?and	 ?on	 ?this	 ?basis,	 ?reduced	 ?his	 ?sentence	 ?for	 ?repeatedly	 ?raping	 ?and	 ?beating	 ?a	 ?woman	 ?as	 ?a	 ?party	 ?with	 ?another	 ?man	 ?by	 ?three	 ?years.163	 ?This	 ?rationale	 ?demonstrates	 ?a	 ?belief	 ?that	 ?sexual	 ?violence	 ?is	 ?a	 ?vice	 ?of	 ?lower	 ?class	 ?men;	 ?when	 ?committed	 ?by	 ?professional	 ?or	 ?middle-??class	 ?men,	 ?or	 ?even	 ?men	 ?with	 ?good	 ?hygiene	 ?and	 ?manners,	 ?sexual	 ?violence	 ?is	 ?an	 ?aberration	 ?that	 ?will	 ?not	 ?re-??occur.164	 ?While	 ?a	 ?commitment	 ?to	 ?public	 ?service	 ?and	 ?charity	 ?may	 ?very	 ?well	 ?speak	 ?to	 ?good	 ?character	 ?and	 ?likelihood	 ?of	 ?rehabilitation,	 ?it	 ?is	 ?unclear	 ?how	 ??work-??habits?,	 ??hygiene?,	 ?or	 ?stable	 ?employment	 ?reflects	 ?an	 ?offender?s	 ?future	 ?risk.	 ?	 ? Similarly,	 ?in	 ?other	 ?cases,	 ?judges	 ?attributed	 ?sexual	 ?violence	 ?to	 ?offenders?	 ?marital	 ?problems	 ?or	 ?difficulties	 ?relating	 ?to	 ?women,	 ?finding	 ?that	 ?such	 ?offenders	 ?posed	 ?no	 ?or	 ?low	 ?future	 ?risk.	 ?For	 ?example,	 ?in	 ?R.	 ?v.	 ?B.F.D.,	 ?the	 ?pre-??sentence	 ?report	 ?explained	 ?the	 ?offender?s	 ?sexual	 ?offences	 ?against	 ?two	 ?girls,	 ?aged	 ?eight	 ?and	 ?ten,	 ?on	 ?the	 ?bases	 ?that	 ?the	 ?offender	 ?was	 ?sexually	 ??unsophisticated?	 ?and	 ?sexually	 ?frustrated	 ?as	 ?a	 ?consequence	 ?of	 ?his	 ?wife?s	 ?poor	 ?health.	 ?The	 ?reviewing	 ?court	 ?varied	 ?the	 ?sentence	 ?on	 ?fresh	 ?evidence	 ?from	 ?the	 ?doctor	 ?counselling	 ?the	 ?offender	 ?and	 ?his	 ?wife	 ?that	 ?he	 ??had	 ?improved	 ?particularly	 ?in	 ?the	 ?sexual	 ?sphere?	 ?(as	 ?well	 ?as	 ?on	 ?evidence	 ?that	 ?his	 ?sentence	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?162	 ?See	 ?e.g.	 ?R.	 ?v.	 ?B.A.K.,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?158	 ?at	 ?para	 ?15;	 ?R.	 ?v.	 ?Giesbrecht,	 ?[1976]	 ?BCJ	 ?No	 ?1158	 ?at	 ?para	 ?3	 ?(QL)(CA);	 ?R.	 ?v.	 ?Palmer,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?157	 ?at	 ?paras	 ?3-??4;	 ?R.	 ?v.	 ?Edelman,	 ?[1977]	 ?BCJ	 ?84	 ?at	 ?para	 ?2	 ?(QL)(CA);	 ?R.	 ?v.	 ?Commodore,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?156	 ?at	 ?para	 ?5.	 ?163	 ?R.	 ?v.	 ?D.P.S.,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?155	 ?at	 ?para	 ?3.	 ?164	 ?See	 ?Chapter	 ?I,	 ?Section	 ?B.	 ?	 ? 43	 ?jeopardized	 ?his	 ?career	 ?in	 ?the	 ?armed	 ?forces),165	 ?relying	 ?on	 ?the	 ?myths	 ?that	 ?women	 ?are	 ?responsible	 ?for	 ?men?s	 ?sexual	 ?assaults	 ?for	 ?denying	 ?them	 ?something	 ?that	 ?men	 ??need?	 ?and	 ?that	 ?sexual	 ?violence	 ?is	 ?simply	 ?a	 ?failure	 ?to	 ?control	 ?sexual	 ?urges,166	 ?even	 ?in	 ?the	 ?case	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?offences	 ?against	 ?children.	 ?	 ? On	 ?the	 ?other	 ?hand,	 ?judges	 ?characterized	 ?some	 ?offenders	 ?as	 ??abnormal,?	 ?and	 ?therefore	 ?dangerous,	 ?including	 ?a	 ?man	 ?with	 ?an	 ?untreatable	 ?mental	 ?illness167	 ?and	 ?homosexual	 ?men.168	 ?This	 ?thinking	 ?is	 ?the	 ?other	 ?side	 ?of	 ?the	 ?same	 ?coin	 ?that	 ?does	 ?not	 ?recognize	 ?the	 ?sexually	 ?violent	 ?tendencies	 ?of	 ?professional	 ?and	 ?middle-??class	 ?men.	 ?...	 ?	 ? In	 ?the	 ?past,	 ?Canadian	 ?laws	 ?provided	 ?harsh	 ?penalties	 ?for	 ?sexual	 ?offenders,	 ?including	 ?the	 ?ultimate	 ?penalty,	 ?death.	 ?However,	 ?due	 ?to	 ?low	 ?conviction	 ?rates,	 ?few	 ?offenders	 ?were	 ?punished,	 ?and	 ?when	 ?they	 ?were	 ?they	 ?frequently	 ?escaped	 ?the	 ?harshest	 ?punishments.	 ?Offenders	 ?did	 ?not	 ?get	 ?this	 ?benefit	 ?equally:	 ?rape	 ?myths	 ?influenced	 ?sentencing,	 ?historically	 ?and	 ?into	 ?the	 ?1980s.	 ?Courts	 ?showed	 ?lenience	 ?to	 ?offenders	 ?who	 ?met	 ?masculine	 ?ideals	 ?and	 ?treated	 ?racialized	 ?or	 ?marginalized	 ?offenders	 ?more	 ?harshly,	 ?as	 ?scapegoats	 ?for	 ?other	 ?men?s	 ?crimes.	 ?Courts	 ?pushed	 ?survivors	 ?and	 ?their	 ?harms	 ?to	 ?the	 ?margins	 ?of	 ?decisions,	 ?considering	 ?them	 ?inconsistently	 ?and	 ?making	 ?them	 ?relatively	 ?unimportant	 ?compared	 ?to	 ?offenders.	 ?The	 ?discrimination	 ?of	 ?the	 ?law	 ?was	 ?not	 ?invisible,	 ?however,	 ?and	 ?soon	 ?became	 ?the	 ?subject	 ?of	 ?considerable	 ?feminist	 ?advocacy.	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?165	 ?R.	 ?v.	 ?B.F.D.,	 ?[1976]	 ?BCJ	 ?78	 ?at	 ?paras	 ?2-??3,	 ?11-??15	 ?(QL)	 ?(SC);	 ?See	 ?also	 ?R.	 ?v.	 ?Edelman,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?162	 ?at	 ?para	 ?2.	 ?166	 ?See	 ?generally	 ?Smart,	 ?Feminism,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?29	 ?at	 ?30?31.	 ?167	 ?R.	 ?v.	 ?Bodde,	 ?[1977]	 ?BCJ	 ?278	 ?at	 ?paras	 ?3-??5	 ?(QL)(CA).	 ?168	 ?R.	 ?v.	 ?Gallagher,	 ?[1979]	 ?BCJ	 ?No	 ?448	 ?at	 ?paras	 ?3,	 ?8	 ?(QL)	 ?(CA);	 ?R.	 ?v.	 ?Palmer,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?157	 ?at	 ?para	 ?5.	 ?	 ? 44	 ?C. The	 ?Current	 ?Law	 ?of	 ?Sexual	 ?Assault	 ?	 ? Starting	 ?in	 ?the	 ?1970s,	 ?feminist	 ?advocates	 ?fought	 ?for	 ?legal	 ?change.	 ?Although	 ?divisions	 ?in	 ?feminist	 ?advocacy	 ?efforts	 ?arose,	 ?most	 ?efforts	 ?were	 ?directed	 ?at	 ?amending	 ?the	 ?law	 ?to	 ?eliminate	 ?reliance	 ?on	 ?prejudicial	 ?rape	 ?myths	 ?and	 ?recognize	 ?sexual	 ?offences	 ?as	 ?a	 ?form	 ?of	 ?gendered	 ?violence.	 ?As	 ?I	 ?explain	 ?in	 ?the	 ?following	 ?section,	 ?the	 ?reforms	 ?that	 ?ensued	 ?have,	 ?over	 ?time,	 ?been	 ?re-??interpreted	 ?according	 ?to	 ?a	 ?neoliberal	 ?ethos.	 ?The	 ?result	 ?has	 ?been	 ?a	 ?sexual	 ?assault	 ?law	 ?that	 ?recognizes	 ?bodily	 ?integrity	 ?but	 ?obscures	 ?the	 ?gender	 ?inequality	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?violence.	 ?Feminist	 ?scholars,	 ?researching	 ?the	 ?impact	 ?of	 ?the	 ?reforms,	 ?have	 ?argued	 ?that	 ?myths	 ?continue	 ?to	 ?influence	 ?the	 ?doctrine	 ?of	 ?consent	 ?and	 ?the	 ?relevance	 ?of	 ?evidence	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?history,	 ?corroboration,	 ?and	 ?recent	 ?complaint,	 ?ultimately	 ?reproducing	 ?inequality	 ?and	 ?prejudice.	 ?	 ?	 ?Advocacy,	 ?Amendments,	 ?and	 ?Resistance	 ?	 ? Feminist	 ?advocates	 ?identified	 ?rape	 ?myths	 ?within	 ?the	 ?law	 ?and	 ?advocated	 ?for	 ?reform,	 ?and	 ?had	 ?a	 ?significant	 ?influence	 ?on	 ?the	 ?law	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?assault	 ?beginning	 ?in	 ?the	 ?1970s.	 ?However,	 ?the	 ?feminist	 ?attempt	 ?to	 ?contextualize	 ?sexual	 ?violence	 ?against	 ?women	 ?and	 ?children	 ?was	 ?not	 ?entirely	 ?successful.	 ?Although	 ?Parliament	 ?cited	 ?the	 ?right	 ?to	 ?equality	 ?in	 ?its	 ?amendments	 ?to	 ?remodel	 ?the	 ?law	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?consent,	 ?feminist	 ?scholars	 ?have	 ?argued	 ?that	 ?judicial	 ?interpretation	 ?and	 ?application	 ?of	 ?the	 ?reformed	 ?law	 ?has	 ?constrained	 ?the	 ?reach	 ?of	 ?the	 ?amendments,	 ?such	 ?that	 ?many	 ?of	 ?the	 ?myths	 ?continue	 ?in	 ?the	 ?law.	 ?	 ?	 ? Despite	 ?the	 ?different	 ?branches	 ?of	 ?feminism	 ?that	 ?see	 ?the	 ?world	 ?and	 ?the	 ?nature	 ?of	 ?women?s	 ?subjugation	 ?in	 ?different	 ?terms,	 ?feminist	 ?advocacy	 ?against	 ?sexual	 ?violence	 ?	 ? 45	 ?was	 ?largely	 ?unified.169	 ?Women?s	 ?anti-??violence	 ?advocates	 ?understood	 ?rape	 ?as	 ?a	 ?form	 ?of	 ?gender	 ?inequality	 ?and	 ?recognized	 ?the	 ?law?s	 ?important	 ?role	 ?in	 ?maintaining	 ?this	 ?inequality.	 ?Feminist	 ?writers	 ?and	 ?scholars,	 ?including	 ?Brownmiller170	 ?and	 ?MacKinnon,171	 ?expressed	 ?these	 ?ideas	 ?persuasively.	 ?Clark	 ?and	 ?Lewis	 ?uncovered	 ?the	 ?discriminatory	 ?effects	 ?the	 ?myths	 ?had	 ?in	 ?Canadian	 ?policing	 ?and	 ?prosecutions	 ?in	 ?their	 ?seminal	 ?book	 ?Rape:	 ?The	 ?Price	 ?of	 ?Coercive	 ?Sexuality.172	 ?At	 ?the	 ?same	 ?time,	 ?rape	 ?crisis	 ?centres	 ?and	 ?transition	 ?houses	 ?were	 ?providing	 ?women	 ?with	 ?safe	 ?havens	 ?while	 ?also	 ?creating	 ?a	 ?means	 ?to	 ?collect	 ?the	 ?stories	 ?of	 ?survivors	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?violence.	 ?With	 ?their	 ?personal	 ?experiences,	 ?survivors	 ?revealed	 ?the	 ?myths	 ?used	 ?against	 ?them	 ?by	 ?the	 ?criminal	 ?justice	 ?system	 ?to	 ?justify	 ?violence.173	 ?	 ?	 ? Starting	 ?in	 ?the	 ?1970s,	 ?the	 ?law	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?offences	 ?was	 ?reformed	 ?in	 ?response	 ?to	 ?feminist	 ?advocacy.174	 ?Parliament	 ?attempted	 ?to	 ?restrict	 ?the	 ?use	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?history	 ?evidence	 ?in	 ?1976	 ?by	 ?requiring	 ?in	 ?camera	 ?hearings	 ?to	 ?determine	 ?its	 ?admissibility.	 ?This	 ?attempt	 ?to	 ?protect	 ?complainants	 ?failed	 ?because	 ?of	 ?judicial	 ?interpretation:	 ?the	 ?judiciary	 ?responded	 ?by	 ?making	 ?complainants	 ?compellable	 ?at	 ?in	 ?camera	 ?hearings	 ?and	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?169	 ?Divisions	 ?in	 ?theory	 ?and	 ?practice	 ?did	 ?arise	 ?and	 ?were	 ?more	 ?prominent	 ?in	 ?other	 ?areas,	 ?including	 ?pornography	 ?and	 ?prostitution.	 ?See	 ?e.g.	 ?Kathryn	 ?Abrams,	 ??Sex	 ?Wars	 ?Redux:	 ?Agency	 ?and	 ?Coercion	 ?in	 ?Feminist	 ?Legal	 ?Theory?	 ?(1995)	 ?95	 ?Colum	 ?L	 ?Rev	 ?304;	 ?Catharine	 ?A	 ?MacKinnon,	 ??Trafficking,	 ?Prostitution,	 ?and	 ?Inequality?	 ?(2011)	 ?46:2	 ?Harv	 ?CR-??CLL	 ?Rev	 ?271;	 ?Also	 ?important	 ?was	 ?the	 ?criticisms	 ?of	 ?women	 ?of	 ?colour	 ?that	 ?mainstream	 ?feminism	 ?ignored	 ?their	 ?interests	 ?and	 ?perspectives	 ?and	 ?essentialized	 ?woman	 ?as	 ?a	 ?white	 ?privileged	 ?woman.	 ?These	 ?scholars	 ?highlight	 ?the	 ?need	 ?for	 ?an	 ?intersectional	 ?approach	 ?and	 ?a	 ?re-??orientation	 ?of	 ?feminist	 ?analysis	 ?centred	 ?on	 ?women	 ?of	 ?colour	 ?and	 ?other	 ?marginalized	 ?women.	 ?See	 ?e.g.	 ?Trina	 ?Grillo,	 ??Anti-??Essentialism	 ?and	 ?Intersectionality:	 ?Tools	 ?to	 ?Dismantle	 ?the	 ?Master?s	 ?House?	 ?(1995)	 ?10	 ?Berkeley	 ?Women?s	 ?LJ	 ?16;	 ?Angela	 ?P	 ?Harris,	 ??Race	 ?and	 ?Essentialism	 ?in	 ?Feminist	 ?Legal	 ?Theory?	 ?(1989)	 ?42	 ?Stan	 ?L	 ?Rev	 ?581.	 ?170	 ?Brownmiller,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?25.	 ?171	 ?See	 ?e.g.	 ?Catharine	 ?A	 ?MacKinnon,	 ??Difference	 ?and	 ?Dominance:	 ?On	 ?Sex	 ?Discrimination?	 ?in	 ?Feminism	 ?Unmodified:	 ?Discourses	 ?on	 ?Life	 ?and	 ?Law	 ?(Cambridge,	 ?Mass:	 ?Harvard	 ?University	 ?Press,	 ?1987)	 ?32	 ?[?Dominance?];	 ?MacKinnon,	 ??Reflections?,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?6.	 ?172	 ?Clark	 ?&	 ?Lewis,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?14.	 ?173	 ?McIntyre,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?23	 ?at	 ?72.	 ?174	 ?Backhouse,	 ?Carnal	 ?Crimes,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?38	 ?at	 ?5.	 ?	 ? 46	 ?their	 ?testimony	 ?on	 ?their	 ?sexual	 ?history	 ?a	 ?material	 ?issue,	 ?allowing	 ?defendants	 ?to	 ?bring	 ?evidence	 ?to	 ?contradict	 ?them.	 ?At	 ?the	 ?same	 ?time,	 ?judges	 ?sometimes	 ?also	 ?interpreted	 ?Parliament?s	 ?repeal	 ?of	 ?the	 ?provision	 ?mandating	 ?a	 ?warning	 ?about	 ?uncorroborated	 ?testimony	 ?in	 ?a	 ?limited	 ?way,	 ?finding	 ?that	 ?the	 ?common	 ?law	 ?requirement	 ?for	 ?corroboration	 ?in	 ?sexual	 ?offences	 ?still	 ?applied.175	 ?	 ? Under	 ?pressure	 ?from	 ?feminist	 ?advocates,	 ?now	 ?bolstered	 ?by	 ?the	 ?constitutional	 ?right	 ?to	 ?equality	 ?guaranteed	 ?by	 ?the	 ?Canadian	 ?Charter	 ?of	 ?Rights	 ?and	 ?Freedoms176	 ?and	 ?the	 ?need	 ?to	 ?amend	 ?existing	 ?laws	 ?before	 ?the	 ?equality	 ?provision	 ?came	 ?into	 ?effect,177	 ?Parliament	 ?returned	 ?to	 ?the	 ?drafting	 ?table.	 ?In	 ?1983,	 ?it	 ?made	 ?significant	 ?amendments	 ?to	 ?the	 ?laws	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?violence	 ?in	 ?Bill	 ?C-??127.178	 ?It	 ?coalesced	 ?the	 ?offences	 ?of	 ?rape,	 ?attempted	 ?rape,	 ?indecent	 ?assault,	 ?and	 ?sexual	 ?intercourse	 ?with	 ?mentally	 ?disabled	 ?women	 ?into	 ?the	 ?three-??tiered	 ?offence	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?assault.179	 ?This	 ?reform	 ?substantially	 ?transformed	 ?the	 ?law.	 ?Sexual	 ?offences	 ?were	 ?no	 ?longer	 ?gendered	 ?and	 ?penetration	 ?was	 ?dethroned	 ?as	 ?the	 ?central	 ?issue	 ?in	 ?favour	 ?of	 ?a	 ?focus	 ?on	 ?additional	 ?violence.	 ?The	 ?law	 ?now	 ?categorized	 ?sexual	 ?assault	 ?into	 ?three	 ?increasing	 ?levels	 ?of	 ?seriousness,	 ?with	 ?more	 ?violence	 ?representing	 ?a	 ?more	 ?serious	 ?offence.	 ?Significantly,	 ?the	 ?reforms	 ?also	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?175	 ?Boyle,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?62	 ?at	 ?133?136,	 ?155?156;	 ?R.	 ?v.	 ?Seaboyer,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?26	 ?at	 ?paras	 ?183-??192,	 ?L?Heureux-??Dub?	 ?J,	 ?dissenting,	 ?citing	 ?Criminal	 ?Law	 ?Amendment	 ?Act,	 ?SC	 ?1974-??75-??76,	 ?c	 ?93.	 ?176	 ?Canadian	 ?Charter	 ?of	 ?Rights	 ?and	 ?Freedoms,	 ?Part	 ?I	 ?of	 ?the	 ?Constitution	 ?Act,	 ?1982,	 ?being	 ?Schedule	 ?B	 ?to	 ?the	 ?Canada	 ?Act	 ?1982	 ?(UK),	 ?1982,	 ?c	 ?11,	 ?s	 ?15	 ?[Charter].	 ?177	 ?Benedet,	 ??Age	 ?of	 ?Innocence?,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?93	 ?at	 ?667?668.	 ?178	 ?Bill	 ?C-??127,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?149.	 ?179	 ?Boyle,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?62	 ?at	 ?45?46;	 ?Gillian	 ?Balfour	 ?&	 ?Janice	 ?Du	 ?Mont,	 ??Confronting	 ?Restorative	 ?Justice	 ?in	 ?Neo-??Liberal	 ?Times:	 ?Legal	 ?and	 ?Rape	 ?Narratives	 ?in	 ?Conditional	 ?Sentencing?	 ?in	 ?Elizabeth	 ?A	 ?Sheehy,	 ?ed,	 ?Sexual	 ?Assault	 ?in	 ?Canada:	 ?Law,	 ?Legal	 ?Practice	 ?and	 ?Women?s	 ?Activism	 ?(Ottawa:	 ?University	 ?of	 ?Ottawa	 ?Press,	 ?2012)	 ?701	 ?at	 ?705;	 ?Backhouse,	 ?Carnal	 ?Crimes,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?38	 ?at	 ?299	 ?(endnote	 ?2).	 ?	 ? 47	 ?eliminated	 ?a	 ?husband?s	 ?immunity	 ?from	 ?prosecution	 ?for	 ?the	 ?sexual	 ?assault	 ?of	 ?his	 ?wife.180	 ?	 ?	 ? In	 ?Bill	 ?C-??127	 ?Parliament	 ?eliminated	 ?the	 ?corroboration	 ?requirement	 ?and	 ?the	 ?rule	 ?of	 ?recent	 ?complaint	 ?and	 ?barred	 ?the	 ?use	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?reputation	 ?evidence	 ?and	 ?evidence	 ?about	 ?the	 ?complainant?s	 ?past	 ?sexual	 ?history	 ?with	 ?anyone	 ?other	 ?than	 ?the	 ?accused,	 ?except	 ?in	 ?specific	 ?circumstances.181	 ?	 ?	 ? Once	 ?again,	 ?the	 ?reforms	 ?to	 ?sexual	 ?history	 ?evidence	 ?were	 ?unsuccessful,	 ?this	 ?time	 ?because	 ?the	 ?Supreme	 ?Court	 ?of	 ?Canada	 ?ruled	 ?them	 ?unconstitutional	 ?under	 ?the	 ?Charter.182	 ?In	 ?R.	 ?v.	 ?Seaboyer,	 ?the	 ?majority	 ?of	 ?the	 ?Supreme	 ?Court	 ?of	 ?Canada	 ?upheld	 ?the	 ?bar	 ?on	 ?sexual	 ?reputation	 ?evidence	 ?but	 ?determined	 ?that	 ?the	 ?limits	 ?on	 ?evidence	 ?of	 ?prior	 ?sexual	 ?activity	 ?was	 ?contrary	 ?to	 ?accused?s	 ?Charter	 ?rights	 ?to	 ?adduce	 ?evidence	 ?relevant	 ?to	 ?full	 ?answer	 ?and	 ?defence.183	 ?However,	 ?feminist	 ?reformers	 ?had	 ?an	 ?ally	 ?in	 ?L?Heureux-??Dub?	 ?J.,	 ?who	 ?would	 ?have	 ?upheld	 ?the	 ?amendment:	 ?in	 ?her	 ?dissenting	 ?judgment	 ?she	 ?identified	 ?the	 ?purported	 ?relevance	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?history	 ?evidence	 ?as	 ?based	 ?on	 ?rape	 ?myths	 ?and,	 ?therefore,	 ?prejudicial	 ?and	 ?nearly	 ?always	 ?irrelevant.184	 ?	 ? The	 ?majority?s	 ?ruling	 ?was	 ?a	 ?blow	 ?to	 ?those	 ?who	 ?advocated	 ?for	 ?equality	 ?in	 ?the	 ?law	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?violence.	 ?Recognizing	 ?the	 ?failure	 ?of	 ?the	 ?amendments	 ?to	 ?generate	 ?real	 ?change	 ?in	 ?an	 ?area	 ?that	 ?was	 ?so	 ?key	 ?to	 ?women?s	 ?disillusionment	 ?with	 ?the	 ?justice	 ?system,	 ?feminist	 ?lobbying	 ?increased.185	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?180	 ?Boyle,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?62	 ?at	 ?45?47.	 ?181	 ?Balfour	 ?&	 ?Du	 ?Mont,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?179	 ?at	 ?705;	 ?Boyle,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?62	 ?at	 ?49,	 ?51,	 ?136,	 ?148;	 ?R.	 ?v.	 ?Seaboyer,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?26	 ?at	 ?paras	 ?197-??199,	 ?202,	 ?L?Heureux-??Dub?	 ?J,	 ?dissenting.	 ?182	 ?Charter,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?176,	 ?ss	 ?7,	 ?11(d).	 ?183	 ?R.	 ?v.	 ?Seaboyer,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?26,	 ?McLachlin	 ?J.,	 ?majority.	 ?184	 ?Ibid	 ?at	 ?paras	 ?210-??238,	 ?L?Heureux-??Dub?	 ?J.,	 ?dissenting.	 ?185	 ?Lucinda	 ?Vandervort,	 ??Affirmative	 ?Sexual	 ?Consent	 ?in	 ?Canadian	 ?Law,	 ?Jurisprudence,	 ?and	 ?Legal	 ?Theory?	 ?(2012)	 ?23	 ?Colum	 ?J	 ?Gender	 ?&	 ?L	 ?395	 ?at	 ?410?412.	 ?	 ? 48	 ?	 ? In	 ?1992	 ?in	 ?Bill	 ?C-??49,	 ?Parliament	 ?codified	 ?the	 ?limitations	 ?on	 ?sexual	 ?history	 ?evidence	 ?provided	 ?by	 ?the	 ?majority	 ?of	 ?the	 ?Supreme	 ?Court,	 ?limitations	 ?that	 ?were	 ?determined	 ?not	 ?to	 ?entrench	 ?on	 ?an	 ?accused?s	 ?rights.	 ?In	 ?the	 ?same	 ?bill,	 ?and	 ?with	 ?the	 ?help	 ?of	 ?feminist	 ?advocates,	 ?Parliament	 ?defined	 ?consent	 ?as	 ?the	 ?voluntary	 ?agreement	 ?to	 ?engage	 ?in	 ?the	 ?sexual	 ?activity	 ?in	 ?question,	 ?and	 ?introduced	 ?the	 ?requirement	 ?that	 ?an	 ?accused	 ?seeking	 ?to	 ?rely	 ?on	 ?a	 ?belief	 ?in	 ?consent	 ?have	 ?taken	 ??reasonable	 ?steps?	 ?to	 ?ascertain	 ?consent.186	 ?The	 ?feminist	 ?approach	 ?was	 ?to	 ?eliminate	 ?discrimination	 ?in	 ?judicial	 ?application	 ?of	 ?the	 ?law:	 ?	 ?The	 ?feminist	 ?strategy	 ?underlying	 ?the	 ?Bill	 ?was	 ?to	 ?amend	 ?the	 ?substantive	 ?law	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?assault	 ?to	 ?define	 ?consent	 ?and	 ?non-??consent	 ?so	 ?as	 ?to	 ?narrow	 ?the	 ?range	 ?of	 ?"evidence"	 ?legally	 ?capable	 ?of	 ?being	 ?"relevant"	 ?to	 ?the	 ?determination	 ?of	 ?innocence	 ?or	 ?guilt,	 ?and	 ?then	 ?to	 ?require	 ?judges	 ?to	 ?subject	 ?that	 ?narrowed	 ?residual	 ?pool	 ?of	 ?relevancy	 ?determinations	 ?to	 ?a	 ?broader	 ?range	 ?of	 ?constitutional	 ?considerations	 ?than	 ?had	 ?been	 ?applied	 ?by	 ?the	 ?Seaboyer	 ?majority.187	 ?Legislators	 ?and	 ?feminist	 ?reformers	 ?therefore	 ?tried	 ?to	 ?promote	 ?change	 ?in	 ?the	 ?procedural	 ?law	 ?with	 ?substantive	 ?law	 ?amendments.	 ?As	 ?well,	 ?they	 ?made	 ?women?s	 ?equality	 ?rights	 ?explicit	 ?in	 ?the	 ?preambles	 ?to	 ?the	 ?amendments	 ?to	 ?encourage	 ?judges	 ?to	 ?interpret	 ?the	 ?laws	 ?in	 ?the	 ?spirit	 ?they	 ?were	 ?passed.188	 ?	 ? Criminal	 ?defence	 ?lawyers	 ?circumvented	 ?the	 ?new	 ?restrictions	 ?on	 ?sexual	 ?history	 ?evidence	 ?by	 ?demanding	 ?disclosure	 ?of	 ?complainants?	 ?confidential	 ?documents	 ?from	 ?third	 ?parties	 ??	 ?schools,	 ?child	 ?protection	 ?agencies,	 ?counsellors,	 ?psychologists,	 ?crisis	 ?centres,	 ?and	 ?any	 ?other	 ?person	 ?or	 ?entity	 ?holding	 ?records	 ?about	 ?complainants,	 ?including	 ?their	 ?personal	 ?diaries	 ??	 ?to	 ?achieve	 ?the	 ?same	 ?ends.	 ?In	 ?1995,	 ?the	 ?Supreme	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?186	 ?Balfour	 ?&	 ?Du	 ?Mont,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?179	 ?at	 ?705	 ?citing	 ?Bill	 ?C-??49,	 ?An	 ?Act	 ?to	 ?Amend	 ?the	 ?Criminal	 ?Code	 ?(sexual	 ?assault),	 ?3rd	 ?Sess,	 ?34th	 ?Parl,	 ?1992,	 ?SC	 ?1992,	 ?c	 ?38;	 ?Vandervort,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?185	 ?at	 ?411?412.	 ?187	 ?McIntyre,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?23	 ?at	 ?76.	 ?188	 ?Ibid;	 ?Gotell,	 ??Disappearance?,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?75	 ?at	 ?130?131;	 ?Vandervort,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?185	 ?at	 ?412	 ?(footnote	 ?22)	 ?citing	 ?Bill	 ?C-??49,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?186,	 ?pmbl.	 ?	 ? 49	 ?Court	 ?of	 ?Canada	 ?allowed	 ?but	 ?limited	 ?this	 ?practice	 ?through	 ?a	 ?two-??step	 ?screening	 ?process.189	 ?In	 ?response,	 ?Parliament	 ?legislated	 ?a	 ?more	 ?rigorous	 ?process	 ?to	 ?further	 ?limit	 ?the	 ?disclosure	 ?of	 ?third-??party	 ?documents	 ?in	 ?1997.190	 ?The	 ?Supreme	 ?Court	 ?of	 ?Canada	 ?upheld	 ?Parliament?s	 ?regime	 ?as	 ?consistent	 ?with	 ?sections	 ?7	 ?and	 ?11(d)	 ?of	 ?the	 ?Charter;191	 ?however,	 ?as	 ?I	 ?discuss	 ?later,	 ?feminist	 ?scholars	 ?argue	 ?that	 ?the	 ?Supreme	 ?Court	 ?has	 ?weakened	 ?this	 ?regime	 ?by	 ?its	 ?interpretation	 ?of	 ?what	 ?the	 ?statute	 ?permits.	 ?	 ?	 ? 	 ?Within	 ?the	 ?amendments,	 ?Parliament	 ?included	 ?equality	 ?as	 ?one	 ?of	 ?the	 ?stated	 ?goals	 ?of	 ?the	 ?reforms:	 ?with	 ?feminist	 ?prodding,	 ?Parliament	 ?attempted	 ?to	 ?redress	 ?some	 ?of	 ?the	 ?inequality	 ?that	 ?the	 ?law	 ?had	 ?perpetrated	 ?against	 ?survivors	 ?in	 ?the	 ?past	 ?and	 ?also	 ?acknowledge	 ?the	 ?inequality	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?offences	 ?themselves,	 ?in	 ?the	 ?prevalence	 ?of	 ?violence	 ?against	 ?women	 ?and	 ?children.192	 ?The	 ?judiciary	 ?has	 ?also	 ?recognized	 ?that	 ?discrimination	 ?was	 ?part	 ?and	 ?parcel	 ?of	 ?the	 ?law	 ?historically:193	 ?the	 ?cases	 ?R.	 ?v.	 ?Seaboyer,194	 ?R.	 ?v.	 ?Osolin195	 ?and	 ?R.	 ?v.	 ?Ewanchuk196	 ?are	 ?milestones	 ?in	 ?the	 ?Supreme	 ?Court	 ?of	 ?Canada?s	 ?evolving	 ?recognition	 ?of	 ?the	 ?legal	 ?system?s	 ?reliance	 ?on	 ?rape	 ?myths.	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?189	 ?R.	 ?v.	 ?O?Connor,	 ?[1995]	 ?4	 ?SCR	 ?411,	 ?130	 ?DLR	 ?(4th)	 ?235	 ?cited	 ?in	 ?Lise	 ?Gotell,	 ??Tracking	 ?Decisions	 ?on	 ?Access	 ?to	 ?Sexual	 ?Assault	 ?Complainants?	 ?Confidential	 ?Records:	 ?The	 ?Continued	 ?Permeability	 ?of	 ?Subsections	 ?278.1?278.9	 ?of	 ?the	 ?Criminal	 ?Code?	 ?(2008)	 ?20	 ?CJWL	 ?111	 ?at	 ?116	 ?[?Tracking	 ?Decisions?];	 ?Balfour	 ?&	 ?Du	 ?Mont,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?179	 ?at	 ?705.	 ?190	 ?Balfour	 ?&	 ?Du	 ?Mont,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?179	 ?at	 ?705	 ?citing	 ?Bill	 ?C-??46,	 ?An	 ?Act	 ?to	 ?amend	 ?the	 ?Criminal	 ?Code	 ?(production	 ?of	 ?records	 ?in	 ?sexual	 ?offence	 ?proceedings),	 ?2nd	 ?Sess,	 ?35th	 ?Parl,	 ?1996-??97,	 ?SC	 ?1997,	 ?c	 ?30,	 ?cl	 ?1	 ?[amending	 ?ss	 ?278.1-??278.9].	 ?See	 ?also	 ?Gotell,	 ??Tracking	 ?Decisions?,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?189	 ?at	 ?116;	 ?McIntyre,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?23	 ?at	 ?81.	 ?191	 ?Balfour	 ?&	 ?Du	 ?Mont,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?179	 ?at	 ?705?706	 ?citing	 ?R.	 ?v.	 ?Mills,	 ?[1999]	 ?3	 ?SCR	 ?330,	 ?169	 ?DLR	 ?(4th)	 ?193.	 ?192	 ?R.	 ?v.	 ?Seaboyer,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?26	 ?at	 ?paras	 ?193-??195,	 ?L?Heureux-??Dub?	 ?J.,	 ?dissenting;	 ?Gotell,	 ??Rethinking	 ?Consent?,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?1	 ?at	 ?877;	 ?Vandervort,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?185	 ?at	 ?412	 ?citing	 ?Bill	 ?C-??49,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?186,	 ?pmbl.	 ?193	 ?Vandervort,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?185	 ?at	 ?414?436.	 ?194	 ?R.	 ?v.	 ?Seaboyer,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?26.	 ?195	 ?R.	 ?v.	 ?Osolin,	 ?[1993]	 ?4	 ?SCR	 ?598,	 ?109	 ?DLR	 ?(4th)	 ?478.	 ?196	 ?R.	 ?v.	 ?Ewanchuk,	 ?[1999]	 ?1	 ?SCR	 ?330,	 ?169	 ?DLR	 ?(4th)	 ?193.	 ?	 ? 50	 ?In	 ?particular,	 ?in	 ?these	 ?cases	 ?L?Heureux-??Dub?	 ?J.	 ?compellingly	 ?described	 ?and	 ?denounced	 ?the	 ?use	 ?of	 ?rape	 ?myths	 ?within	 ?the	 ?law.	 ?	 ?	 ? However,	 ?equality	 ?has	 ?been	 ?elusive.	 ?Resistors	 ?to	 ?the	 ?reforms	 ?have	 ?relied	 ?on	 ?widespread	 ?cultural	 ?norms	 ?and	 ?discourses	 ?that	 ?belittle	 ?sexual	 ?violence	 ?against	 ?women	 ?to	 ?frame	 ?the	 ?reforms	 ?as	 ?attacks	 ?by	 ?feminists	 ?on	 ?men	 ?and	 ?the	 ??commonsense?	 ?rules	 ?of	 ?heterosexual	 ?interaction.197	 ?Parliament	 ?and	 ?the	 ?courts	 ?have	 ?gone	 ?back	 ?and	 ?forth	 ?on	 ?what	 ?the	 ?right	 ?to	 ?equality	 ?and	 ?the	 ?rights	 ?of	 ?the	 ?accused	 ?require	 ?in	 ?the	 ?context	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?assault.	 ?On	 ?this	 ?foundation	 ?the	 ?current	 ?law	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?offences	 ?was	 ?interpreted	 ?and	 ?built.198	 ?	 ?The	 ?Current	 ?Law	 ?of	 ?Sexual	 ?Offences	 ?	 ? The	 ?current	 ?law	 ?is	 ?largely	 ?based	 ?on	 ?a	 ?consent	 ?framework;	 ?sexual	 ?assault	 ?and	 ?other	 ?offences,	 ?including	 ?those	 ?against	 ?children	 ?and	 ?adolescents,	 ?are	 ?premised	 ?on	 ?the	 ?notion	 ?that	 ?subjective	 ?agreement	 ?to	 ?sexual	 ?touching	 ?is	 ?required	 ?for	 ?it	 ?to	 ?be	 ?legal.	 ?Free	 ?and	 ?voluntary	 ?consent	 ?can	 ?be	 ?undermined	 ?by	 ?force	 ?and	 ?duress	 ?and	 ?individuals	 ?can	 ?be	 ?incapable	 ?of	 ?consent	 ?due	 ?to	 ?relative	 ?powerlessness.	 ?As	 ?well,	 ?the	 ?Criminal	 ?Code	 ?restricts	 ?the	 ?use	 ?of	 ?evidence	 ?whose	 ?relevance	 ?has	 ?traditionally	 ?been	 ?based	 ?on	 ?prejudicial	 ?reasoning.	 ?	 ?	 ? As	 ?it	 ?now	 ?stands,	 ?most	 ?types	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?violence	 ?are	 ?prohibited	 ?under	 ?the	 ?rubric	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?assault.	 ?Sexual	 ?assault	 ?is	 ?constituted	 ?by	 ?a	 ??sexual	 ?touching	 ?without	 ?consent?,199	 ?which	 ?falls	 ?into	 ?three	 ?levels	 ?of	 ?seriousness	 ?depending	 ?on	 ?the	 ?level	 ?of	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?197	 ?See	 ?e.g.	 ?Joanne	 ?Wright,	 ??Consent	 ?and	 ?Sexual	 ?Violence	 ?in	 ?Canadian	 ?Public	 ?Discourse:	 ?Reflections	 ?on	 ?Ewanchuk?	 ?(2001)	 ?16	 ?CJLS	 ?173;	 ?McIntyre,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?23.	 ?198	 ?McIntyre,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?23	 ?at	 ?75?78,	 ?81;	 ?Gotell,	 ??Disappearance?,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?75	 ?at	 ?133?139.	 ?199	 ?R.	 ?v.	 ?J.A.,	 ?2011	 ?SCC	 ?28,	 ?[2011]	 ?SCR	 ?440	 ?at	 ?para	 ?65.	 ?	 ? 51	 ?violence	 ?used	 ?or	 ?the	 ?level	 ?of	 ?harm	 ?the	 ?offender	 ?caused	 ?the	 ?survivor.200	 ?The	 ?first	 ?level	 ?is	 ?sexual	 ?assault	 ?I,	 ?nonconsensual	 ?sexual	 ?touching	 ?without	 ?significant	 ?physical	 ?harm	 ?to	 ?the	 ?survivor.201	 ?Sexual	 ?assault	 ?II	 ?is	 ?established	 ?when	 ?the	 ?offender	 ?uses	 ?a	 ?weapon	 ?or	 ?threatens	 ?a	 ?third	 ?party,	 ?or	 ?is	 ?party	 ?to	 ?the	 ?offence	 ?with	 ?another	 ?person,	 ?or	 ?causes	 ?the	 ?survivor	 ?bodily	 ?harm,202	 ?generally	 ?defined	 ?as	 ?harm	 ?that	 ?is	 ?not	 ??transient	 ?or	 ?trifling	 ?in	 ?nature.?203	 ?Sexual	 ?assault	 ?III,	 ?known	 ?as	 ?aggravated	 ?sexual	 ?assault,	 ?is	 ?committed	 ?when	 ?the	 ?offender	 ??wounds,	 ?maims,	 ?disfigures	 ?or	 ?endangers	 ?the	 ?life	 ?of	 ?the?	 ?survivor.204	 ?	 ?	 ? Sexual	 ?assault	 ?is	 ?not	 ?the	 ?only	 ?sexual	 ?offence.	 ?Incest	 ?continues	 ?to	 ?criminalize	 ?sexual	 ?intercourse	 ?between	 ?certain	 ?blood	 ?relatives.205	 ?Sexual	 ?activity	 ?with	 ?children	 ?and	 ?adolescents	 ?under	 ?the	 ?age	 ?of	 ?consent	 ?is	 ?also	 ?criminal:	 ?sexual	 ?interference	 ?and	 ?invitation	 ?to	 ?sexual	 ?touching	 ?make	 ?it	 ?a	 ?crime	 ?to	 ?touch	 ?someone	 ?under	 ?the	 ?age	 ?of	 ?16	 ?with	 ?a	 ?sexual	 ?purpose	 ?or	 ?to	 ?invite	 ?or	 ?counsel	 ?a	 ?person	 ?under	 ?16	 ?to	 ?sexual	 ?touch	 ?someone;	 ?206	 ?sexual	 ?interference	 ?criminalizes	 ?anyone	 ?in	 ?a	 ?position	 ?of	 ?trust,	 ?authority	 ?or	 ?dependence	 ?who	 ?engages	 ?in	 ?sexual	 ?touching	 ?or	 ?invites	 ?sexual	 ?touching	 ?of	 ?a	 ?person	 ?under	 ?18	 ?but	 ?older	 ?than	 ?16	 ?years	 ?old.207	 ?As	 ?well,	 ?sexual	 ?exploitation	 ?of	 ?a	 ?person	 ?with	 ?a	 ?disability	 ?by	 ?someone	 ?in	 ?a	 ?position	 ?of	 ?trust,	 ?authority,	 ?or	 ?dependence	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?200	 ?For	 ?a	 ?discussion	 ?of	 ?the	 ?violence	 ?or	 ?injury	 ?required	 ?to	 ?establish	 ?the	 ?actus	 ?reus	 ?of	 ?the	 ?different	 ?levels	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?assault,	 ?see	 ?Boyle,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?62	 ?at	 ?93?100;	 ?Du	 ?Mont,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?55	 ?at	 ?318?319	 ?(footnotes	 ?83?88).	 ?201	 ?Criminal	 ?Code,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?67,	 ?s	 ?271.	 ?Sexual	 ?assault	 ?is	 ?understood	 ?with	 ?reference	 ?to	 ?assault,	 ?s	 ?265.	 ?202	 ?Ibid,	 ?s	 ?272(1).	 ?203	 ?Boyle,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?62	 ?at	 ?95;	 ?Du	 ?Mont,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?55	 ?at	 ?318?319	 ?(footnote	 ?85).	 ?204	 ?Criminal	 ?Code,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?67,	 ?s	 ?273(1).	 ?205	 ?Ibid,	 ?s	 ?155(1).	 ?206	 ?Ibid,	 ?ss	 ?151	 ?[sexual	 ?interference],	 ?152	 ?[invitation	 ?to	 ?sexual	 ?touching].	 ?207	 ?Ibid,	 ?ss	 ?153(1)	 ?[sexual	 ?exploitation],	 ?153(2)	 ?[definition	 ?of	 ??young	 ?person?].	 ?	 ? 52	 ?is	 ?an	 ?offence.208	 ?Of	 ?course,	 ?offences	 ?against	 ?children	 ?and	 ?individuals	 ?with	 ?disabilities	 ?may	 ?also	 ?constitute	 ?sexual	 ?assault	 ?if	 ?the	 ?survivors	 ?do	 ?not	 ?have	 ?the	 ?capacity	 ?to	 ?consent.209	 ?With	 ?regard	 ?to	 ?children	 ?and	 ?adolescents,	 ?the	 ?Criminal	 ?Code	 ?specifically	 ?provides	 ?that	 ?consent	 ?is	 ?no	 ?defence	 ?to	 ?a	 ?charge	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?assault,	 ?sexual	 ?interference,	 ?and	 ?invitation	 ?to	 ?sexual	 ?touching	 ?if	 ?the	 ?complainant	 ?is	 ?less	 ?than	 ?16	 ?years	 ?old.210	 ?Capacity	 ?to	 ?consent	 ?for	 ?women	 ?with	 ?mental	 ?disabilities	 ?is	 ?a	 ?much	 ?more	 ?complicated	 ?and	 ?problematic	 ?assessment	 ?in	 ?the	 ?law.211	 ?	 ?	 ? Fundamentally,	 ?the	 ?law	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?assault	 ?in	 ?Canada	 ?is	 ?a	 ?regime	 ?of	 ?nonconsent.	 ?Defined	 ?in	 ?the	 ?Criminal	 ?Code	 ?as	 ??voluntary	 ?agreement?,212	 ?the	 ?Supreme	 ?Court	 ?of	 ?Canada	 ?has	 ?expanded	 ?on	 ?its	 ?earlier	 ?interpretations	 ?of	 ?consent	 ?at	 ?common	 ?law	 ?to	 ?determine	 ?what	 ?consent	 ?means	 ?pursuant	 ?to	 ?the	 ?Criminal	 ?Code.	 ?The	 ?result	 ?is	 ?the	 ?doctrine	 ?of	 ??affirmative	 ?consent?.213	 ?	 ? In	 ?R.	 ?v.	 ?Ewanchuk,	 ?the	 ?Supreme	 ?Court	 ?of	 ?Canada	 ?held	 ?that	 ?nonconsent	 ?is	 ??determined	 ?by	 ?reference	 ?to	 ?the	 ?complainant?s	 ?subjective	 ?internal	 ?state	 ?of	 ?mind	 ?towards	 ?the	 ?touching,	 ?at	 ?the	 ?time	 ?it	 ?occurred?.214	 ?A	 ?complainant?s	 ?claim	 ?of	 ?nonconsent	 ?will	 ?be	 ?judged	 ?as	 ?part	 ?of	 ?the	 ?assessment	 ?of	 ?her	 ?credibility,	 ?and	 ?the	 ?accused	 ?can	 ?raise	 ?a	 ?reasonable	 ?doubt	 ?about	 ?whether	 ?the	 ?complainant	 ?consented	 ?in	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?208	 ?Ibid,	 ?s	 ?153.1(1).	 ?209	 ?Ibid,	 ?s	 ?273.1(2)(b).	 ?210	 ?Ibid,	 ?s	 ?150.1(1).	 ?211	 ?See	 ?generally	 ?Janine	 ?Benedet	 ?&	 ?Isabel	 ?Grant,	 ??Hearing	 ?the	 ?Sexual	 ?Assault	 ?Complaints	 ?of	 ?Women	 ?with	 ?Mental	 ?Disabilities:	 ?Consent,	 ?Capacity,	 ?and	 ?Mistaken	 ?Belief?	 ?(2007)	 ?52	 ?McGill	 ?LJ	 ?243	 ?[?Consent?];	 ?Janine	 ?Benedet	 ?&	 ?Isabel	 ?Grant,	 ??A	 ?Situational	 ?Approach	 ?to	 ?Incapacity	 ?and	 ?Mental	 ?Disability	 ?in	 ?Sexual	 ?Assault	 ?Law?	 ?(2011)	 ?43	 ?Ottawa	 ?L	 ?Rev	 ?1	 ?[?Situational?].	 ?212	 ?Criminal	 ?Code,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?67,	 ?s.	 ?273.1(1).	 ?213	 ?Vandervort,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?185	 ?at	 ?414?438	 ?citing	 ?R.	 ?v.	 ?M.(M.L.),	 ?[1994]	 ?2	 ?SCR	 ?3,	 ?89	 ?CCC	 ?(3d)	 ?96,	 ?R.	 ?v.	 ?Park,	 ?[1995]	 ?2	 ?SCR	 ?836,	 ?99	 ?CCC	 ?(3d)	 ?1,	 ?R.	 ?v.	 ?Esau,	 ?[1997]	 ?2	 ?SCR	 ?777,	 ?148	 ?DLR	 ?(4th)	 ?662,	 ?R.	 ?v.	 ?Ewanchuk,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?196,	 ?R.	 ?v.	 ?Sazant,	 ?2004	 ?SCC	 ?77,	 ?[2004]	 ?3	 ?SCR	 ?635.	 ?See	 ?more	 ?recently	 ?R.	 ?v.	 ?J.A.,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?199.	 ?214	 ?R.	 ?v.	 ?Ewanchuk,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?196	 ?at	 ?para	 ?26.	 ?	 ? 53	 ?her	 ?mind	 ?based	 ?on	 ?her	 ?words	 ?and	 ?conduct.	 ?However,	 ?if	 ?the	 ?judge	 ?accepts	 ?her	 ?evidence	 ?that	 ?she	 ?did	 ?not	 ?consent,	 ?the	 ?accused	 ?cannot	 ?argue	 ?implied	 ?consent.215	 ?To	 ?prove	 ?the	 ?accused	 ?mistakenly	 ?but	 ?honestly	 ?believed	 ?she	 ?consented,	 ?he	 ?must	 ?prove	 ?that	 ?he	 ?believed	 ?that	 ?the	 ?complainant,	 ?by	 ?words	 ?or	 ?actions,	 ?affirmatively	 ?communicated	 ?consent.	 ?He	 ?cannot	 ?speculate	 ?about	 ?what	 ?she	 ?was	 ?thinking	 ?but	 ?failed	 ?to	 ?express.216	 ?According	 ?to	 ?the	 ?Criminal	 ?Code,	 ?he	 ?must	 ?also	 ?demonstrate	 ?that	 ?he	 ?took	 ?reasonable	 ?steps	 ?to	 ?determine	 ?if	 ?the	 ?complainant	 ?was	 ?consenting.217	 ?	 ?	 ? According	 ?to	 ?the	 ?Criminal	 ?Code,	 ?consent	 ?must	 ?be	 ?voluntary.	 ?It	 ?cannot	 ?be	 ?obtained	 ?or	 ?is	 ?vitiated	 ?in	 ?certain	 ?situations:	 ?these	 ?include	 ?when	 ??the	 ?accused	 ?induces	 ?the	 ?complainant	 ?to	 ?engage	 ?in	 ?the	 ?activity	 ?by	 ?abusing	 ?a	 ?position	 ?of	 ?trust,	 ?power	 ?or	 ?authority?,218	 ?and	 ?when	 ?consent	 ?is	 ?given	 ?under	 ?duress,	 ?fear	 ?of	 ?force,	 ?threats,	 ?fraud,	 ?or	 ?the	 ?exercise	 ?of	 ?authority.219	 ?	 ?	 ? The	 ?scope	 ?of	 ?the	 ?voluntariness	 ?requirement	 ?has	 ?remained	 ?unclear;	 ?in	 ?some	 ?cases,	 ?it	 ?has	 ?been	 ?limited.	 ?Major	 ?J.?s	 ?majority	 ?judgment	 ?in	 ?R.	 ?v.	 ?Ewanchuk	 ?gave	 ?it	 ?a	 ?restricted	 ?scope,	 ?liming	 ?it	 ?to	 ?situations	 ?when	 ?the	 ?complainant	 ??believed	 ?herself	 ?to	 ?have	 ?only	 ?two	 ?choices:	 ?to	 ?comply	 ?or	 ?to	 ?be	 ?harmed.?220	 ?More	 ?recently,	 ?however,	 ?the	 ?Supreme	 ?Court	 ?of	 ?Canada	 ?upheld221	 ?the	 ?Ontario	 ?Court	 ?of	 ?Appeal	 ?decision	 ?in	 ?R.	 ?v.	 ?Stender	 ?that	 ?duress	 ?was	 ?sufficient	 ?to	 ?make	 ?consent	 ?involuntary,	 ?in	 ?that	 ?case	 ?because	 ?the	 ?offender	 ?threatened	 ?to	 ?disseminate	 ?sexually	 ?explicit	 ?photographs	 ?of	 ?the	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?215	 ?Ibid	 ?at	 ?para	 ?29-??31.	 ?	 ?216	 ?Ibid	 ?at	 ?para	 ?45-??47.	 ?	 ?217	 ?Criminal	 ?Code,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?67,	 ?s	 ?273.2(b).	 ?218	 ?Ibid,	 ?s.	 ?273.1(2)(c).	 ?	 ?219	 ?Ibid,	 ?s.	 ?265(3);	 ?R.	 ?v.	 ?Ewanchuk,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?196	 ?at	 ?para	 ?36.	 ?220	 ?R.	 ?v.	 ?Ewanchuk,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?196	 ?at	 ?para	 ?39.	 ?221	 ?R.	 ?v.	 ?Stender,	 ?2005	 ?SCC	 ?36,	 ?[2005]	 ?1	 ?SCR	 ?914.	 ?	 ? 54	 ?survivor.222	 ?This	 ?decision	 ?suggests	 ?a	 ?greater	 ?recognition	 ?that	 ?coercion	 ?undermines	 ?voluntary	 ?consent.	 ?	 ? As	 ?well,	 ?on	 ?their	 ?face,	 ?procedural	 ?reforms	 ?have	 ?attempted	 ?to	 ?make	 ?the	 ?trial	 ?process	 ?fairer	 ?and	 ?less	 ?traumatic	 ?for	 ?survivors	 ?by	 ?restricting	 ?the	 ?admission	 ?of	 ?evidence	 ?whose	 ?relevance	 ?is	 ?based	 ?on	 ?rape	 ?myths.	 ?Sections	 ?274	 ?and	 ?275	 ?of	 ?the	 ?Criminal	 ?Code	 ?dictate	 ?that	 ?corroboration	 ?is	 ?no	 ?longer	 ?required	 ?and	 ?the	 ?rule	 ?of	 ?recent	 ?complaint	 ?has	 ?been	 ??abrogated?.	 ?Section	 ?277	 ?bars	 ?the	 ?admission	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?reputation	 ?evidence	 ?for	 ?attacks	 ?on	 ?credibility	 ?and	 ?276	 ?restricts	 ?the	 ?use	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?history	 ?evidence	 ?used	 ?for	 ?the	 ?twin	 ?myths,	 ?that	 ?the	 ?complainant	 ?is	 ?more	 ?likely	 ?to	 ?have	 ?consented	 ?or	 ?is	 ?less	 ?worthy	 ?of	 ?belief,	 ?stating	 ?that	 ?sexual	 ?history	 ?evidence	 ?can	 ?only	 ?be	 ?adduced	 ?about	 ?a	 ?specific	 ?and	 ?relevant	 ?incident	 ?that	 ?has	 ?substantially	 ?greater	 ?probative	 ?value	 ?than	 ?prejudicial	 ?effect.	 ?To	 ?determine	 ?this,	 ?the	 ?Criminal	 ?Code	 ?directs	 ?judges	 ?to	 ?consider	 ?the	 ?interests	 ?of	 ?justice,	 ?the	 ?need	 ?to	 ?eliminate	 ?discrimination	 ?and	 ?encourage	 ?reporting	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?offences,	 ?and	 ?complainants?	 ?privacy	 ?rights	 ?and	 ?personal	 ?dignity,	 ?among	 ?other	 ?factors.	 ?Similarly,	 ?sections	 ?278.1	 ?to	 ?278.8	 ?outline	 ?the	 ?two-??step	 ?process	 ?for	 ?disclosure	 ?of	 ?complainants?	 ?private	 ?records	 ?to	 ?the	 ?judge	 ?and	 ?for	 ?production	 ?to	 ?the	 ?accused.	 ?	 ?	 ? However,	 ?the	 ?law	 ?of	 ?affirmative	 ?consent	 ?does	 ?not	 ?reach	 ?its	 ?potential	 ?in	 ?its	 ?application.	 ?As	 ?feminist	 ?scholars	 ?have	 ?argued,	 ?conviction	 ?for	 ?sexual	 ?offences	 ?continues	 ?to	 ?be	 ?difficult:	 ?courts	 ?do	 ?not	 ?always	 ?take	 ?an	 ?expansive	 ?approach	 ?to	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?222	 ?R.	 ?v.	 ?D.G.S.	 ?(2004),	 ?72	 ?OR	 ?(3d)	 ?223,	 ?2004	 ?CanLII7198	 ?(Ont	 ?CA).	 ?Note	 ?that	 ?it	 ?is	 ?not	 ?entirely	 ?clear	 ?on	 ?the	 ?facts	 ?that	 ?the	 ?survivor	 ?communicated	 ?agreement,	 ?voluntary	 ?or	 ?not,	 ?in	 ?any	 ?event;	 ?however,	 ?the	 ?court	 ?appeared	 ?to	 ?find	 ?that	 ?she	 ?did.	 ?	 ?	 ? 55	 ?voluntary	 ?consent	 ?nor	 ?apply	 ?the	 ?requirements	 ?in	 ?the	 ?Criminal	 ?Code,223	 ?for	 ?example,	 ?the	 ?requirement	 ?for	 ?reasonable	 ?steps,	 ?which	 ?the	 ?Supreme	 ?Court	 ?of	 ?Canada	 ?failed	 ?to	 ?apply	 ?in	 ?R.	 ?v.	 ?Ewanchuk.224	 ?	 ? As	 ?well,	 ?as	 ?argued	 ?by	 ?Lise	 ?Gotell,	 ?the	 ?strength	 ?of	 ?procedural	 ?limitations	 ?have	 ?been	 ?restricted	 ?by	 ?the	 ?interpretations	 ?of	 ?the	 ?Supreme	 ?Court	 ?of	 ?Canada.	 ?The	 ?Court	 ?has	 ?asserted	 ?the	 ?importance	 ?of	 ?judicial	 ?discretion,	 ?weakening	 ?the	 ?application	 ?of	 ?the	 ?sections?	 ?requirements	 ?that	 ?judges	 ?consider	 ?the	 ?structural	 ?context	 ?of	 ??equality	 ?rights	 ?and	 ?the	 ?dignity	 ?of	 ?complaints;	 ?the	 ?sway	 ?of	 ?discriminatory	 ?myths;	 ?and	 ?the	 ?impact	 ?on	 ?reporting	 ?rates?,	 ?contrary	 ?to	 ?the	 ?intention	 ?of	 ?the	 ?reforms.225	 ?These	 ?interpretations	 ?have	 ?been	 ?fueled	 ?by	 ?anti-??feminist	 ?backlash	 ?from	 ?the	 ?criminal	 ?defence	 ?bar	 ?and	 ?other	 ?groups.226	 ?I	 ?explore	 ?these	 ?issues	 ?in	 ?more	 ?detail	 ?below.	 ?The	 ?Undoing	 ?of	 ?Feminist	 ?Gains	 ?in	 ?Sexual	 ?Assault	 ?Law	 ?	 ?	 ? The	 ?feminist	 ?project	 ?to	 ?contextualize	 ?sexual	 ?offences	 ?within	 ?systemic	 ?inequality	 ?has	 ?been	 ?transformed	 ?by	 ?neoliberalism	 ?into	 ?an	 ?atomistic	 ?and	 ?decontextualized	 ?approach.	 ?This	 ?approach	 ?may	 ?ignore	 ?structural	 ?inequality,	 ?but	 ?it	 ?does	 ?not	 ?eradicate	 ?it;	 ?nor	 ?does	 ?it	 ?eliminate	 ?the	 ?myths	 ?that	 ?perpetuate	 ?inequality.	 ?Analyzing	 ?how	 ?judges	 ?apply	 ?the	 ?law	 ?of	 ?consent	 ?and	 ?the	 ?law	 ?of	 ?evidence	 ?in	 ?sexual	 ?offence	 ?trials,	 ?feminist	 ?scholars	 ?have	 ?found	 ?that	 ?modified	 ?versions	 ?of	 ?rape	 ?myths	 ?filtered	 ?through	 ?neoliberalism	 ?continue	 ?to	 ?surface	 ?in	 ?determinations	 ?of	 ?guilt	 ?or	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?223	 ?See	 ?generally	 ?Vandervort,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?185;	 ?Elaine	 ?Craig,	 ??Ten	 ?Years	 ?After	 ?Ewanchuk	 ?The	 ?Art	 ?of	 ?Seduction	 ?is	 ?Alive	 ?And	 ?Well:	 ?An	 ?Examination	 ?of	 ?The	 ?Mistaken	 ?Belief	 ?in	 ?Consent	 ?Defence?	 ?(2009)	 ?13:3	 ?Can	 ?Crim	 ?L	 ?Rev	 ?247	 ?[?After	 ?Ewanchuk?];	 ?Gotell,	 ??Rethinking	 ?Consent?,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?1.	 ?224	 ?Gotell,	 ??Disappearance?,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?75	 ?at	 ?145?146;	 ?McIntyre,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?23	 ?at	 ?77.	 ?225	 ?Gotell,	 ??Disappearance?,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?75	 ?at	 ?136?137	 ?citing	 ?R.	 ?v.	 ?Mills,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?191,	 ?R.	 ?v.	 ?Darrach,	 ?2000	 ?SCC	 ?46,	 ?[2000]	 ?2	 ?SCR	 ?443.	 ?226	 ?Ibid	 ?at	 ?131;	 ?See	 ?generally	 ?McIntyre,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?23;	 ?Wright,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?197.	 ?	 ? 56	 ?innocence	 ?and	 ?procedural	 ?applications.	 ?Feminist	 ?scholars	 ?argue	 ?that	 ?the	 ?current	 ?law	 ?does	 ?entirely	 ?or	 ?adequately	 ?protect	 ?women	 ?and	 ?children	 ?from	 ?coercive	 ?or	 ?unwanted	 ?sexual	 ?touching	 ?or	 ?from	 ?prejudice	 ?in	 ?courtrooms.	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ? Important	 ?feminist	 ?reforms	 ?in	 ?law	 ?and	 ?policy	 ?were	 ?undermined	 ?by	 ?a	 ?shifting	 ?political	 ?ethos.	 ?While	 ?feminist	 ?battles	 ?were	 ?being	 ?won,	 ?the	 ?philosophy	 ?of	 ?governance	 ?moved	 ?away	 ?from	 ?a	 ?social	 ?welfare	 ?paradigm,	 ?which	 ?recognizes	 ?structural	 ?inequalities	 ?and	 ?group	 ?belonging,	 ?to	 ?neoliberalism,	 ?which	 ?focuses	 ?on	 ?individual	 ?responsibility	 ?and	 ?rationality.227	 ?The	 ?rise	 ?of	 ?the	 ?law	 ?and	 ?order	 ?agenda	 ?followed,	 ?a	 ?common	 ?occurrence	 ?when	 ??governments	 ?seek	 ?to	 ?respond	 ?to	 ?anxieties	 ?produced	 ?in	 ?a	 ?context	 ?of	 ?rapid	 ?socio-??economic	 ?transformation	 ?and	 ?declining	 ?social	 ?supports.?228	 ?Because	 ?of	 ?this	 ?shifting	 ?ethos,	 ?feminist	 ?advocates?	 ?attempts	 ?to	 ?make	 ?changes	 ?beyond	 ?the	 ?law,	 ?such	 ?as	 ?improvements	 ?to	 ?social	 ?welfare	 ?programs,	 ?were	 ?less	 ?successful	 ?than	 ?their	 ?calls	 ?for	 ?legal	 ?reform	 ?that	 ?could	 ?be	 ?seen	 ?as	 ?overlapping	 ?with	 ?the	 ?law	 ?and	 ?order	 ?movement.229	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ? Together,	 ?the	 ?neoliberal	 ?approach	 ?and	 ?law	 ?and	 ?order	 ?agenda	 ?undermined	 ?the	 ?work	 ?of	 ?feminist	 ?reformers	 ?to	 ?contextualize	 ?sexual	 ?violence	 ?as	 ?an	 ?aspect	 ?of	 ?structural	 ?gender	 ?inequality.	 ?They	 ?reoriented	 ?sexual	 ?violence	 ?from	 ?a	 ?social	 ?issue	 ?into	 ?a	 ?matter	 ?for	 ?the	 ?criminal	 ?justice	 ?system	 ?alone.	 ?Women?s	 ?advocacy	 ?groups	 ?were	 ?relegated	 ?to	 ?the	 ?fringe	 ?and	 ?defunded,	 ?and	 ??victims?	 ?rights,?	 ?understood	 ?in	 ?a	 ?contextual	 ?vacuum,	 ?replaced	 ?feminist	 ?concerns	 ?in	 ?political	 ?consciousness.230	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?227	 ?Gotell,	 ??Disappearance?,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?75	 ?at	 ?128?130;	 ?McIntyre,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?23	 ?at	 ?72?73,	 ?81;	 ?Comack	 ?&	 ?Peter,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?63	 ?at	 ?284?285.	 ?228	 ?Gotell,	 ??Disappearance?,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?75	 ?at	 ?129.	 ?229	 ?Ibid	 ?at	 ?128?130;	 ?McIntyre,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?23	 ?at	 ?72?73,	 ?81.	 ?230	 ?Gotell,	 ??Disappearance?,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?75	 ?at	 ?128?133,	 ?144;	 ?See	 ?also	 ?McIntyre,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?23	 ?at	 ?81.	 ?	 ? 57	 ?	 ? These	 ?political	 ?and	 ?policy	 ?changes	 ?have	 ?influenced	 ?the	 ?legal	 ?doctrine	 ?of	 ?consent.	 ?Although	 ?feminist	 ?advocates	 ?managed	 ?to	 ?reform	 ?legislation	 ?so	 ?that	 ?it	 ?was	 ?more	 ?appreciative	 ?of	 ?the	 ?gendered	 ?context	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?violence,	 ?this	 ?insight	 ?was	 ?made	 ?to	 ?fit	 ?a	 ??criminal	 ?legal	 ?framework	 ?defined	 ?by	 ?individual	 ?responsibility	 ?and	 ?punishment.?231	 ?Because	 ?the	 ?reforms	 ?altered	 ?the	 ?statement	 ?of	 ?the	 ?law	 ?but	 ?not	 ?the	 ?structural	 ?inequalities	 ?underlying	 ?it,	 ?their	 ?influence	 ?has	 ?been	 ?circumscribed.232	 ?	 ?	 ? As	 ?well,	 ?legal	 ?reforms	 ?were	 ?interpreted	 ?by	 ?a	 ?largely	 ?elite	 ?judiciary	 ?made	 ?up	 ?of	 ?people	 ?who,	 ?like	 ?us	 ?all,	 ?understand	 ?language	 ?through	 ?their	 ?own	 ?experiences	 ?and	 ?perspectives.	 ?Together	 ?with	 ?the	 ?doctrine	 ?of	 ?precedent,	 ?which	 ?virtually	 ?guarantees	 ?judicial	 ?obstruction	 ?of	 ?transformational	 ?legal	 ?reforms,	 ?reforms	 ?have	 ?not	 ?been	 ?entirely	 ?successful.233	 ?Judges	 ?do	 ?not	 ?typically	 ?characterize	 ?sexual	 ?violence	 ?as	 ?a	 ?gendered	 ?crime;	 ?nor	 ?do	 ?they	 ?rely	 ?on	 ?feminist	 ?understandings	 ?to	 ?apply	 ?the	 ?law.234	 ?Instead,	 ?the	 ?judiciary	 ?has	 ?interpreted	 ?the	 ?purpose	 ?of	 ?the	 ?law	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?offences	 ?to	 ?protect	 ?individual	 ?physical	 ?integrity,	 ?autonomy	 ?and	 ?dignity,	 ?rights	 ?that	 ?can	 ?be	 ?understood	 ?outside	 ?of	 ?structural	 ?inequality.235	 ?	 ?	 ? The	 ?law	 ?interpreted	 ?through	 ?neoliberalism	 ?frames	 ?violence	 ?in	 ?transactional	 ?terms	 ?of	 ?individual	 ?rationality	 ?and	 ?responsibility.	 ?Within	 ?this	 ?ideology,	 ?individual	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?231	 ?Gotell,	 ??Disappearance?,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?75	 ?at	 ?133.	 ?232	 ?Ibid	 ?at	 ?144;	 ?McIntyre,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?23	 ?at	 ?74?75,	 ?78?79,	 ?81.	 ?233	 ?Snider,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?68	 ?at	 ?94?95.	 ?234	 ?Gotell,	 ??Rethinking	 ?Consent?,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?1	 ?at	 ?877.	 ?235	 ?See	 ?generally	 ?Gotell,	 ??Disappearance?,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?75;	 ?Gotell,	 ??Rethinking	 ?Consent?,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?1;	 ?Wright,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?197;	 ?See	 ?e.g.	 ?R.	 ?v.	 ?Ewanchuk,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?196	 ?at	 ?para	 ?28.	 ?	 ? 58	 ?women	 ?are	 ?expected	 ?to	 ?avoid	 ?risk,	 ?with	 ?expectations	 ?shifted	 ?from	 ?notions	 ?of	 ?morality	 ?to	 ?caution.236	 ?	 ?	 ? However,	 ?cultural	 ?norms	 ?continue	 ?to	 ?promulgate	 ?distinct	 ?gender	 ?roles	 ?for	 ?men	 ?and	 ?women.	 ?Gender	 ?norms	 ?blend	 ?with	 ?neoliberal	 ?understandings	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?assault	 ?in	 ?the	 ?law,	 ?forming	 ?modified	 ?gender	 ?expectations:	 ?men	 ?are	 ?now	 ?predominantly	 ?expected	 ?to	 ?manage	 ?sexual	 ?risk	 ?and	 ?women	 ?to	 ?avoid	 ?it.237	 ?These	 ?expectations	 ?may	 ?work	 ?in	 ?concert	 ?with	 ?the	 ?older	 ?norms	 ?of	 ?masculine	 ?aggression	 ?and	 ?feminine	 ?passivity	 ?in	 ?heterosexual	 ?interaction,	 ?and	 ?therefore	 ?legitimize	 ?consent	 ?that	 ?arises	 ?from	 ?coercion,	 ?based	 ?on	 ?the	 ?cultural	 ?understanding	 ?of	 ??seduction.?238	 ?	 ?	 ? Based	 ?on	 ?neoliberal	 ?ideas	 ?of	 ?autonomy	 ?and	 ?rationality,	 ?courts	 ?may	 ?perceive	 ?survivors	 ?as	 ?failing	 ??to	 ?practice	 ?the	 ?appropriate	 ?self-??restraint?	 ?to	 ?avoid	 ?risk	 ?of	 ?harm.239	 ?Yet	 ?structural	 ?inequality	 ?persists,	 ?and	 ?for	 ?women,	 ?avoiding	 ?risk	 ?is	 ?not	 ?easy.	 ?As	 ?noted	 ?by	 ?Gotell,	 ?because	 ?of	 ?the	 ?prevalence	 ?and	 ?pervasiveness	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?violence,	 ?activities	 ?that	 ?put	 ?women	 ?at	 ?risk	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?violence	 ?are	 ?innumerable	 ?and	 ?often	 ?unavoidable	 ?in	 ?daily	 ?life.	 ?Under	 ?a	 ?decontextualized,	 ?gender-??neutral	 ?interpretation	 ?of	 ?the	 ?law,	 ?how	 ?gender,	 ?poverty,	 ?race	 ?and	 ?other	 ?sources	 ?of	 ?oppression	 ?limit	 ?women?s	 ?ability	 ?to	 ?avoid	 ?harm	 ?are	 ?irrelevant;	 ?lacking	 ?the	 ?tools	 ?to	 ?understand	 ?social	 ?forces	 ?that	 ?constrain	 ?women?s	 ?actions,240	 ?judges	 ?may	 ??responsibilize?	 ?survivors	 ?for	 ??flirting	 ?with	 ?risk.?241	 ?	 ?They	 ?may	 ?also	 ?disbelieve	 ?complainants	 ?who	 ?do	 ?not	 ?live	 ?up	 ?to	 ?exacting	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?236	 ?Gotell,	 ??Rethinking	 ?Consent?,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?1	 ?at	 ?872?882,	 ?897?898;	 ?Comack	 ?&	 ?Peter,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?63	 ?at	 ?285?298;	 ?Gotell,	 ??Disappearance?,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?75	 ?at	 ?144,	 ?149?153;	 ?Balfour	 ?&	 ?Du	 ?Mont,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?179	 ?at	 ?707.	 ?237	 ?Gotell,	 ??Rethinking	 ?Consent?,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?1	 ?at	 ?879.	 ?238	 ?Wright,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?197	 ?at	 ?200.	 ?239	 ?Balfour	 ?&	 ?Du	 ?Mont,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?179	 ?at	 ?716.	 ?240	 ?Gotell,	 ??Rethinking	 ?Consent?,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?1	 ?at	 ?879?881,	 ?898.	 ?241	 ?Ibid	 ?at	 ?880.	 ?	 ? 59	 ?standards	 ?of	 ?the	 ?rational,	 ?risk-??adverse,	 ?and	 ?consistent	 ?but	 ?also	 ?ordinary	 ?complainant.242	 ?	 ? Attributing	 ?responsibility	 ?to	 ?survivors	 ?can	 ?be	 ?most	 ?egregious	 ?in	 ?the	 ?cases	 ?of	 ?vulnerable	 ?women	 ?who,	 ?due	 ?to	 ?structural	 ?constraints	 ?and	 ?inequalities,	 ?are	 ?habitually	 ?unable	 ?to	 ?avoid	 ?significant	 ?risk.	 ?Aboriginal	 ?women	 ?and	 ?women	 ?involved	 ?in	 ?prostitution	 ?are	 ?among	 ?those	 ?deemed	 ??high	 ?risk.?243	 ?Sherene	 ?H.	 ?Razack	 ?identified	 ?this	 ?phenomenon	 ?in	 ?the	 ?trial	 ?for	 ?Pamela	 ?George?s	 ?murder.	 ?For	 ?Pamela	 ?George,	 ?prostitution	 ?and	 ?Aboriginality	 ?worked	 ?together	 ?to	 ?create	 ?a	 ??permanent	 ?personal	 ?characteristic?244	 ?of	 ?risk	 ?that	 ?was	 ?used	 ?to	 ?blame	 ?her	 ?for	 ?her	 ?death.245	 ?The	 ??choice?	 ?to	 ?take	 ?risks	 ?may	 ?be	 ?equated	 ?with	 ?consent	 ?to	 ?sexual	 ?activity	 ?or	 ?used	 ?to	 ?suggest	 ?that	 ?women	 ?are	 ?agents	 ?in	 ?the	 ?violence	 ?committed	 ?against	 ?them.246	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ? Because	 ?of	 ?its	 ?atomistic	 ?focus,	 ?the	 ?law	 ?transforms	 ?sexual	 ?offenders	 ?and	 ?survivors	 ?into	 ?de-??gendered	 ?and	 ?de-??contextualized	 ?equals,	 ?and	 ?acts	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?violence	 ?into	 ?isolated	 ?crimes	 ?rather	 ?than	 ?systemic	 ?acts	 ?of	 ?inequality.	 ?This	 ?ignores	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?242	 ?Gotell,	 ??Disappearance?,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?75	 ?at	 ?148?153;	 ?Gotell,	 ??Rethinking	 ?Consent?,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?1	 ?at	 ?872?882;	 ?Comack	 ?&	 ?Peter,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?63	 ?at	 ?298?304.	 ?243	 ?Police	 ?regularly	 ?label	 ?women	 ?and	 ?adolescents	 ??high	 ?risk,?	 ?particularly	 ?those	 ?involved	 ?in	 ?prostitution	 ?or	 ?substance	 ?abuse.	 ?See	 ?e.g.	 ?Stephanie	 ?Ip,	 ??Man	 ?charged	 ?with	 ?confinement,	 ?sexual	 ?assault;	 ?Investigation	 ?continues?,	 ?The	 ?Province	 ?(25	 ?July	 ?2013)	 ?A15;	 ??Two	 ?Alberta	 ?men	 ?charged	 ?with	 ?child	 ?prostitution?,	 ?Kamloops	 ?Daily	 ?News	 ?(23	 ?February	 ?2013)	 ?A7;	 ?Tim	 ?Petruk,	 ??Highway	 ?of	 ?Tears	 ?probe:	 ?Did	 ?this	 ?man	 ?kill	 ?again	 ?and	 ?again	 ?in	 ?Kamloops??,	 ?Kamloops	 ?This	 ?Week	 ?(26	 ?September	 ?2012)	 ?1;	 ?Katie	 ?Derosa,	 ??Dead	 ?woman	 ?reportedly	 ?had	 ?vanished;	 ?She	 ?was	 ?in	 ?her	 ?early	 ?20s	 ?and	 ?lived	 ?a	 ??high-??risk?	 ?lifestyle,	 ?police	 ?say?,	 ?Times-??Colonist	 ?(15	 ?June	 ?2011)	 ?A3;	 ??Man	 ?charged	 ?with	 ?assaulting	 ?woman?,	 ?Edmonton	 ?Journal	 ?(22	 ?January	 ?2009)	 ?B4;	 ?Andrew	 ?Seymour	 ?&	 ?Neco	 ?Cockburn,	 ??Police	 ?set	 ?for	 ??long	 ?haul?	 ?to	 ?solve	 ?homicide;	 ?Investigators	 ?can?t	 ?rule	 ?out	 ?random	 ?attack	 ?in	 ?death	 ?of	 ?woman	 ?who	 ?led	 ??high-??risk?	 ?lifestyle?,	 ?The	 ?Ottawa	 ?Citizen	 ?(6	 ?June	 ?2008)	 ?F1;	 ??Warning	 ?issued	 ?over	 ?sex	 ?offender?,	 ?Calgary	 ?Herald	 ?(12	 ?June	 ?2007)	 ?B7.	 ?244	 ?Razack,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?7	 ?at	 ?127.	 ?245	 ?Ibid	 ?at	 ?124.	 ?246	 ?Gotell,	 ??Tracking	 ?Decisions?,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?189	 ?at	 ?880?893;	 ?Razack,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?7	 ?at	 ?124?129;	 ?Gotell,	 ??Disappearance?,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?75	 ?at	 ?148?153.	 ?	 ? 60	 ?rather	 ?than	 ?combats	 ?sexual	 ?inequality	 ?within	 ?the	 ?law	 ?because,	 ?as	 ?stated	 ?by	 ?MacKinnon,	 ??[a]utonomy	 ?in	 ?sex	 ?cannot	 ?exist	 ?without	 ?sex	 ?equality.?247	 ?Consent:	 ?Myths	 ?in	 ?Legal	 ?Application	 ?and	 ?Judicial	 ?Narrative	 ?	 ?	 ? The	 ?Supreme	 ?Court	 ?of	 ?Canada?s	 ?interpretation	 ?of	 ?consent	 ?appears	 ?to	 ?provide	 ?a	 ?robust	 ?definition;	 ?however,	 ?the	 ?application	 ?of	 ?the	 ?legal	 ?definition	 ?of	 ?nonconsent	 ?in	 ?individual	 ?cases	 ?has	 ?been	 ?more	 ?ambivalent.	 ?Feminist	 ?scholars	 ?have	 ?argued	 ?that	 ?rape	 ?myths	 ?continue	 ?to	 ?influence	 ?the	 ?interpretation	 ?of	 ?consent	 ?by	 ?trial	 ?judges	 ?and	 ?appeal	 ?courts.	 ?	 ? In	 ?her	 ?study,	 ?Gotell	 ?found	 ?that	 ?judges	 ?have	 ?developed	 ?a	 ?doctrine	 ?of	 ?consent	 ?that	 ?often	 ?challenges	 ?traditional	 ?notions	 ?of	 ?male	 ?sexual	 ?aggression	 ?and	 ?entitlement	 ?but	 ?they	 ?less	 ?often	 ?apply	 ?this	 ?increasingly	 ?high	 ?standard	 ?when	 ?complainants	 ?fail	 ?to	 ?avoid	 ?sexual	 ?risks	 ?or	 ?are	 ?unable	 ?to	 ?present	 ?as	 ?rational	 ?and	 ?consistent	 ?in	 ?their	 ?behaviour	 ?and	 ?testimony.248	 ?As	 ?demonstrated	 ?in	 ?this	 ?and	 ?other	 ?studies,	 ?the	 ?consent	 ?framework	 ?has	 ?had	 ?the	 ?least	 ?benefit	 ?for	 ?vulnerable	 ?women,	 ?those	 ?seen	 ?as	 ??unchaste?	 ?or	 ??risky.?	 ?	 ?	 ? For	 ?example,	 ?Janine	 ?Benedet	 ?and	 ?Isabel	 ?Grant	 ?in	 ??Hearing	 ?the	 ?Sexual	 ?Assault	 ?Complaints	 ?of	 ?Women	 ?with	 ?Mental	 ?Disabilities:	 ?Consent,	 ?Capacity	 ?and	 ?Mistaken	 ?Belief?	 ?found	 ?myths	 ?about	 ?women	 ?with	 ?mental	 ?disabilities,	 ?that	 ?they	 ?are	 ?both	 ??hypersexual?	 ?and	 ??asexual?,249	 ?have	 ?influenced	 ?legal	 ?determinations	 ?of	 ?consent	 ?and	 ?capacity	 ?to	 ?consent	 ?in	 ?cases	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?assault	 ?against	 ?them.	 ?Relying	 ?on	 ?evidence	 ?of	 ?complainants?	 ?past	 ?sexual	 ?activity	 ?or	 ?flirtatious	 ?behaviour,	 ?courts	 ?found	 ?reasonable	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?247	 ?MacKinnon,	 ??Equality	 ?Approach?,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?52	 ?at	 ?270.	 ?248	 ?Gotell,	 ??Disappearance?,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?75	 ?at	 ?144?153.	 ?249	 ?Benedet	 ?&	 ?Grant,	 ??Consent?,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?211	 ?at	 ?251?253.	 ?	 ? 61	 ?doubt	 ?about	 ?nonconsent	 ?when	 ?women	 ?did	 ?not	 ?verbalize	 ?nonconsent	 ?or	 ?actively	 ?resist,	 ?acts	 ?that	 ?may	 ?be	 ?particularly	 ?difficult	 ?for	 ?women	 ?with	 ?mental	 ?disabilities.250	 ?	 ?	 ? Elaine	 ?Craig	 ?discovered	 ?that	 ?despite	 ?the	 ?Supreme	 ?Court?s	 ?statement	 ?in	 ?R.	 ?v.	 ?Ewanchuk,	 ?implied	 ?consent	 ?continues	 ?to	 ?undermine	 ?the	 ?evolving	 ?doctrine	 ?of	 ?consent,	 ?and	 ?is	 ?often	 ?successfully	 ?used	 ?in	 ?lower	 ?court	 ?cases	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?violence	 ?against	 ?spouses	 ?and	 ?intimate	 ?partners.	 ?She	 ?found	 ?cases	 ?where	 ?complainants	 ?had	 ?not	 ?consented	 ?but	 ?courts	 ?allowed	 ?the	 ?defence	 ?of	 ?mistaken	 ?belief	 ?in	 ?consent	 ?because	 ?of	 ?evidence	 ?of	 ?past	 ??rough	 ?sex?	 ?play	 ?or	 ?allegations	 ?that	 ?nonconsensual	 ?sexual	 ?touching	 ?was	 ?a	 ?part	 ?of	 ?the	 ?accused?s	 ?emotionally-??driven	 ?attempts	 ?to	 ?win	 ?over	 ?a	 ?partner	 ?who	 ?had	 ?left	 ?or	 ?cheated.251	 ?	 ? Benedet	 ?also	 ?examined	 ?the	 ?frailties	 ?of	 ?judicial	 ?interpretation	 ?and	 ?application	 ?of	 ?consent	 ?in	 ??The	 ?Age	 ?of	 ?Innocence?	 ?in	 ?the	 ?cases	 ?of	 ?underage	 ?complainants.	 ?She	 ?determined	 ?that	 ?the	 ?focus	 ?on	 ?age	 ?of	 ?consent	 ?distracted	 ?from	 ?a	 ?proper	 ?analysis	 ?of	 ?nonconsent.	 ?In	 ?the	 ?cases	 ?she	 ?studied,	 ?age	 ?of	 ?consent	 ?failed	 ?to	 ?protect	 ?particularly	 ?vulnerable	 ?girls	 ?and	 ?young	 ?women;	 ?the	 ?doctrine	 ?of	 ?consent	 ?also	 ?failed	 ?them,	 ?as	 ?courts	 ?ignored	 ?the	 ?violent	 ?or	 ?coercive	 ?sexual	 ?behaviour	 ?of	 ?older	 ?men	 ?and	 ?power	 ?imbalances	 ?between	 ?accused	 ?men	 ?and	 ?survivors	 ?that	 ?foreclosed	 ?consent,	 ?apparently	 ?forgetting	 ?the	 ?meaning	 ?of	 ?consent	 ?once	 ?the	 ?complainant?s	 ?age	 ?was	 ?no	 ?longer	 ?a	 ?statutory	 ?bar	 ?to	 ?sexual	 ?activity.252	 ?	 ?	 ? Capacity	 ?to	 ?consent,	 ?a	 ?necessary	 ?condition	 ?for	 ?consent,	 ?has	 ?caused	 ?problems	 ?for	 ?vulnerable	 ?women	 ?by	 ?its	 ?uneven	 ?application	 ?due	 ?to	 ?rape	 ?myths.	 ?In	 ??The	 ?Sexual	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?250	 ?Ibid	 ?at	 ?262?269.	 ?251	 ?Craig,	 ??After	 ?Ewanchuk?,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?223	 ?at	 ?259,	 ?262?268.	 ?252	 ?Benedet,	 ??Age	 ?of	 ?Innocence?,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?93	 ?at	 ?679?687.	 ?	 ? 62	 ?Assault	 ?of	 ?Intoxicated	 ?Women?,	 ?Benedet?s	 ?study	 ?revealed	 ?that	 ?judges	 ?are	 ?disinclined	 ?to	 ?find	 ?that	 ?women	 ?lack	 ?capacity	 ?to	 ?consent	 ?if	 ?they	 ?became	 ?intoxicated	 ?willingly,	 ?unless	 ?they	 ?were	 ?sleeping	 ?or	 ?unconscious,	 ?reserving	 ?incapacity	 ?for	 ?women	 ?who	 ?did	 ?not	 ?knowingly	 ?or	 ?voluntary	 ?become	 ?intoxicated.	 ?The	 ?courts	 ?therefore	 ?conflated	 ?a	 ?decision	 ?to	 ?drink	 ?alcohol	 ?or	 ?use	 ?drugs	 ?with	 ?consent	 ?to	 ?sexual	 ?activity.	 ?253	 ?Benedet	 ?and	 ?Grant	 ?also	 ?found	 ?the	 ?legal	 ?application	 ?of	 ?capacity	 ?to	 ?consent	 ?wanting	 ?in	 ?the	 ?cases	 ?of	 ?women	 ?with	 ?mental	 ?disabilities,	 ?specifically	 ?that	 ?it	 ?was	 ?rarely	 ?considered	 ?and	 ?when	 ?it	 ?was,	 ?it	 ?was	 ?a	 ?blanket	 ?determination	 ?of	 ?incapacity	 ?for	 ?the	 ?survivor	 ?rather	 ?than	 ?specific	 ?to	 ?the	 ?context	 ?of	 ?the	 ?assault	 ?at	 ?bar.254	 ?Developing	 ?this	 ?position,	 ?they	 ?argue	 ?that	 ?capacity	 ?to	 ?consent	 ?should	 ?only	 ?be	 ?considered	 ?when	 ?there	 ?is	 ?no	 ?evidence	 ?of	 ?nonconsent,	 ?and	 ?when	 ?it	 ?is,	 ?a	 ?situational	 ?approach	 ?to	 ?capacity	 ?to	 ?consent	 ?to	 ?the	 ?individual	 ?person	 ?at	 ?the	 ?time	 ?in	 ?that	 ?context	 ?should	 ?be	 ?used	 ?to	 ?protect	 ?women	 ?with	 ?mental	 ?disabilities	 ?from	 ?exploitation	 ?and	 ?sexual	 ?abuse	 ?while	 ?also	 ?promoting	 ?their	 ?sexual	 ?autonomy.255	 ?	 ?	 ? Scholars	 ?have	 ?also	 ?assessed	 ?sexual	 ?assault	 ?trial	 ?decisions	 ?for	 ?the	 ?language	 ?judges	 ?use	 ?to	 ?describe	 ?sexual	 ?violence.	 ?Linda	 ?Coates	 ?and	 ?her	 ?colleagues	 ?discovered	 ?that	 ?legal	 ?reforms	 ?have	 ?had	 ?a	 ?limited	 ?effect	 ?on	 ?the	 ?language	 ?judges	 ?use	 ?to	 ?express	 ?and	 ?construct	 ?sexual	 ?violence	 ?in	 ?the	 ?law.	 ?They	 ?found	 ?that	 ?judges	 ?obscured	 ?and	 ?normalized	 ?sexual	 ?coercion	 ?through	 ?language.	 ?Judges	 ?used	 ?language	 ?that	 ?characterized	 ?sexual	 ?violence	 ?as	 ?non-??violent	 ?and	 ?described	 ?it	 ?with	 ?little	 ?detail.256	 ?In	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?253	 ?Janine	 ?Benedet,	 ??The	 ?Sexual	 ?Assault	 ?of	 ?Intoxicated	 ?Women?	 ?(2010)	 ?22:2	 ?CJWL	 ?435	 ?at	 ?442?449	 ?[?Intoxicated	 ?Women?].	 ?254	 ?Benedet	 ?&	 ?Grant,	 ??Consent?,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?211	 ?at	 ?269?274.	 ?255	 ?Benedet	 ?&	 ?Grant,	 ??Situational?,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?211	 ?at	 ?18?27.	 ?256	 ?Coates,	 ?Beavin	 ?Bavelas	 ?&	 ?Gibson,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?64	 ?at	 ?194,	 ?196?197,	 ?201.	 ?	 ? 63	 ?some	 ?cases,	 ?courts	 ?used	 ?positive	 ?sexual	 ?terms	 ?suggesting	 ?mutual	 ?participation	 ?or	 ?affection	 ?to	 ?describe	 ?acts	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?violence,	 ?such	 ?as	 ??sexual	 ?intercourse?	 ?and	 ??fondle,?257	 ?even	 ?in	 ?cases	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?abuse	 ?of	 ?children	 ?by	 ?family	 ?members.258	 ?Courts?	 ?grammar	 ?choices,	 ?euphemisms,	 ?and	 ?lack	 ?of	 ?detail	 ?often	 ?made	 ?sexual	 ?assaults	 ?appear	 ?to	 ?have	 ?no	 ?agents,	 ?removing	 ?focus	 ?from	 ?the	 ?responsibility	 ?of	 ?offenders.259	 ?	 ?	 ? Coates	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?attributed	 ?judicial	 ?language	 ?choices	 ?to	 ?the	 ?limitation	 ?of	 ?two	 ?opposing	 ??repertoires?	 ?for	 ?sex	 ?and	 ?sexual	 ?assault:	 ?one	 ?of	 ?consensual	 ?sex	 ?and	 ?one	 ?of	 ?stranger	 ?rape.	 ?Without	 ?the	 ?language	 ?to	 ?appropriately	 ?describe	 ?acquaintance	 ?sexual	 ?assault,	 ?legal	 ?discourse	 ?favoured	 ?a	 ?view	 ?of	 ?it	 ?as	 ?consensual	 ?and	 ?erotic.260	 ?This	 ?language	 ?confuses	 ?and	 ?likens	 ?sexual	 ?assault	 ?with	 ?positive	 ?sexual	 ?activity	 ?while	 ?undermining	 ?legal	 ?findings	 ?of	 ?survivors?	 ?nonconsent.261	 ?	 ?An	 ?Unequal	 ?Balance:	 ?The	 ?Use	 ?of	 ?Discriminatory	 ?Evidence	 ?	 ? Feminist	 ?scholars	 ?have	 ?also	 ?studied	 ?the	 ?interpretation	 ?and	 ?application	 ?of	 ?the	 ?procedural	 ?rules	 ?enacted	 ?to	 ?foreclose	 ?evidence	 ?that	 ?relies	 ?on	 ?discriminatory	 ?reasoning.	 ?They	 ?have	 ?found	 ?that	 ?evidence	 ?of	 ?delayed	 ?disclosure,	 ?corroboration,	 ?and	 ?sexual	 ?history,	 ?and	 ?confidential	 ?records	 ?continue	 ?to	 ?be	 ?used	 ?to	 ?suggest	 ?that	 ?complainants	 ?have	 ?motives	 ?to	 ?lie	 ?or	 ?are	 ?unreliable,	 ?relying	 ?on	 ?myths	 ?of	 ?women	 ?as	 ?fickle,	 ?emotional,	 ?and	 ?vengeful.	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?257	 ?Ibid	 ?at	 ?191?193;	 ?Janet	 ?Bavelas	 ?&	 ?Linda	 ?Coates,	 ??Is	 ?It	 ?Sex	 ?or	 ?Assault?	 ?Erotic	 ?Versus	 ?Violent	 ?Language	 ?in	 ?Sexual	 ?Assault	 ?Trial	 ?Judgments?	 ?(2001)	 ?10:1	 ?Journal	 ?of	 ?Social	 ?Distress	 ?and	 ?the	 ?Homeless	 ?29	 ?at	 ?33?38.	 ?258	 ?Bavelas	 ?&	 ?Coates,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?257	 ?at	 ?38.	 ?259	 ?Coates,	 ?Beavin	 ?Bavelas	 ?&	 ?Gibson,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?64	 ?at	 ?196?197;	 ?See	 ?also	 ?Bavelas	 ?&	 ?Coates,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?257	 ?at	 ?30?32.	 ?260	 ?Coates,	 ?Beavin	 ?Bavelas	 ?&	 ?Gibson,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?64	 ?at	 ?197?198,	 ?204.	 ?261	 ?Bavelas	 ?&	 ?Coates,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?257	 ?at	 ?38?39;	 ?Coates,	 ?Beavin	 ?Bavelas	 ?&	 ?Gibson,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?64	 ?at	 ?193?194.	 ?	 ? 64	 ?For	 ?example,	 ?in	 ??The	 ?Relevance	 ?of	 ?Delayed	 ?Disclosure	 ?to	 ?Complainant	 ?Credibility	 ?in	 ?Cases	 ?of	 ?Sexual	 ?Offence?,	 ?Craig	 ?found	 ?that	 ?courts	 ?continue	 ?to	 ?use	 ?evidence	 ?of	 ?delayed	 ?disclosure	 ?to	 ?undermine	 ?complainants?	 ?credibility	 ?in	 ?sexual	 ?assault	 ?cases.262	 ?Elizabeth	 ?Sheehy	 ?has	 ?also	 ?demonstrated	 ?that	 ?evidence	 ?of	 ?corroboration,	 ?recent	 ?complaint,	 ?and	 ?sexual	 ?history	 ?continues	 ?to	 ?be	 ?adduced	 ?to	 ?support	 ?the	 ?medically	 ?unsound	 ?theory	 ?that	 ?complainants?	 ?memories	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?assault	 ?are	 ?made	 ?up,	 ?the	 ?result	 ?of	 ?False	 ?Memory	 ?Syndrome.263	 ?Sheehy	 ?showed	 ?that	 ?this	 ?theory	 ?is	 ?used	 ?to	 ?justify	 ?suspicion	 ?of	 ?complainants	 ?who	 ?do	 ?not	 ?immediately	 ?complain	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?assault	 ?or	 ?who	 ?have	 ?histories	 ?of	 ?prior	 ?sexual	 ?abuse.264	 ?	 ?	 ? Feminist	 ?scholars	 ?have	 ?found	 ?that	 ?sexual	 ?history	 ?evidence	 ?and	 ?confidential	 ?third-??party	 ?documents	 ?continue	 ?to	 ?be	 ?disclosed	 ?and	 ?relied	 ?upon	 ?in	 ?sexual	 ?assault	 ?trials.	 ?The	 ?use	 ?of	 ?this	 ?evidence	 ?has	 ?been	 ?studied	 ?extensively	 ?by	 ?Gotell,	 ?who	 ?has	 ?illustrated	 ?that	 ?courts	 ?continue	 ?to	 ?order	 ?disclosure	 ?and	 ?production	 ?of	 ?complainants?	 ?confidential	 ?records	 ?and	 ?sexual	 ?history	 ?evidence	 ?for	 ?the	 ?purpose	 ?of	 ?attacking	 ?their	 ?credibility.	 ?This	 ?follows	 ?from	 ?the	 ?Supreme	 ?Court?s	 ?narrowing	 ?of	 ?considerations	 ?of	 ?equality	 ?to	 ?privacy	 ?rights	 ?alone,	 ?limiting	 ?the	 ?interests	 ?of	 ?survivors	 ?to	 ?avoiding	 ?humiliation	 ?rather	 ?than	 ?being	 ?free	 ?from	 ?structural	 ?inequality	 ?and	 ?discrimination	 ?before	 ?the	 ?law.265	 ?The	 ?narrow	 ?protection	 ?of	 ?privacy	 ?is	 ?reduced	 ?further	 ?when	 ?women	 ?fall	 ?below	 ??ideal?	 ?victim	 ?standards:	 ?vulnerable	 ?women	 ?with	 ?significant	 ?institutional	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?262	 ?Elaine	 ?Craig,	 ??The	 ?Relevance	 ?of	 ?Delayed	 ?Disclosure	 ?to	 ?Complainant	 ?Credibility	 ?in	 ?Cases	 ?of	 ?Sexual	 ?Offence?	 ?(2010)	 ?36	 ?Queen?s	 ?LJ	 ?551.	 ?263	 ?Elizabeth	 ?Sheehy,	 ??Evidence	 ?Law	 ?and	 ?Credibility	 ?Testing	 ?of	 ?Women:	 ?A	 ?Comment	 ?on	 ?the	 ?E	 ?Case?	 ?(2002)	 ?2	 ?Queensland	 ?U	 ?Tech	 ?L	 ?&	 ?Just	 ?J	 ?157	 ?at	 ?163.	 ?264	 ?Ibid	 ?at	 ?167?173.	 ?265	 ?Gotell,	 ??Disappearance?,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?75	 ?at	 ?135?143;	 ?Gotell,	 ??Tracking	 ?Decisions?,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?189	 ?at	 ?114?119,	 ?140?147.	 ?	 ? 65	 ?backgrounds	 ?are	 ?sexualized	 ?and	 ?presented	 ?as	 ?hysterical	 ?and	 ?unreliable	 ?to	 ?justify	 ?disclosure.266	 ?	 ?	 ? Benedet	 ?and	 ?Grant	 ?found	 ?that	 ?women	 ?with	 ?mental	 ?disabilities	 ?were	 ?also	 ?more	 ?likely	 ?to	 ?have	 ?the	 ?procedural	 ?reforms	 ?circumvented,	 ?the	 ?consequence	 ?of	 ?the	 ?intersection	 ?of	 ?discrimination	 ?based	 ?on	 ?gender	 ?and	 ?disability.	 ?In	 ?addition	 ?to	 ?the	 ?unique	 ?challenges	 ?women	 ?with	 ?mental	 ?disabilities	 ?faced	 ?in	 ?participating	 ?in	 ?the	 ?trial	 ?process,	 ?they	 ?also	 ?had	 ?myths	 ?about	 ?their	 ?unreliability	 ?and	 ?hypersexuality	 ?used	 ?against	 ?them,	 ?sometimes	 ?as	 ?a	 ?part	 ?of	 ?inquiries	 ?into	 ?capacity	 ?to	 ?consent	 ?or	 ?testify.	 ?On	 ?these	 ?bases,	 ?courts	 ?required	 ?corroborating	 ?evidence	 ?and,	 ?without	 ?reference	 ?to	 ?Criminal	 ?Code	 ?procedures,	 ?allowed	 ?the	 ?disclosure	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?history	 ?evidence	 ?and	 ?private	 ?records.267	 ?	 ?	 ? Craig	 ?also	 ?found	 ?that	 ?courts	 ?regularly	 ?allowed	 ?sexual	 ?history	 ?evidence	 ?to	 ?be	 ?adduced	 ?in	 ?cases	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?violence	 ?by	 ?intimate	 ?partners	 ?to	 ?support	 ?defences	 ?of	 ?mistaken	 ?belief	 ?in	 ?consent.268	 ?Although	 ?the	 ?law	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?offences	 ?has	 ?changed	 ?considerably,	 ?courts	 ?have	 ?not	 ?interpreted	 ?and	 ?applied	 ?the	 ?reformed	 ?doctrine	 ?of	 ?consent	 ?and	 ?law	 ?of	 ?evidence	 ?in	 ?a	 ?way	 ?that	 ?eliminates	 ?the	 ?use	 ?of	 ?myths	 ?in	 ?courts.	 ?Rather	 ?than	 ?maintain	 ?the	 ?law?s	 ?contextual	 ?understanding	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?assault	 ?as	 ?envisioned	 ?by	 ?feminist	 ?reforms,	 ?judges	 ?have	 ?understood	 ?the	 ?law	 ?outside	 ?of	 ?the	 ?framework	 ?of	 ?structural	 ?inequality,	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?266	 ?Gotell,	 ??Disappearance?,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?75	 ?at	 ?142;	 ?Gotell,	 ??Tracking	 ?Decisions?,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?189	 ?at	 ?115,	 ?123?124,	 ?147?153.	 ?267	 ?Janine	 ?Benedet	 ?&	 ?Isabel	 ?Grant,	 ??Hearing	 ?the	 ?Sexual	 ?Assault	 ?Complaints	 ?of	 ?Women	 ?with	 ?Mental	 ?Disabilities:	 ?Evidentiary	 ?and	 ?Procedural	 ?Issues?	 ?(2007)	 ?52	 ?McGill	 ?LJ	 ?515	 ?at	 ?518?519,	 ?531?541	 ?[?Evidentiary	 ?Issues?].	 ?268	 ?Craig,	 ??After	 ?Ewanchuk?,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?223	 ?at	 ?259?262.	 ?	 ? 66	 ?applying	 ?the	 ?law	 ?mechanically.	 ?As	 ?a	 ?result,	 ?the	 ?law	 ?has	 ?been	 ?less	 ?able	 ?to	 ?eliminate	 ?myths	 ?that	 ?remain	 ?current	 ?in	 ?society.	 ?	 ?The	 ?literature	 ?shows	 ?that	 ?rape	 ?myths	 ?continue	 ?to	 ?play	 ?a	 ?role	 ?in	 ?trials,	 ?particularly	 ?against	 ?women	 ?and	 ?adolescents	 ?facing	 ?intersecting	 ?inequalities.	 ?I	 ?now	 ?turn	 ?to	 ?the	 ?law	 ?of	 ?sentencing,	 ?where	 ?the	 ?use	 ?of	 ?myths	 ?has	 ?been	 ?less	 ?thoroughly	 ?addressed	 ?by	 ?reforms	 ?or	 ?studied	 ?by	 ?scholars.	 ?D. The	 ?Current	 ?Approach	 ?to	 ?Sentencing	 ?Sexual	 ?Offenders	 ?	 ? In	 ?this	 ?section,	 ?I	 ?consider	 ?the	 ?current	 ?approach	 ?to	 ?sentencing	 ?offenders.	 ?In	 ?the	 ?1990s	 ?Parliament	 ?introduced	 ?reforms	 ?to	 ?clarify	 ?the	 ?principles	 ?judges	 ?must	 ?consider	 ?in	 ?sentencing	 ?offenders,	 ?including	 ?sexual	 ?offenders;	 ?these	 ?principles	 ?now	 ?explicitly	 ?include	 ?considerations	 ?of	 ?restorative	 ?justice.	 ?A	 ?second	 ?set	 ?of	 ?reforms	 ?in	 ?the	 ?last	 ?decade	 ?has	 ?restricted	 ?the	 ?availability	 ?of	 ?conditional	 ?sentences	 ?of	 ?imprisonment	 ?and	 ?introduced	 ?mandatory	 ?minimum	 ?penalties,	 ?including	 ?for	 ?some	 ?sexual	 ?offences.	 ?Notwithstanding	 ?these	 ?changes,	 ?judges	 ?continue	 ?to	 ?have	 ?discretion	 ?in	 ?sentencing,	 ?in	 ?both	 ?approach	 ?and	 ?outcome,	 ?and	 ?weigh	 ?aggravating	 ?and	 ?mitigating	 ?circumstances	 ?in	 ?much	 ?the	 ?same	 ?way	 ?they	 ?always	 ?have.	 ?	 ?	 ? The	 ?feminist	 ?approach	 ?to	 ?sentencing,	 ?particularly	 ?incarceration,	 ?has	 ?not	 ?been	 ?uniform.	 ?While	 ?most	 ?recognize	 ?the	 ?inequality,	 ?prejudice,	 ?and	 ?violence	 ?within	 ?the	 ?criminal	 ?justice	 ?system,	 ?their	 ?response	 ?is	 ?split:	 ?some	 ?see	 ?the	 ?criminal	 ?justice	 ?system	 ?as	 ?a	 ?necessary	 ?tool	 ?to	 ?protect	 ?women	 ?from	 ?violence;	 ?others	 ?dismiss	 ?it	 ?as	 ?unable	 ?to	 ?achieve	 ?equality	 ?and	 ?instead	 ?look	 ?to	 ?grassroots	 ?supports	 ?to	 ?protect	 ?women	 ?and	 ?children.	 ?Whatever	 ?their	 ?view,	 ?feminist	 ?advocates	 ?have	 ?been	 ?less	 ?influential	 ?in	 ?shaping	 ?sentencing	 ?law	 ?than	 ?the	 ?substantive	 ?law	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?assault.	 ?	 ? 67	 ?	 ? I	 ?take	 ?the	 ?approach	 ?of	 ?feminist	 ?researchers	 ?who	 ?see	 ?the	 ?value	 ?in	 ?working	 ?within	 ?the	 ?law	 ?to	 ?improve	 ?it,	 ?a	 ?position	 ?I	 ?explain	 ?in	 ?more	 ?detail	 ?below.	 ?I	 ?therefore	 ?join	 ?in	 ?the	 ?small	 ?number	 ?of	 ?feminist	 ?researchers	 ?looking	 ?at	 ?the	 ?current	 ?sentencing	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?offenders	 ?in	 ?Canada.	 ?Like	 ?those	 ?studying	 ?convictions	 ?and	 ?acquittals	 ?as	 ?well	 ?as	 ?procedural	 ?applications,	 ?these	 ?researchers	 ?have	 ?found	 ?threads	 ?of	 ?rape	 ?myths	 ?in	 ?sexual	 ?offender	 ?sentencing,	 ?in	 ?Victim	 ?Impact	 ?Statements,	 ?interpretations	 ?of	 ?aggravating	 ?and	 ?mitigating	 ?factors,	 ?and	 ?narratives	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?violence.	 ?However,	 ?feminist	 ?research	 ?on	 ?sentencing	 ?is	 ?limited	 ?and	 ?deserves	 ?further	 ?development,	 ?which	 ?I	 ?hope	 ?to	 ?do	 ?in	 ?this	 ?thesis.	 ?The	 ?Law	 ?of	 ?Sentencing	 ?	 ? In	 ?1995,	 ?Parliament	 ?amended	 ?the	 ?law	 ?of	 ?sentencing.	 ?The	 ?Code	 ?now	 ?elucidates	 ?the	 ?principles	 ?judges	 ?must	 ?strive	 ?for	 ?with	 ?each	 ?sentence.	 ?Although	 ?putting	 ?greater	 ?emphasis	 ?on	 ?restorative	 ?justice,	 ?particularly	 ?for	 ?Aboriginal	 ?offenders,	 ?the	 ?principles	 ?remained	 ?much	 ?the	 ?same;	 ?consequently,	 ?the	 ?approach	 ?of	 ?judges	 ?in	 ?sentencing	 ?sexual	 ?offenders	 ?also	 ?continues	 ?to	 ?rely	 ?on	 ?common	 ?law	 ?constructions	 ?of	 ?aggravating	 ?and	 ?mitigating	 ?factors.	 ?Judges	 ?retain	 ?discretion	 ?in	 ?sentencing	 ?sexual	 ?offenders,	 ?and	 ?in	 ?many	 ?cases,	 ?can	 ?choose	 ?between	 ?a	 ?variety	 ?of	 ?sentencing	 ?options,	 ?based	 ?on	 ?their	 ?interpretation	 ?of	 ?the	 ?offender?s	 ?blameworthiness	 ?and	 ?the	 ?offence?s	 ?seriousness.	 ?However,	 ?more	 ?recent	 ?reforms	 ?have	 ?limited	 ?alternatives	 ?to	 ?imprisonment	 ?and	 ?imposed	 ?minimums	 ?for	 ?some	 ?offences,	 ?limiting	 ?judicial	 ?discretion.	 ?	 ? Prior	 ?to	 ?1995,	 ?the	 ?main	 ?goals	 ?of	 ?sentencing	 ?in	 ?Canada	 ?were	 ?both	 ?utilitarian	 ?and	 ?retributive,	 ?aiming	 ?to	 ?deter	 ?and	 ?prevent	 ?crime	 ?as	 ?well	 ?as	 ?express	 ?society?s	 ?	 ? 68	 ?collective	 ?revulsion.269	 ?In	 ?1995	 ?Parliament	 ?legislated	 ?a	 ?regime	 ?of	 ?sentencing,270	 ?which	 ?was,	 ?in	 ?many	 ?respects,	 ?a	 ?codification	 ?of	 ?the	 ?common	 ?law	 ?approach.271	 ?To	 ?this,	 ?however,	 ?Parliament	 ?added	 ?a	 ?restorative	 ?focus	 ?to	 ?balance	 ??objectives	 ?of	 ?denunciation	 ?with	 ?reparation	 ?to	 ?victims	 ?and	 ?communities.?272	 ?	 ?	 ? The	 ?current	 ?approach	 ?requires	 ?judges	 ?to	 ?balance	 ?several	 ?principles	 ?to	 ?arrive	 ?at	 ?a	 ?just	 ?sentence.	 ?The	 ?principles	 ?are	 ?enumerated	 ?in	 ?section	 ?718	 ?of	 ?the	 ?Criminal	 ?Code,	 ?and	 ?include	 ?denunciation,	 ?deterrence,	 ?separation,	 ?rehabilitation,	 ?reparation	 ?for	 ?harm,	 ?and	 ?promotion	 ?of	 ?responsibility.	 ?The	 ?principle	 ?that	 ?offenders	 ?should	 ?not	 ?be	 ?incarcerated	 ?when	 ?other	 ?available	 ?sanctions	 ?are	 ?reasonable	 ?in	 ?the	 ?circumstances	 ?was	 ?a	 ?significant	 ?part	 ?of	 ?the	 ?1995	 ?reforms.273	 ?This	 ?principle,	 ?codified	 ?in	 ?section	 ?718.2(e)	 ?of	 ?the	 ?Criminal	 ?Code,	 ?is	 ?a	 ?particularly	 ?important	 ?consideration	 ?in	 ?sentencing	 ?Aboriginal	 ?offenders,	 ?for	 ?whom	 ?courts	 ?must	 ?consider	 ?background	 ?and	 ?contextual	 ?factors,	 ?namely	 ?the	 ?legacy	 ?of	 ?colonialism	 ?and	 ?residential	 ?schools,	 ?as	 ?well	 ?as	 ?available	 ?community-??based	 ?sentences.274	 ?	 ? Courts	 ?must	 ?also	 ?be	 ?cognizant	 ?of	 ?the	 ?principle	 ?of	 ?proportionality:	 ?the	 ??sentence	 ?must	 ?be	 ?proportionate	 ?to	 ?the	 ?gravity	 ?of	 ?the	 ?offence	 ?and	 ?the	 ?degree	 ?of	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?269	 ?Ruby,	 ?Chan	 ?&	 ?Hasan,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?70,	 ?sec	 ?1.12.	 ?270	 ?Bill	 ?C-??41,	 ?An	 ?Act	 ?to	 ?amend	 ?the	 ?Criminal	 ?Code	 ?(sentencing)	 ?and	 ?other	 ?Acts	 ?in	 ?consequence	 ?thereof,	 ?1st	 ?Sess,	 ?35th	 ?Parl,	 ?1994-??96,	 ?SC	 ?1995,	 ?c	 ?22	 ?cited	 ?in	 ?Balfour	 ?&	 ?Du	 ?Mont,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?179	 ?at	 ?708.	 ?271	 ?Ruby,	 ?Chan	 ?&	 ?Hasan,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?70,	 ?sec	 ?1.13?1.15.	 ?272	 ?Balfour	 ?&	 ?Du	 ?Mont,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?179	 ?at	 ?709	 ?[footnote	 ?omitted];	 ?See	 ?also	 ?Ruby,	 ?Chan	 ?&	 ?Hasan,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?70,	 ?sec	 ?1.15.	 ?273	 ?Balfour	 ?&	 ?Du	 ?Mont,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?179	 ?at	 ?708?709.	 ?274	 ?R.	 ?v.	 ?Gladue,	 ?[1999]	 ?1	 ?SCR	 ?688,	 ?171	 ?DLR	 ?(4th)	 ?385;	 ?R.	 ?v.	 ?Ipeelee,	 ?2012	 ?SCC	 ?13,	 ?[2012]	 ?1	 ?SCR	 ?433;	 ?See	 ?also	 ?Allan	 ?Manson,	 ?The	 ?Law	 ?of	 ?Sentencing,	 ?Essentials	 ?of	 ?Canadian	 ?Law	 ?(Toronto:	 ?Irwin	 ?Law,	 ?2001)	 ?at	 ?95?96.	 ?	 ? 69	 ?responsibility	 ?of	 ?the	 ?offender.?275	 ?Courts	 ?must	 ?give	 ?this	 ?principle	 ?precedence	 ?over	 ?all	 ?others.276	 ?	 ?	 ? To	 ?fashion	 ?a	 ?proportionate	 ?sentence,	 ?courts	 ?must	 ?consider	 ?and	 ?weigh	 ?the	 ?aggravating	 ?and	 ?mitigating	 ?circumstances	 ?in	 ?each	 ?case.277	 ?The	 ?Criminal	 ?Code	 ?requires	 ?that	 ?courts	 ?consider	 ?some	 ?factors	 ?as	 ?aggravating:	 ?namely,	 ?evidence	 ?that	 ?offenders,	 ?in	 ?committing	 ?the	 ?offence,	 ?abused	 ?their	 ?spouse,	 ?abused	 ?a	 ?person	 ?under	 ?18	 ?years	 ?old,	 ?abused	 ?a	 ?position	 ?of	 ?trust	 ?or	 ?authority,	 ?or	 ?had	 ?a	 ?significant	 ?impact	 ?on	 ?the	 ?survivor.278	 ?	 ?	 ? Courts	 ?have	 ?typically	 ?construed	 ?other	 ?circumstances	 ?as	 ?either	 ?aggravating	 ?or	 ?mitigating,	 ?whether	 ?in	 ?sexual	 ?or	 ?other	 ?offences.	 ?For	 ?all	 ?offences,	 ?courts	 ?generally	 ?consider	 ?excessive	 ?violence,	 ?the	 ?use	 ?of	 ?weapons,	 ?and	 ?premeditation	 ?as	 ?aggravating;279	 ?conversely,	 ?courts	 ?count	 ?impulsivity	 ?and	 ?outside	 ?factors	 ?that	 ?are	 ?seen	 ?to	 ?contribute	 ?to	 ?offending,	 ?like	 ?addiction	 ?or	 ?intoxication,	 ?in	 ?mitigation.280	 ?Courts	 ?also	 ?assess	 ?the	 ?criminal	 ?histories	 ?of	 ?offenders,	 ?considering	 ?a	 ?criminal	 ?record,	 ?particularly	 ?for	 ?similar	 ?offences,	 ?as	 ?aggravating281	 ?and	 ?a	 ?lack	 ?of	 ?a	 ?criminal	 ?record	 ?as	 ?mitigating.282	 ?Generally	 ?courts	 ?treat	 ?good	 ?backgrounds,283	 ?or	 ?extra-??legal	 ?consequences	 ?such	 ?as	 ?disgrace	 ?or	 ?loss	 ?of	 ?employment	 ?as	 ?mitigating	 ?factors.284	 ?Courts	 ?often	 ?treat	 ?guilty	 ?pleas,	 ?expressions	 ?of	 ?remorse,	 ?a	 ?change	 ?of	 ?attitude,	 ?efforts	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?275	 ?Criminal	 ?Code,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?67,	 ?s	 ?718.1.	 ?276	 ?Ruby,	 ?Chan	 ?&	 ?Hasan,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?70,	 ?sec	 ?2.5?2.6;	 ?See	 ?also	 ?Manson,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?274	 ?at	 ?84?86.	 ?277	 ?Ruby,	 ?Chan	 ?&	 ?Hasan,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?70,	 ?sec	 ?2.7?2.9.	 ?278	 ?Criminal	 ?Code,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?67,	 ?s	 ?718.2(a).	 ?279	 ?Ruby,	 ?Chan	 ?&	 ?Hasan,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?70,	 ?sec	 ?5.4?5.5,	 ?5.140?5.143,	 ?23.312,	 ?23.315,	 ?23.344.	 ?280	 ?Ibid,	 ?sec	 ?5.9,	 ?5.49,	 ?5.254?5.259,	 ?5.288,	 ?23.308?23.309,	 ?23.328,	 ?23.330.	 ?281	 ?Ibid,	 ?sec	 ?8.2?8.11,	 ?8.85?8.90,	 ?23.314?23.320,	 ?23.337.	 ?This	 ?factor	 ?must	 ?also	 ?now	 ?be	 ?considered	 ?aggravating	 ?pursuant	 ?to	 ?the	 ?Criminal	 ?Code,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?67,	 ?s	 ?724(3)(e).	 ?282	 ?Ibid,	 ?sec	 ?8.13?8.16,	 ?23.306,	 ?23.332.	 ?283	 ?Ibid,	 ?sec	 ?5.90,	 ?23.306.	 ?284	 ?Ibid,	 ?sec	 ?5.209?5.210,	 ?5.244?5.253,	 ?23.336.	 ?	 ? 70	 ?at	 ?rehabilitation,	 ?and	 ?willingness	 ?to	 ?get	 ?treatment	 ?as	 ?mitigating;	 ?	 ?however	 ?courts	 ?generally	 ?do	 ?not	 ?penalize	 ?offenders	 ?for	 ?not	 ?pleading	 ?guilty,	 ?and	 ?will	 ?not	 ?usually	 ?treat	 ?this	 ?as	 ?an	 ?aggravating	 ?factor.285	 ?	 ?	 ? Although	 ?sentencing	 ?is	 ?an	 ?individual	 ?process,	 ?courts	 ?must	 ?adhere	 ?to	 ?the	 ?principle	 ?of	 ?parity:	 ?there	 ?should	 ?be	 ?no	 ?unjustified	 ?disparity	 ?in	 ?the	 ?sentences	 ?of	 ?offenders	 ?who	 ?committed	 ?like	 ?offences	 ?in	 ?like	 ?circumstances.286	 ?As	 ?a	 ?result,	 ?courts	 ?often	 ?look	 ?to	 ?the	 ?sentences	 ?ordered	 ?in	 ?prior,	 ?similar	 ?cases.	 ?Courts	 ?must	 ?also	 ?ensure	 ?that	 ?sentences	 ?meet	 ?the	 ?totality	 ?principle,	 ?that	 ?is,	 ?the	 ?sentence	 ?does	 ?not	 ?outstrip	 ?the	 ?offender?s	 ?responsibility,	 ?a	 ?consideration	 ?that	 ?often	 ?arises	 ?when	 ?an	 ?offender	 ?is	 ?sentenced	 ?for	 ?multiple	 ?sentences	 ?to	 ?run	 ?consecutively.287	 ?	 ?	 ? The	 ?procedural	 ?approach	 ?to	 ?sentencing	 ?is	 ?largely	 ?at	 ?the	 ?discretion	 ?of	 ?the	 ?trial	 ?court.	 ?The	 ?strict	 ?rules	 ?of	 ?evidence	 ?do	 ?not	 ?apply:	 ?evidence	 ?that	 ?would	 ?otherwise	 ?be	 ?inadmissible	 ?during	 ?the	 ?trial	 ?portion	 ?can	 ?be	 ?admitted	 ?at	 ?sentencing	 ?as	 ?long	 ?as	 ?it	 ?is	 ?both	 ?reliable	 ?and	 ?credible.288	 ?	 ?	 ? Findings	 ?of	 ?fact	 ?for	 ?sentencing	 ?are	 ?based	 ?on	 ?information	 ?disclosed	 ?at	 ?trial	 ?and	 ?during	 ?sentencing	 ?as	 ?well	 ?as	 ?agreed	 ?facts.289	 ?Many	 ?convictions	 ?result	 ?from	 ?guilty	 ?pleas:	 ?in	 ?these	 ?cases,	 ?offenders	 ?admit	 ?to	 ?the	 ?minimum	 ?facts	 ?necessary	 ?to	 ?support	 ?a	 ?conviction.290	 ?For	 ?sentencing,	 ?contested	 ?facts	 ?must	 ?be	 ?established	 ?on	 ?a	 ?balance	 ?of	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?285	 ?Ibid,	 ?sec	 ?5.92,	 ?5.100?5.112,	 ?5.211?5.214,	 ?6.1?6.10,	 ?23.305?23.308,	 ?23.343.	 ?286	 ?Ibid,	 ?sec	 ?2.24?2.28,	 ?2.33;	 ?Manson,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?274	 ?at	 ?92?93	 ?citing	 ?Criminal	 ?Code,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?67,	 ?s	 ?718.2(b).	 ?287	 ?Ruby,	 ?Chan	 ?&	 ?Hasan,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?70,	 ?sec	 ?2.62?2.66;	 ?Manson,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?274	 ?at	 ?102	 ?citing	 ?Criminal	 ?Code,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?67,	 ?s	 ?718.2(c).	 ?288	 ?Ruby,	 ?Chan	 ?&	 ?Hasan,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?70,	 ?sec	 ?3.7?3.8,	 ?3.147?3.151;	 ?Manson,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?274	 ?at	 ?163?166;	 ?Criminal	 ?Code,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?67,	 ?ss	 ?723-??724,	 ?726.1.	 ?289	 ?Ruby,	 ?Chan	 ?&	 ?Hasan,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?70,	 ?sec	 ?3.148	 ?citing	 ?Criminal	 ?Code,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?67,	 ?s	 ?724(1);	 ?Manson,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?274	 ?at	 ?162,	 ?172.	 ?290	 ?Ruby,	 ?Chan	 ?&	 ?Hasan,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?70,	 ?sec	 ?3.13.	 ?	 ? 71	 ?probabilities,	 ?except	 ?aggravating	 ?factors,	 ?which	 ?the	 ?Crown	 ?must	 ?prove	 ?beyond	 ?a	 ?reasonable	 ?doubt.291	 ?	 ?	 ? Fundamentally,	 ?sentencing	 ?is	 ?discretionary.	 ?Although	 ?legislation	 ?outlines	 ?guiding	 ?principles,	 ?judges	 ?are	 ?still	 ?given	 ?discretion	 ?to	 ?determine	 ?sentences	 ?from	 ?a	 ?wide	 ?range	 ?of	 ?possibilities.292	 ?Their	 ?discretion	 ?will	 ?not	 ?be	 ?interfered	 ?with	 ?lightly,	 ?as	 ?courts	 ?of	 ?appeal	 ?will	 ?only	 ??intervene	 ?to	 ?vary	 ?a	 ?sentence	 ?imposed	 ?at	 ?trial	 ?if	 ?the	 ?sentence	 ?is	 ?demonstrably	 ?unfit.?293	 ?	 ? In	 ?accordance	 ?with	 ?the	 ?wide	 ?discretion	 ?granted	 ?in	 ?sentencing,	 ?available	 ?sanctions	 ?for	 ?sexual	 ?offences	 ?cover	 ?a	 ?wide	 ?range.	 ?Sexual	 ?assault	 ?I	 ?is	 ?a	 ?hybrid	 ?offence:	 ?when	 ?prosecuted	 ?on	 ?indictment,	 ?it	 ?has	 ?a	 ?maximum	 ?sentence	 ?of	 ?ten	 ?years	 ?imprisonment	 ?and,	 ?when	 ?the	 ?survivor	 ?is	 ?under	 ?16	 ?years	 ?old,	 ?a	 ?minimum	 ?sentence	 ?of	 ?one	 ?year;	 ?on	 ?summary	 ?conviction	 ?it	 ?carries	 ?a	 ?maximum	 ?sentence	 ?of	 ?18	 ?months	 ?and	 ?a	 ?minimum	 ?of	 ?90	 ?days	 ?if	 ?the	 ?survivor	 ?is	 ?under	 ?16	 ?years	 ?old.294	 ?Both	 ?sexual	 ?assault	 ?II	 ?and	 ?III	 ?are	 ?indictable	 ?offences:	 ?sexual	 ?assault	 ?causing	 ?bodily	 ?harm	 ?has	 ?a	 ?maximum	 ?of	 ?14	 ?years	 ?imprisonment	 ?and	 ?aggravated	 ?sexual	 ?assault	 ?has	 ?a	 ?maximum	 ?of	 ?life	 ?imprisonment.	 ?Both	 ?carry	 ?five-??year	 ?minimums	 ?when	 ?the	 ?survivor	 ?is	 ?under	 ?16	 ?years	 ?old	 ?and	 ?specific	 ?minimums	 ?when	 ?a	 ?firearm	 ?is	 ?used	 ?in	 ?the	 ?offence.295	 ?	 ? Sexual	 ?interference,	 ?invitation	 ?to	 ?sexual	 ?touching,	 ?and	 ?sexual	 ?exploitation	 ?are	 ?all	 ?hybrid	 ?offences	 ?and	 ?carry	 ?the	 ?same	 ?penalty	 ?as	 ?sexual	 ?assault	 ?I.296	 ?Incest	 ?is	 ?a	 ?more	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?291	 ?Ibid,	 ?sec	 ?3.138?1.139,	 ?3.145;	 ?Manson,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?274	 ?at	 ?172?173;	 ?Criminal	 ?Code,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?67,	 ?s	 ?724(3).	 ?292	 ?Manson,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?274	 ?at	 ?56?61,	 ?80.	 ?293	 ?R.	 ?v.	 ?M.(C.A.),	 ?[1996]	 ?1	 ?SCR	 ?500,	 ?105	 ?CCC	 ?(3d)	 ?327	 ?at	 ?565	 ?[cited	 ?to	 ?SCR],	 ?cited	 ?in	 ?Ruby,	 ?Chan	 ?&	 ?Hasan,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?70,	 ?sec	 ?4.5	 ?[footnote	 ?omitted].	 ?294	 ?Criminal	 ?Code,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?67,	 ?s	 ?271.	 ?295	 ?Ibid,	 ?ss	 ?272(2),	 ?273(2).	 ?296	 ?Ibid,	 ?ss	 ?151,	 ?152,	 ?153(1.1).	 ?	 ?	 ? 72	 ?serious	 ?crime:	 ?it	 ?is	 ?an	 ?indictable	 ?offence	 ?that,	 ?when	 ?committed	 ?against	 ?someone	 ?under	 ?16,	 ?carries	 ?a	 ?minimum	 ?of	 ?five	 ?years	 ?and	 ?a	 ?maximum	 ?of	 ?14	 ?years	 ?imprisonment.297	 ?	 ? As	 ?well,	 ?Long	 ?Term	 ?Offender	 ?designations	 ?(as	 ?well	 ?as	 ?Dangerous	 ?Offender	 ?designations)	 ?can	 ?be	 ?made	 ?for	 ?offenders	 ?who	 ?have	 ?been	 ?convicted	 ?of	 ?a	 ?sexual	 ?offence	 ?in	 ?order	 ?to	 ?prevent	 ?further	 ?crime.298	 ?An	 ?offender	 ?can	 ?be	 ?found	 ?a	 ?long-??term	 ?offender	 ?if	 ?a	 ?prison	 ?sentence	 ?of	 ?two	 ?years	 ?or	 ?more	 ?is	 ?appropriate,	 ??there	 ?is	 ?a	 ?substantial	 ?risk?	 ?he	 ?will	 ?reoffend,	 ?and	 ??there	 ?is	 ?a	 ?reasonable	 ?possibility	 ?of	 ?eventual	 ?control	 ?of	 ?the	 ?risk	 ?in	 ?the	 ?community.?299	 ?Offenders	 ?can	 ?also	 ?be	 ?designated	 ?as	 ?dangerous	 ?offenders:300	 ?this	 ?category	 ?is	 ?reserved	 ?for	 ?offenders	 ?the	 ?court	 ?does	 ?not	 ?reasonably	 ?believe	 ?can	 ?be	 ?rehabilitated.301	 ?	 ?	 ? Clearly,	 ?there	 ?is	 ?a	 ?wide	 ?scope	 ?among	 ?sentences	 ?available	 ?for	 ?sexual	 ?offenders.	 ?Courts	 ?can	 ?order	 ?incarceration	 ?for	 ?nearly	 ?any	 ?amount	 ?of	 ?time.	 ?In	 ?some	 ?cases,	 ?judges	 ?can	 ?order	 ?imprisonment	 ?to	 ?be	 ?served	 ?in	 ?multiple	 ?ways,	 ?including	 ?as	 ?conditional	 ?sentences,	 ?which	 ?are	 ?served	 ?in	 ?the	 ?community,302	 ?and	 ?as	 ?intermittent	 ?sentences	 ?for	 ?terms	 ?of	 ?90	 ?days	 ?or	 ?less.303	 ?As	 ?well,	 ?alternatives	 ?to	 ?incarceration	 ?are	 ?sometimes	 ?available,	 ?typically	 ?for	 ?offences	 ?considered	 ?less	 ?serious:	 ?absolute	 ?or	 ?conditional	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?297	 ?Ibid,	 ?s	 ?155(2).	 ?298	 ?Ruby,	 ?Chan	 ?&	 ?Hasan,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?70,	 ?sec	 ?17.1?17.3,	 ?17.68.	 ?299	 ?Criminal	 ?Code,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?67,	 ?s	 ?753.1(1).	 ?300	 ?Ibid,	 ?s	 ?753.	 ?301	 ?Ruby,	 ?Chan	 ?&	 ?Hasan,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?70,	 ?sec	 ?17.73.	 ?302	 ?Criminal	 ?Code,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?67,	 ?s	 ?742.1	 ?303	 ?Ibid,	 ?s	 ?732(1)	 ?[when	 ?the	 ?offender	 ?is	 ?sentenced	 ?to	 ?imprisonment	 ?for	 ?less	 ?than	 ?two	 ?years,	 ?has	 ?no	 ?minimum	 ?sentence,	 ?and	 ?sexual	 ?assault	 ?is	 ?not	 ?proceeded	 ?by	 ?way	 ?of	 ?indictment	 ?(a	 ?recent	 ?amendment	 ?limiting	 ?its	 ?application)].	 ?	 ?	 ? 73	 ?discharges,304	 ?probation,305	 ?and	 ?restitution.306	 ?These	 ?different	 ?forms	 ?of	 ?punishment	 ?relate	 ?to	 ?the	 ?belief	 ?that	 ?imprisonment	 ?should	 ?be	 ?a	 ??sanction	 ?of	 ?last	 ?resort?.307	 ?	 ? However,	 ?the	 ?more	 ?recent	 ?reforms	 ?to	 ?sentencing	 ?in	 ?2012	 ?have	 ?restricted	 ?the	 ?discretion	 ?of	 ?judges	 ?to	 ?order	 ?alternative	 ?sentences,	 ?requiring	 ?judges	 ?to	 ?order	 ?incarceration	 ?more	 ?often.308	 ?These	 ?reforms	 ?introduced	 ?mandatory	 ?minimum	 ?sentences	 ?for	 ?the	 ?three	 ?levels	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?assault	 ?and	 ?incest	 ?when	 ?committed	 ?against	 ?survivors	 ?under	 ?16	 ?years	 ?old	 ?and	 ?increased	 ?the	 ?length	 ?of	 ?existing	 ?mandatory	 ?minimums	 ?for	 ?offences	 ?specific	 ?to	 ?children	 ?and	 ?youth.309	 ?At	 ?the	 ?same	 ?time,	 ?amendments	 ?also	 ?restricted	 ?the	 ?availability	 ?of	 ?conditional	 ?sentences.	 ?First	 ?introduced	 ?in	 ?1996	 ?as	 ?a	 ?part	 ?of	 ?the	 ?sentence	 ?reforms	 ?that	 ?promoted	 ?reparation	 ?and	 ?restorative	 ?justice	 ?in	 ?tandem	 ?with	 ?denunciation	 ?and	 ?deterrence,	 ?conditional	 ?sentences	 ?were	 ?initially	 ?available	 ?to	 ?offenders	 ?sentenced	 ?to	 ?less	 ?than	 ?two	 ?years.310	 ?However,	 ?the	 ?2012	 ?amendments	 ?limited	 ?their	 ?availability	 ?to	 ?sexual	 ?offenders	 ?who	 ?are	 ?convicted	 ?on	 ?summary	 ?conviction,311	 ?to	 ?reduce	 ?their	 ?perceived	 ?overuse	 ?in	 ?serious	 ?violent	 ?offences,	 ?including	 ?sexual	 ?assault.312	 ?	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?304	 ?Ibid,	 ?s	 ?730(1)	 ?[when	 ?there	 ?is	 ?no	 ?minimum	 ?penalty	 ?prescribed	 ?and	 ?the	 ?maximum	 ?sentence	 ?is	 ?not	 ?14	 ?years	 ?or	 ?life	 ?imprisonment].	 ?305	 ?Ibid,	 ?s	 ?731(1)&(2)	 ?[in	 ?lieu	 ?of	 ?imprisonment	 ?where	 ?no	 ?minimum	 ?sentence	 ?is	 ?dictated,	 ?when	 ?the	 ?offender	 ?is	 ?sentenced	 ?to	 ?two	 ?years?	 ?imprisonment	 ?or	 ?less,	 ?or	 ?when	 ?the	 ?offender	 ?is	 ?given	 ?a	 ?discharge].	 ?306	 ?Ibid,	 ?s	 ?738(1).	 ?307	 ?Ruby,	 ?Chan	 ?&	 ?Hasan,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?70,	 ?sec	 ?13.1.	 ?308	 ?Bill	 ?C-??10,	 ?An	 ?Act	 ?to	 ?enact	 ?the	 ?Justice	 ?for	 ?Victims	 ?of	 ?Terrorism	 ?Act	 ?and	 ?to	 ?amend	 ?the	 ?State	 ?Immunity	 ?Act,	 ?the	 ?Criminal	 ?Code,	 ?the	 ?Controlled	 ?Drugs	 ?and	 ?Substances	 ?Act,	 ?the	 ?Corrections	 ?and	 ?Conditional	 ?Release	 ?Act,	 ?the	 ?Youth	 ?Criminal	 ?Justice	 ?Act,	 ?the	 ?Immigration	 ?and	 ?Refugee	 ?Protection	 ?Act	 ?and	 ?other	 ?Acts,	 ?1st	 ?Sess,	 ?41st	 ?Parl,	 ?2011-??12	 ?(assented	 ?to	 ?13	 ?March	 ?2012),	 ?SC	 ?2012,	 ?c	 ?1.	 ?309	 ?Laura	 ?Barnett	 ?et	 ?al,	 ?Legislative	 ?Summary:	 ?Bill	 ?C-??10:	 ?An	 ?Act	 ?to	 ?enact	 ?the	 ?Justice	 ?for	 ?Victims	 ?of	 ?Terrorism	 ?Act	 ?and	 ?to	 ?amend	 ?the	 ?State	 ?Immunity	 ?Act,	 ?the	 ?Criminal	 ?Code,	 ?the	 ?Controlled	 ?Drugs	 ?and	 ?Substances	 ?Act,	 ?the	 ?Corrections	 ?and	 ?Conditional	 ?Release	 ?Act,	 ?the	 ?Youth	 ?Criminal	 ?Justice	 ?Act,	 ?the	 ?Immigration	 ?and	 ?Refugee	 ?Protection	 ?Act	 ?and	 ?other	 ?Acts,	 ?Legislative	 ?Summary	 ?(Ottawa:	 ?Library	 ?of	 ?Parliament,	 ?Parliamentary	 ?Information	 ?and	 ?Research	 ?Service,	 ?2011)	 ?at	 ?26?30.	 ?310	 ?Balfour	 ?&	 ?Du	 ?Mont,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?179	 ?at	 ?709;	 ?Ruby,	 ?Chan	 ?&	 ?Hasan,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?70,	 ?sec	 ?15.1?15.19.	 ?311	 ?Ruby,	 ?Chan	 ?&	 ?Hasan,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?70,	 ?sec	 ?15.4?15.5	 ?citing	 ?Bill	 ?C-??10,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?308,	 ?c	 ?34.	 ?312	 ?Barnett	 ?et	 ?al,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?309	 ?at	 ?59?60.	 ?	 ? 74	 ?	 ? The	 ?prior	 ?and	 ?more	 ?recent	 ?amendments	 ?exhibit	 ?a	 ?tension	 ?between	 ?different	 ?beliefs	 ?in	 ?the	 ?value	 ?of	 ?incarceration.	 ?Historically,	 ?incarceration	 ?has	 ?been	 ?believed	 ?to	 ?deter	 ?and	 ?rehabilitate	 ?offenders	 ?while	 ?also	 ?protecting	 ?the	 ?community	 ?through	 ?separation;	 ?however,	 ?these	 ?ideas	 ?have	 ?been	 ?subject	 ?to	 ?significant	 ?debate	 ?and	 ?critique,313	 ?including	 ?from	 ?some	 ?feminist	 ?scholars.	 ?	 ?Divergent	 ?Feminist	 ?Approaches	 ?and	 ?Overarching	 ?Concerns	 ?	 ? Unlike	 ?the	 ?substantive	 ?law	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?offences,	 ?the	 ?current	 ?model	 ?of	 ?sentencing	 ?has	 ?not	 ?been	 ?shaped	 ?significantly	 ?by	 ?feminist	 ?scholarship;	 ?feminist	 ?scholars	 ?have	 ?generally	 ?paid	 ?less	 ?attention	 ?to	 ?sentencing.314	 ?However,	 ?as	 ?I	 ?discuss	 ?in	 ?what	 ?follows,	 ?there	 ?are	 ?nonetheless	 ?two	 ?camps.	 ?As	 ?a	 ?part	 ?of	 ?feminist	 ?demands	 ?for	 ?the	 ?law	 ?to	 ?recognize	 ?sexual	 ?offences	 ?as	 ?serious,	 ?feminist	 ?advocacy	 ?has	 ?implicitly,	 ?and	 ?in	 ?some	 ?cases	 ?explicitly,	 ?supported	 ?longer	 ?sentences.	 ?More	 ?recently,	 ?some	 ?feminist	 ?scholars	 ?have	 ?questioned	 ?this	 ?approach,	 ?believing	 ?that	 ?more	 ?incarceration	 ?will	 ?not	 ?ultimately	 ?lead	 ?us	 ?where	 ?we	 ?want	 ?to	 ?go:	 ?a	 ?society	 ?without	 ?sexual	 ?violence.315	 ?Although	 ?I	 ?share	 ?their	 ?concerns,	 ?I	 ?nonetheless	 ?think	 ?that	 ?the	 ?study	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?offender	 ?sentencing	 ?is	 ?worthwhile:	 ?below,	 ?I	 ?explain	 ?my	 ?belief	 ?that	 ?the	 ?criminal	 ?justice	 ?system	 ?is	 ?necessary	 ?for	 ?the	 ?protection	 ?of	 ?women	 ?and	 ?that	 ?feminist	 ?analysis	 ?is	 ?critical	 ?to	 ?pushing	 ?the	 ?system	 ?towards	 ?an	 ?approach	 ?that	 ?enhances	 ?equality.	 ?	 ?	 ? 	 ?Feminist	 ?advocates	 ?who	 ?sought	 ?legal	 ?reforms	 ?aimed	 ?to	 ?contextualize	 ?sexual	 ?offending	 ?as	 ?well	 ?as	 ?have	 ?it	 ?recognized	 ?as	 ?a	 ?serious	 ?violent	 ?crime;	 ?however,	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?313	 ?See	 ?generally	 ?Ruby,	 ?Chan	 ?&	 ?Hasan,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?70	 ?at	 ?13.4?13.7;	 ?Manson,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?274	 ?at	 ?43?49;	 ?Backhouse,	 ??Feminist	 ?Remedy?,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?69	 ?at	 ?733?735.	 ?314	 ?Backhouse,	 ??Feminist	 ?Remedy?,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?69	 ?at	 ?728;	 ?Balfour	 ?&	 ?Du	 ?Mont,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?179	 ?at	 ?724.	 ?315	 ?Backhouse,	 ?Carnal	 ?Crimes,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?38	 ?at	 ?728.	 ?	 ? 75	 ?neoliberalism	 ?removed	 ?the	 ?focus	 ?from	 ?context	 ?in	 ?favour	 ?of	 ?individual	 ?rationality	 ?and	 ?responsibility.	 ?Under	 ?this	 ?understanding,	 ?it	 ?became	 ?more	 ?appropriate	 ?to	 ?punish	 ?and	 ?penalize	 ?individual	 ?offenders	 ?harshly	 ?for	 ?their	 ?criminal	 ?behaviour.	 ?As	 ?a	 ?result,	 ?feminist	 ?discourse	 ?that	 ?called	 ?for	 ?more	 ?serious	 ?punishment	 ?to	 ?reflect	 ?the	 ?seriousness	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?offences	 ?had	 ?the	 ?most	 ?political	 ?traction;	 ?these	 ?statements	 ?were	 ?co-??opted	 ?by	 ?the	 ?law	 ?and	 ?order	 ?movement	 ?to	 ?increase	 ?the	 ?power	 ?and	 ?reach	 ?of	 ?the	 ?criminal	 ?justice	 ?system.316	 ?	 ?	 ? When	 ?the	 ?audible	 ?voices	 ?for	 ?reform	 ?were	 ?calling	 ?for	 ?longer	 ?and	 ?harsher	 ?sentences,	 ?feminist	 ?advocacy	 ?split	 ?into	 ?two	 ?directions.	 ?Some	 ?continued	 ?to	 ?work	 ?for	 ?reforms	 ?within	 ?the	 ?law	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?assault,	 ??making	 ?a	 ?virtue	 ?out	 ?of	 ?the	 ?necessity	 ?of	 ?working	 ?within	 ?an	 ?oppressive	 ?system?317	 ?to	 ?make	 ?the	 ?law	 ?equitable	 ?and	 ?remove	 ?the	 ?discriminatory	 ?barriers	 ?to	 ?convictions	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?offenders.	 ?As	 ?a	 ?part	 ?of	 ?this,	 ?some	 ?pushed	 ?for	 ?longer	 ?sentences	 ?to	 ?reflect	 ?the	 ?seriousness	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?violence.318	 ?They	 ?sought	 ?to	 ?right	 ?the	 ?injustice	 ?the	 ?law	 ?had	 ?perpetrated	 ?against	 ?women	 ?and	 ?children	 ?by	 ?ignoring	 ?sexual	 ?violence	 ?and	 ?absolving	 ?offenders.319	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ? Other	 ?feminist	 ?scholars	 ?have	 ?actively	 ?resisted	 ?the	 ?idea	 ?that	 ?the	 ?recognition	 ?of	 ?the	 ?seriousness	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?violence	 ?must	 ?entail	 ?harsher	 ?punishment.320	 ?Some,	 ?such	 ?as	 ?Clark	 ?and	 ?Lewis,	 ?recognized	 ?the	 ?historical	 ?connection	 ?between	 ?draconian	 ?penalties	 ?and	 ?low	 ?conviction	 ?rates	 ?so	 ?argued	 ?for	 ?lower	 ?sentences	 ?to	 ?increase	 ?convictions	 ?and	 ?therefore	 ?accountability.321	 ?Others	 ?more	 ?fundamentally	 ?questioned	 ?the	 ?unlikely	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?316	 ?Gotell,	 ??Disappearance?,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?75	 ?at	 ?128?132;	 ?Martin,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?68	 ?at	 ?155?157.	 ?317	 ?Martin,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?68	 ?at	 ?157.	 ?318	 ?Ibid	 ?at	 ?166.	 ?319	 ?Backhouse,	 ??Feminist	 ?Remedy?,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?69	 ?at	 ?726?728,	 ?732?733.	 ?320	 ?Martin,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?68	 ?at	 ?158?159.	 ?321	 ?Clark	 ?&	 ?Lewis,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?14	 ?at	 ?57;	 ?Backhouse,	 ??Feminist	 ?Remedy?,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?69	 ?at	 ?732?733.	 ?	 ? 76	 ?alliance	 ?between	 ?the	 ?law	 ?and	 ?order	 ?movement	 ?and	 ?feminism	 ?and	 ?interrogated	 ?the	 ?purpose	 ?of	 ?the	 ?criminal	 ?justice	 ?system	 ?and	 ?incarceration,	 ?ultimately	 ?decrying	 ?the	 ?perverse	 ?and	 ?discriminatory	 ?effects	 ?the	 ?move	 ?towards	 ?criminalization	 ?has	 ?had.322	 ?They	 ?posit	 ?that,	 ?fundamentally,	 ?a	 ?greater	 ?recognition	 ?of	 ?the	 ?seriousness	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?violence	 ?does	 ?not	 ?eliminate	 ?bias	 ?within	 ?the	 ?criminal	 ?justice	 ?system	 ?or	 ?the	 ?punishment	 ?that	 ?it	 ?doles	 ?out	 ?because	 ?the	 ?status	 ?quo	 ?power	 ?structure	 ?remains	 ?undisturbed.323	 ?As	 ?stated	 ?by	 ?Laureen	 ?Snider,	 ??[t]o	 ?the	 ?extent	 ?that	 ?feminism	 ?succeeds	 ?in	 ?extending	 ?punishment,	 ?it	 ?widens	 ?the	 ?net	 ?of	 ?social	 ?control	 ?over	 ?those	 ?men	 ?and	 ?women	 ?who	 ?are	 ?vulnerable	 ?to	 ?arrest	 ?and	 ?incarceration	 ?because	 ?of	 ?their	 ?class,	 ?ethnicity,	 ?race	 ?or	 ?gender.?324	 ? 	 ?	 ? Moreover,	 ?feminist	 ?scholars	 ?have	 ?found	 ?that	 ?the	 ?emergence	 ?of	 ?the	 ?victims?	 ?rights	 ?movement	 ?has	 ?not	 ?benefited	 ?survivors	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?violence:	 ?victims?	 ?rights	 ?are	 ?understood	 ?in	 ?a	 ?neoliberal	 ?and	 ?individualist	 ?lens,	 ?not	 ?a	 ?feminist	 ?one,	 ?rendering	 ?context	 ?as	 ?well	 ?as	 ?gender	 ?and	 ?other	 ?inequalities	 ?invisible	 ?and	 ?meaningless.325	 ?Many	 ?survivors	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?violence	 ?do	 ?not	 ?fit	 ?the	 ?idealized	 ?image	 ?of	 ?real	 ?victims	 ?under	 ?this	 ?model	 ?because	 ?it	 ?reproduces	 ?gendered,	 ?racial,	 ?class,	 ?and	 ?other	 ?discriminatory	 ?stereotypes	 ?in	 ?its	 ?notion	 ?of	 ?who	 ?a	 ?worthy	 ?victim	 ?is.326	 ?Because	 ?of	 ?the	 ?negative	 ?consequences	 ?of	 ?criminal	 ?and	 ?state	 ?intervention	 ?on	 ?women?s	 ?lives,	 ?felt	 ?most	 ?deeply	 ?by	 ?Aboriginal,	 ?racialized	 ?and	 ?impoverished	 ?women,	 ?feminist	 ?advocates	 ?have	 ?also	 ?questioned	 ?the	 ?use	 ?of	 ?police	 ?and	 ?the	 ?criminal	 ?justice	 ?system	 ?ahead	 ?of	 ?community	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?322	 ?See	 ?e.g.	 ?Snider,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?68;	 ?Martin,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?68;	 ?Backhouse,	 ??Feminist	 ?Remedy?,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?69.	 ?323	 ?Martin,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?68	 ?at	 ?160?161.	 ?324	 ?Snider,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?68	 ?at	 ?77.	 ?325	 ?Gotell,	 ??Disappearance?,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?75	 ?at	 ?1326;	 ?Ruparelia,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?40	 ?at	 ?666?670.	 ?326	 ?Martin,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?68	 ?at	 ?157?158;	 ?Ruparelia,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?40	 ?at	 ?675,	 ?686?687.	 ?	 ? 77	 ?resources,	 ?which	 ?they	 ?argue	 ?may	 ?better	 ?support	 ?women	 ?and	 ?keep	 ?them	 ?safe.327	 ?For	 ?example,	 ?this	 ?approach	 ?is	 ?taken	 ?by	 ?INCITE!,	 ?a	 ?movement	 ?of	 ?women	 ?of	 ?colour	 ?who	 ?seek	 ?to	 ?end	 ?violence	 ?but	 ?also	 ?to	 ?keep	 ?the	 ?racist	 ?policies	 ?and	 ?practices	 ?of	 ?the	 ?state	 ?out	 ?of	 ?women?s	 ?lives.328	 ?	 ?	 ? Incarceration	 ?causes	 ?a	 ?great	 ?deal	 ?of	 ?concern	 ?and	 ?disagreement	 ?within	 ?feminist	 ?scholarship.	 ?Many	 ?feminist	 ?scholars	 ?are	 ?deeply	 ?troubled	 ?by	 ?the	 ?discrimination	 ?against	 ?disadvantaged,	 ?Aboriginal,	 ?racialized,	 ?and	 ?poor	 ?offenders	 ?evident	 ?in	 ?sentencing.329	 ?Feminist	 ?scholars	 ?are	 ?concerned	 ?about	 ?the	 ?hyper-??masculine	 ?gender	 ?identities	 ?and	 ?inhumanity	 ?fostered	 ?within	 ?the	 ?prison	 ?system,	 ?which	 ?may	 ?incline	 ?offenders	 ?towards	 ?violence	 ?rather	 ?than	 ?rehabilitation.330	 ?If	 ?sexual	 ?violence	 ?is	 ?a	 ?product	 ?of	 ?a	 ??culture	 ?of	 ?misogyny?,	 ?the	 ?rationale	 ?and	 ?ethics	 ?of	 ?scapegoating	 ?and	 ?punishing	 ?individual	 ?offenders,	 ?often	 ?themselves	 ?survivors	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?violence,	 ?abuse,	 ?and	 ?discrimination,	 ?must	 ?be	 ?critically	 ?examined.331	 ?Feminist	 ?scholars	 ?are	 ?concerned	 ?that,	 ?to	 ?teach	 ?non-??violence,	 ?the	 ?violence	 ?of	 ?incarceration	 ?can	 ?never	 ?be	 ?effective.332	 ?Most	 ?basically,	 ?Snider	 ?warns	 ?that,	 ??[f]eminism,	 ?a	 ?movement	 ?rooted	 ?in	 ?amelioration	 ?and	 ?empowerment,	 ?should	 ?look	 ?carefully	 ?before	 ?embracing	 ?policies	 ?which	 ?have	 ?historically	 ?offered	 ?little	 ?of	 ?either.?333	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?327	 ?Snider,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?68	 ?at	 ?85?91;	 ?Martin,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?68	 ?at	 ?185?188.	 ?328	 ?INCITE!	 ?Women	 ?of	 ?Color	 ?Against	 ?Violence,	 ?online:	 ?INCITE!	 ?<http://incite-??national.org/index.php?s=35>.	 ?329	 ?Snider,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?68	 ?at	 ?86?87;	 ?Martin,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?68	 ?at	 ?152?153,	 ?162?164,	 ?171;	 ?See	 ?also	 ?Nancy	 ?A	 ?Wonders,	 ??Determinate	 ?Sentencing:	 ?A	 ?Feminist	 ?and	 ?Postmodern	 ?Story?	 ?(1996)	 ?13	 ?Just	 ?Q	 ?611	 ?[how	 ?determinate	 ?sentencing	 ?reproduces	 ?inequalities	 ?and	 ?discrimination	 ?while	 ?purporting	 ?to	 ?be	 ?fair].	 ?330	 ?Backhouse,	 ??Feminist	 ?Remedy?,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?69	 ?at	 ?733?735;	 ?Backhouse,	 ?Carnal	 ?Crimes,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?38	 ?at	 ?282;	 ?Snider,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?68	 ?at	 ?87.	 ?331	 ?Backhouse,	 ??Feminist	 ?Remedy?,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?69	 ?at	 ?737.	 ?332	 ?Martin,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?68	 ?at	 ?164;	 ?Snider,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?68	 ?at	 ?77,	 ?82.	 ?333	 ?Snider,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?68	 ?at	 ?77.	 ?	 ? 78	 ?	 ? These	 ?concerns	 ?are	 ?pressing	 ?for	 ?feminist	 ?scholars.	 ?Nonetheless,	 ?I	 ?do	 ?not	 ?think	 ?they	 ?should	 ?prevent	 ?feminist	 ?legal	 ?scholarship	 ?on	 ?sentencing.	 ?Although	 ?the	 ?larger	 ?criminal	 ?justice	 ?and	 ?penal	 ?systems	 ?need	 ?reform,	 ?this	 ?need	 ?is	 ?not	 ?specific	 ?to	 ?sexual	 ?offences.	 ?Due	 ?to	 ?low	 ?reporting	 ?rates	 ?and	 ?high	 ?attrition	 ?rates,	 ?sexual	 ?offenders	 ?are	 ?not	 ?over-??represented	 ?in	 ?the	 ?system.	 ?Moreover,	 ?feminist	 ?scholars	 ?must	 ?necessarily	 ?grapple	 ?with	 ?the	 ?need	 ?to	 ?protect	 ?women	 ?and	 ?children	 ?from	 ?sexual	 ?violence:	 ?grassroots	 ?support	 ?is	 ?crucial,	 ?but	 ?the	 ?criminal	 ?justice	 ?system	 ?has	 ?a	 ?significant	 ?role	 ?to	 ?play	 ?in	 ?protecting	 ?women	 ?and	 ?children	 ?from	 ?violence.	 ?Feminist	 ?scholarship	 ?can	 ?reveal	 ?whether	 ?the	 ?criminal	 ?justice	 ?system	 ?is	 ?playing	 ?its	 ?role	 ?in	 ?a	 ?way	 ?promotes	 ?equality,	 ?not	 ?discrimination,	 ?for	 ?both	 ?offenders	 ?and	 ?survivors.334	 ?	 ?	 ? In	 ?spite	 ?of	 ?the	 ?discrimination	 ?and	 ?violence	 ?within	 ?the	 ?law	 ?in	 ?general	 ?and	 ?the	 ?criminal	 ?justice	 ?system	 ?in	 ?particular,	 ?some	 ?scholars	 ?continue	 ?to	 ?seek	 ?to	 ?promote	 ?equality	 ?through	 ?the	 ?law,	 ?including	 ?the	 ?sentencing	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?offenders.	 ?I	 ?join	 ?in	 ?this	 ?effort.	 ?	 ?	 ? I	 ?now	 ?leave	 ?behind	 ?these	 ?broad	 ?concerns	 ?to	 ?turn	 ?to	 ?a	 ?review	 ?of	 ?some	 ?of	 ?the	 ?specific	 ?issues	 ?that	 ?feminist	 ?scholars	 ?have	 ?identified	 ?in	 ?the	 ?sentencing	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?offenders.	 ?Sentencing	 ?of	 ?Sexual	 ?Offenders:	 ?The	 ?Law	 ?and	 ?Feminist	 ?Research	 ?	 ? Feminist	 ?scholarship	 ?has	 ?been	 ?less	 ?robust	 ?in	 ?the	 ?area	 ?of	 ?sentencing.	 ?However,	 ?some	 ?scholars	 ?have	 ?studied	 ?aspects	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?offender	 ?sentencing	 ?to	 ?determine	 ?the	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?334	 ?For	 ?feminist	 ?scholars	 ?who	 ?argue	 ?for	 ?the	 ?need	 ?for	 ?further	 ?research	 ?in	 ?sentencing	 ?without	 ?contributing	 ?to	 ?the	 ?law	 ?and	 ?order	 ?paradigm,	 ?see	 ?e.g.	 ?Gotell,	 ??Disappearance?,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?75	 ?at	 ?133;	 ?Balfour	 ?&	 ?Du	 ?Mont,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?179	 ?at	 ?723?724;	 ?See	 ?also	 ?Emma	 ?Cunliffe	 ?&	 ?Angela	 ?Cameron,	 ??Writing	 ?the	 ?Circle:	 ?Judicially	 ?Convened	 ?Sentencing	 ?Circles	 ?and	 ?the	 ?Textual	 ?Organization	 ?of	 ?Criminal	 ?Justice?	 ?(2007)	 ?19	 ?CJWL	 ?2;	 ?Ruparelia,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?40.	 ?	 ? 79	 ?impact	 ?of	 ?reforms	 ?and	 ?the	 ?continuing	 ?presence	 ?of	 ?rape	 ?myths.	 ?I	 ?explore	 ?some	 ?of	 ?the	 ?studies	 ?relevant	 ?to	 ?my	 ?thesis	 ?to	 ?review	 ?the	 ?research	 ?that	 ?has	 ?been	 ?done	 ?and	 ?to	 ?draw	 ?on	 ?these	 ?analyses	 ?in	 ?my	 ?own	 ?work.	 ?They	 ?provide	 ?a	 ?base	 ?for	 ?my	 ?research:	 ?to	 ?determine	 ?if	 ?B.C.	 ?courts	 ?currently	 ?evince	 ?myth-??based	 ?reasoning	 ?in	 ?their	 ?application	 ?of	 ?doctrine	 ?and	 ?discourse.	 ?Victim	 ?Impact	 ?Statements	 ?	 ? Victim	 ?Impact	 ?Statements,	 ?a	 ?recent	 ?addition	 ?to	 ?the	 ?sentencing	 ?process,	 ?provide	 ?an	 ?opportunity	 ?for	 ?victims	 ?of	 ?crime	 ?to	 ?tell	 ?the	 ?court,	 ?in	 ?their	 ?own	 ?words,	 ?about	 ?the	 ?impact	 ?of	 ?the	 ?offence	 ?on	 ?them.	 ?According	 ?to	 ?section	 ?722(1)	 ?of	 ?the	 ?Criminal	 ?Code,	 ?courts	 ??shall	 ?consider?	 ?Victim	 ?Impact	 ?Statements	 ?created	 ?in	 ?the	 ?proper	 ?form	 ?as	 ?a	 ?source	 ?of	 ?information	 ?about	 ?the	 ?harm	 ?of	 ?the	 ?offence.	 ?Although	 ?victims	 ?may	 ?describe	 ?the	 ?harm	 ?they	 ?suffered,	 ?they	 ?cannot	 ?express	 ?recommendations	 ?for	 ?length	 ?of	 ?sentence	 ?unless	 ?they	 ?recommend	 ?lenience.335	 ?	 ? In	 ?the	 ?sense	 ?that	 ?they	 ?provide	 ?survivors	 ?with	 ?a	 ?voice	 ?in	 ?sentencing	 ?proceedings,	 ?Victim	 ?Impact	 ?Statements	 ?are	 ?supposed	 ?to	 ?ameliorate	 ?their	 ?experiences	 ?within	 ?the	 ?criminal	 ?justice	 ?system.	 ?However,	 ?as	 ?Rakhi	 ?Ruparelia	 ?argued	 ?in	 ??All	 ?That	 ?Glitters	 ?Is	 ?Not	 ?Gold:	 ?The	 ?False	 ?Promise	 ?of	 ?Victim	 ?Impact	 ?Statements?,	 ?this	 ?supposed	 ?success	 ?of	 ?the	 ?victims?	 ?rights	 ?movement	 ?has	 ?had	 ?perverse	 ?and	 ?unequal	 ?effects	 ?for	 ?survivors	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?violence,	 ?a	 ?consequence	 ?that	 ?is	 ?unsurprising	 ?given	 ?the	 ?lack	 ?of	 ?feminist	 ?and	 ?anti-??racist	 ?influence	 ?in	 ?the	 ?victims?	 ?rights	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?335	 ?Ruby,	 ?Chan	 ?&	 ?Hasan,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?70,	 ?sec	 ?19.6?19.7,	 ?19.20?19.32;	 ?Manson,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?274	 ?at	 ?195?196	 ?citing	 ?R.	 ?v.	 ?Gabriel	 ?(1999),	 ?137	 ?CCC	 ?(3d)	 ?1,	 ?26	 ?CR	 ?(5th)	 ?364	 ?at	 ?382-??89	 ?(Ont	 ?SC)	 ?[cited	 ?to	 ?CR].	 ?	 ? 80	 ?movement.336	 ?Instead,	 ?she	 ?found	 ?that	 ?Victim	 ?Impact	 ?Statements	 ?were	 ?underused	 ?by	 ?survivors	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?violence	 ?and,	 ?when	 ?they	 ?were	 ?used,	 ?they	 ?functioned	 ?to	 ?perpetuate	 ?systemic	 ?sexism	 ?and	 ?racism	 ?by	 ?their	 ?reliance	 ?on	 ?perceptions	 ?of	 ?worthiness	 ?and	 ?eloquence	 ?of	 ?survivors	 ?grounded	 ?in	 ?rape	 ?myths	 ?that	 ?devalue	 ?and	 ?discredit	 ??non-??ideal	 ?victims?,	 ?particularly	 ?Aboriginal,	 ?racialized,	 ?and	 ?poor	 ?survivors.337	 ?	 ?Judicial	 ?Characterizations	 ?of	 ?Offences:	 ?Aggravating	 ?and	 ?Mitigating	 ?Factors	 ?and	 ?their	 ?Impact	 ?on	 ?Outcomes	 ?	 ? To	 ?achieve	 ?proportionality,338	 ?judges	 ?identify	 ?circumstances	 ?that	 ?make	 ?an	 ?offence	 ?more	 ?or	 ?less	 ?grave	 ?and	 ?an	 ?offender	 ?more	 ?or	 ?less	 ?responsible.	 ?Typically,	 ?judges	 ?explicitly	 ?identify	 ?aggravating	 ?and	 ?mitigating	 ?circumstances.	 ?However,	 ?they	 ?may	 ?also	 ?imply	 ?aggravating	 ?and	 ?mitigating	 ?factors:	 ?in	 ?written	 ?sentencing	 ?judgments,	 ?judges	 ?may	 ?simply	 ?comment	 ?about	 ?the	 ?offence	 ?or	 ?the	 ?offender	 ?or	 ?choose	 ?words,	 ?terms	 ?or	 ?grammatical	 ?constructions	 ?that	 ?convey	 ?views	 ?of	 ?harm	 ?and	 ?wrong.	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ? Feminist	 ?scholars	 ?have	 ?found	 ?that	 ?the	 ?circumstances	 ?judges	 ?identify,	 ?apply	 ?and	 ?weigh	 ?sometimes	 ?reveal	 ?rape	 ?myths.	 ?A	 ?finding	 ?of	 ?guilt,	 ?as	 ?it	 ?turns	 ?out,	 ?does	 ?not	 ?prevent	 ?bias	 ?against	 ?survivors:	 ?as	 ?stated	 ?by	 ?Patricia	 ?Marshall,	 ??[i]n	 ?cases	 ?where	 ?an	 ?assaulter	 ?has	 ?been	 ?found	 ?guilty,	 ?clear	 ?evidence	 ?that	 ?a	 ?crime	 ?took	 ?place	 ?is	 ?no	 ?guarantee	 ?that	 ?the	 ?judge	 ?understood	 ?either	 ?the	 ?nature	 ?of	 ?the	 ?crime	 ?or	 ?its	 ?impact	 ?on	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?336	 ?Ruparelia,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?40	 ?at	 ?666?667.	 ?337	 ?Ibid	 ?at	 ?687?692.	 ?338	 ?Criminal	 ?Code,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?67,	 ?s	 ?718.1.	 ?	 ? 81	 ?the	 ?victim.?339	 ?Feminist	 ?scholars	 ?have	 ?also	 ?linked	 ?the	 ?use	 ?of	 ?rape	 ?myths	 ?to	 ?sentence	 ?outcomes.	 ?	 ?	 ? Marshall	 ?conducted	 ?research	 ?on	 ?sentencing	 ?decisions	 ?from	 ?the	 ?early	 ?1980s.	 ?In	 ?her	 ?sample,	 ?she	 ?found	 ?that	 ?judges	 ?failed	 ?to	 ?characterize	 ?sexual	 ?assaults	 ?as	 ?inherently	 ?violent	 ?and	 ?coercive	 ?and	 ?used	 ?the	 ?supposed	 ?absence	 ?of	 ?violence	 ?in	 ?mitigation.340	 ?Judges	 ?minimized	 ?offenders?	 ?responsibility	 ?by	 ?portraying	 ?offences	 ?as	 ?mistakes	 ?or	 ?out-??of-??character	 ?acts,	 ?particularly	 ?in	 ?cases	 ?of	 ?middle-??class	 ?offenders	 ?who	 ?were	 ?seen	 ?as	 ?good	 ?candidates	 ?for	 ?rehabilitation.	 ?Judges	 ?blamed	 ?survivors	 ?for	 ?provocation	 ?for	 ?being	 ?seductive,	 ?and	 ?offender?s	 ?wives	 ?for	 ?duress	 ?for	 ?failing	 ?to	 ?fulfill	 ?offender?s	 ?sexual	 ??needs?,	 ?citing	 ?these	 ?as	 ?mitigating	 ?factors.341	 ?	 ?	 ? In	 ?the	 ?early	 ?1990s,	 ?Paula	 ?E.	 ?Pasquali	 ?analyzed	 ?all	 ?sexual	 ?assault	 ?sentencing	 ?cases	 ?from	 ?Yukon	 ?courts	 ?for	 ?an	 ?18-??month	 ?period	 ?in	 ?1988	 ?and	 ?1989.342	 ?In	 ?these	 ?cases,	 ?she	 ?found	 ?that	 ?judges	 ?often	 ?ignored	 ?survivors	 ?entirely	 ?or	 ?failed	 ?to	 ?understand	 ?the	 ?impact	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?violence	 ?on	 ?them:	 ?only	 ?once	 ?did	 ?a	 ?court	 ?consider	 ?the	 ?impact	 ?on	 ?the	 ?survivor	 ?aggravating;	 ?courts	 ?typically	 ?determined	 ?there	 ?was	 ?no	 ?evidence	 ?of	 ?lasting	 ?harm	 ?to	 ?the	 ?survivor.343	 ?Pasquali	 ?also	 ?found	 ?that	 ?judges	 ?regularly	 ?relied	 ?on	 ?evidentiary	 ?gaps	 ?together	 ?with	 ?their	 ?own	 ?assumptions	 ?about	 ?sexual	 ?violence	 ?in	 ?mitigation,	 ?for	 ?example,	 ?determining	 ?that	 ?there	 ?was	 ?no	 ?evidence	 ?of	 ?violence	 ?because	 ?a	 ?survivor	 ?did	 ?not	 ?resist,344	 ?and	 ?generally	 ?used	 ?problematic	 ?reasoning	 ?about	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?339	 ?Marshall,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?38	 ?at	 ?219.	 ?340	 ?Ibid	 ?at	 ?220?221,	 ?223.	 ?341	 ?Ibid	 ?at	 ?220?222.	 ?342	 ?Pasquali,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?51	 ?at	 ?4.	 ?343	 ?Ibid	 ?at	 ?42?49.	 ?344	 ?Ibid	 ?at	 ?22,	 ?27.	 ?	 ? 82	 ?violence,	 ?harm,	 ?and	 ?responsibility.345	 ?A	 ?significant	 ?part	 ?of	 ?this	 ?was	 ?the	 ?construction	 ?of	 ?offender	 ?responsibility.	 ?Judges	 ?considered	 ?it	 ?mitigating	 ?if	 ?offenders	 ?had	 ?respectable	 ?backgrounds	 ?or	 ?high	 ?statuses	 ?in	 ?the	 ?community,	 ?finding	 ?them	 ?less	 ?likely	 ?to	 ?reoffend,	 ?and	 ?attributed	 ?sexual	 ?offences	 ?to	 ?intoxication,	 ?questionable	 ?presumptions	 ?made	 ?in	 ?the	 ?absence	 ?of	 ?any	 ?evidence.346	 ?In	 ?1994,	 ?two	 ?works	 ?about	 ?sexual	 ?offender	 ?sentencing	 ?were	 ?published	 ?in	 ?one	 ?book.	 ?Renate	 ?M.	 ?Mohr,	 ?in	 ??Sexual	 ?Assault	 ?Sentencing:	 ?Leaving	 ?Justice	 ?to	 ?Individual	 ?Conscience?,	 ?looked	 ?at	 ?court	 ?of	 ?appeal	 ?judgments	 ?relating	 ?to	 ?sexual	 ?offenders	 ?from	 ?1983	 ?to	 ?1991.347	 ?She	 ?examined	 ?the	 ?disparity	 ?in	 ?sentencing	 ?approaches	 ?among	 ?courts	 ?of	 ?appeal	 ?in	 ?Canada	 ?and	 ?the	 ?influence	 ?of	 ?the	 ?three	 ?levels	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?assault	 ?on	 ?the	 ?lengths	 ?of	 ?sentence	 ?ordered.	 ?She	 ?found	 ?that	 ?offenders	 ?were	 ?frequently	 ?convicted	 ?of	 ?a	 ?less	 ?serious	 ?offence	 ?than	 ?the	 ?facts	 ?supported.348	 ?Of	 ?particular	 ?relevance	 ?to	 ?my	 ?work,	 ?she	 ?found	 ?that	 ?courts	 ?often	 ?failed	 ?to	 ?consider	 ?any	 ?factors	 ?related	 ?to	 ?survivors349	 ?and	 ?gave	 ?offenders	 ?significantly	 ?longer	 ?sentences	 ?when	 ?they	 ?sexually	 ?assaulted	 ?strangers,	 ?compared	 ?to	 ?those	 ?who	 ?assaulted	 ?acquaintances.350	 ?In	 ?the	 ?same	 ?book,	 ?Teressa	 ?Nahanee	 ?focused	 ?on	 ?sentencing	 ?of	 ?Inuit	 ?offenders	 ?in	 ??Sexual	 ?Assault	 ?of	 ?Inuit	 ?Females:	 ?A	 ?Comment	 ?on	 ??Cultural	 ?Bias??.	 ?She	 ?critiqued	 ?the	 ?discrimination	 ?evident	 ?in	 ?some	 ?sentencing	 ?decisions	 ?that	 ?implied	 ?that	 ?sexual	 ?assault	 ?is	 ?less	 ?harmful	 ?to	 ?Inuit	 ?females	 ?because	 ?of	 ?the	 ?stereotype	 ?that	 ?they	 ?become	 ?sexual	 ?at	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?345	 ?Ibid	 ?at	 ?23?41.	 ?346	 ?Ibid	 ?at	 ?31.	 ?347	 ?Renate	 ?M	 ?Mohr,	 ??Sexual	 ?Assault	 ?Sentencing:	 ?Leaving	 ?Justice	 ?to	 ?Individual	 ?Conscience?	 ?in	 ?Julian	 ?V	 ?Roberts	 ?&	 ?Renate	 ?M	 ?Mohr,	 ?eds,	 ?Confronting	 ?Sexual	 ?Assault:	 ?A	 ?Decade	 ?of	 ?Legal	 ?and	 ?Social	 ?Change	 ?(Toronto:	 ?University	 ?of	 ?Toronto	 ?Press,	 ?1994)	 ?157	 ?at	 ?159.	 ?348	 ?Ibid	 ?at	 ?164?167.	 ?349	 ?Ibid	 ?at	 ?171?176.	 ?350	 ?Ibid	 ?at	 ?178?181.	 ?	 ? 83	 ?a	 ?young	 ?age	 ?and	 ?their	 ?sexual	 ?assault	 ?is	 ?an	 ?aspect	 ?of	 ?Inuit	 ?culture.351	 ?This	 ??cultural	 ?defence?	 ?as	 ?well	 ?as	 ?the	 ?use	 ?of	 ?intoxication	 ?as	 ?a	 ?mitigating	 ?factor	 ?resulted	 ?in	 ?lighter	 ?sentences,	 ?a	 ?sentencing	 ?pattern	 ?that	 ?she	 ?argued	 ?infringes	 ?Inuit	 ?females?	 ?equality	 ?rights.352	 ?	 ?	 ? Ronit	 ?Dinovitzer	 ?has	 ?also	 ?studied	 ?the	 ?relationship	 ?between	 ?aggravating	 ?and	 ?mitigating	 ?factors	 ?and	 ?sentence	 ?outcomes.	 ?Her	 ?research	 ?centred	 ?on	 ?the	 ?interaction	 ?between	 ?the	 ?judicial	 ?perceptions	 ?of	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?and	 ?sentence	 ?length.	 ?In	 ?her	 ?regression	 ?analysis	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?assault	 ?I	 ?cases	 ?from	 ?August	 ?1992	 ?to	 ?August	 ?1993	 ?from	 ?the	 ?Canadian	 ?Sentencing	 ?Digest,353	 ?she	 ?found	 ?that	 ?judges	 ?imposed	 ?longer	 ?sentences	 ?when	 ?they	 ?perceived	 ?that	 ?offenders	 ?had	 ?a	 ?mental	 ?illness	 ?and	 ?used	 ?force	 ?in	 ?the	 ?offence.	 ?When	 ?both	 ?factors	 ?were	 ?present,	 ?they	 ?operated	 ?in	 ?aggravation.354	 ?This	 ?finding	 ?revealed	 ?dissonance	 ?between	 ?what	 ?judges	 ?said	 ?they	 ?were	 ?doing,	 ?relying	 ?on	 ?mental	 ?disorder	 ?as	 ?a	 ?mitigating	 ?factor,	 ?and	 ?what	 ?they	 ?actually	 ?did.355	 ?Using	 ?labeling	 ?theory,	 ?she	 ?found	 ?that	 ?these	 ?offenders	 ?were	 ?discursively	 ?characterized	 ?as	 ?outside	 ?the	 ?realm	 ?of	 ??normal?	 ?offenders	 ?and	 ?instead	 ?as	 ??dangerous	 ?offenders?,	 ?even	 ?though	 ?they	 ?were	 ?not	 ?legally	 ?categorized	 ?as	 ?such	 ?pursuant	 ?to	 ?the	 ?Criminal	 ?Code.356	 ?	 ? Janice	 ?Du	 ?Mont	 ?and	 ?her	 ?colleagues	 ?have	 ?conducted	 ?a	 ?number	 ?of	 ?studies	 ?on	 ?Ontario	 ?sexual	 ?assault	 ?sentencing	 ?decisions	 ?dating	 ?from	 ?1993	 ?to	 ?2001	 ?on	 ?the	 ?relationship	 ?between	 ?myths	 ?about	 ?sexual	 ?violence	 ?in	 ?sentencing	 ?factors	 ?and	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?351	 ?Teressa	 ?Nahanee,	 ??Sexual	 ?Assault	 ?of	 ?Inuit	 ?Females:	 ?A	 ?Comment	 ?on	 ??Cultural	 ?Bias??	 ?in	 ?Julian	 ?V	 ?Roberts	 ?&	 ?Renate	 ?M	 ?Mohr,	 ?eds,	 ?Confronting	 ?Sexual	 ?Assault:	 ?A	 ?Decade	 ?of	 ?Legal	 ?and	 ?Social	 ?Change	 ?(Toronto:	 ?University	 ?of	 ?Toronto	 ?Press,	 ?1994)	 ?192	 ?at	 ?193?197.	 ?352	 ?Ibid	 ?at	 ?196?199.	 ?353	 ?Ronit	 ?Dinovitzer,	 ??The	 ?Myth	 ?of	 ?Rapists	 ?and	 ?Other	 ?Normal	 ?Men:	 ?The	 ?Impact	 ?of	 ?Psychiatric	 ?Considerations	 ?on	 ?the	 ?Sentencing	 ?of	 ?Sexual	 ?Assault	 ?Offenders?	 ?(1997)	 ?12	 ?CJLS	 ?147	 ?at	 ?155?157.	 ?354	 ?Ibid	 ?at	 ?160?164.	 ?355	 ?Ibid	 ?at	 ?165?167.	 ?356	 ?Ibid	 ?at	 ?164?165	 ?citing	 ?Criminal	 ?Code,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?67,	 ?s	 ?753.	 ?	 ? 84	 ?sentence	 ?outcome.	 ?The	 ?first	 ?two	 ?studies	 ?empirically	 ?evaluated	 ?the	 ?correlation	 ?between	 ?offence	 ?seriousness	 ?and	 ?sentence	 ?outcomes.	 ?In	 ?2003,	 ?in	 ??Charging	 ?and	 ?Sentencing	 ?in	 ?Sexual	 ?Assault	 ?Cases:	 ?An	 ?Exploratory	 ?Examination?,	 ?Du	 ?Mont	 ?found	 ?that	 ?charges	 ?and	 ?convictions	 ?did	 ?not	 ?consistently	 ?reflect	 ?the	 ?seriousness	 ?of	 ?the	 ?sexual	 ?assault	 ?as	 ?dictated	 ?by	 ?the	 ?three	 ?levels	 ?in	 ?the	 ?Criminal	 ?Code,	 ?with	 ?some	 ?offenders	 ?charged	 ?and	 ?convicted	 ?of	 ?lesser	 ?offences.	 ?She	 ?also	 ?found	 ?that	 ?factors	 ?going	 ?to	 ?the	 ?offence?s	 ?seriousness,	 ?such	 ?as	 ?harm	 ?suffered	 ?by	 ?the	 ?survivor,	 ?played	 ?a	 ?lesser	 ?role	 ?than	 ?factors	 ?about	 ?the	 ?offender	 ?in	 ?sentencing.357	 ?She	 ?worried	 ?that	 ?judicial	 ??discretion	 ?is	 ?influenced	 ?not	 ?only	 ?by	 ?legal	 ?considerations	 ?but	 ?also	 ?by	 ?social	 ?influences	 ?such	 ?as	 ?the	 ?adherence	 ?to	 ?rape	 ?myths.?358	 ?	 ?	 ? Du	 ?Mont,	 ?Tania	 ?Forte	 ?and	 ?Robin	 ?F.	 ?Badgley,	 ?pursued	 ?this	 ?line	 ?of	 ?inquiry	 ?further	 ?in	 ?2008	 ?in	 ??Does	 ?The	 ?Punishment	 ?Fit	 ?The	 ?Crime?	 ?Judicial	 ?Sentencing	 ?in	 ?Adolescent	 ?and	 ?Adult	 ?Sexual	 ?Assault	 ?Cases?.	 ?They	 ?looked	 ?at	 ?judicial	 ?consideration	 ?of	 ?factors	 ?relating	 ?to	 ?the	 ?seriousness	 ?of	 ?the	 ?offence	 ?where	 ?offenders	 ?were	 ?sentenced	 ?to	 ?imprisonment.359	 ?They	 ?found	 ?factors	 ?reflecting	 ?the	 ?offence?s	 ?gravity	 ?that	 ?supported	 ?stereotypical	 ?views	 ?about	 ?sexual	 ?assault	 ??	 ?vaginal	 ?or	 ?anal	 ?rape	 ?and	 ?use	 ?of	 ?a	 ?weapon	 ??	 ?correlated	 ?with	 ?federal,	 ?and	 ?therefore	 ?longer,	 ?prison	 ?sentences;	 ?no	 ?other	 ?factors	 ?reflecting	 ?offence	 ?seriousness	 ?were	 ?linked	 ?with	 ?prison	 ?sentences.360	 ?	 ? In	 ?2012,	 ?Du	 ?Mont	 ?and	 ?Gillian	 ?Balfour	 ?studied	 ?conditional	 ?sentences	 ?for	 ?sexual	 ?offenders,	 ?asking	 ?whether	 ?judges	 ?ordered	 ?them	 ?on	 ?the	 ?basis	 ?of	 ?rape	 ?myths.361	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?357	 ?Du	 ?Mont,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?55	 ?at	 ?326?329.	 ?358	 ?Ibid	 ?at	 ?329	 ?[footnote	 ?omitted].	 ?359	 ?Janice	 ?Du	 ?Mont,	 ?Tania	 ?Forte	 ?&	 ?Robin	 ?F	 ?Badgley,	 ??Does	 ?the	 ?Punishment	 ?Fit	 ?the	 ?Crime?	 ?Judicial	 ?Sentencing	 ?in	 ?Adolescent	 ?and	 ?Adult	 ?Sexual	 ?Assault	 ?Cases?	 ?(2008)	 ?27:2	 ?Med	 ?&	 ?L	 ?477	 ?at	 ?487?490.	 ?360	 ?Ibid	 ?at	 ?491?494.	 ?361	 ?Balfour	 ?&	 ?Du	 ?Mont,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?179	 ?at	 ?710.	 ?	 ? 85	 ?Considering	 ?whether	 ?rape	 ?myths	 ??appeared	 ?to	 ?play	 ?a	 ?role	 ?in	 ?framing?	 ?the	 ?legal	 ?and	 ?rape	 ?narratives	 ?in	 ?conditional	 ?sentencing	 ?judgments,362	 ?they	 ?found	 ?judges	 ?used	 ?reasoning	 ?based	 ?on	 ?rape	 ?myths	 ?modified	 ?to	 ?reflect	 ?neoliberalism.	 ?Judges	 ?rendered	 ?survivors	 ?invisible	 ?and	 ?used	 ?discourse	 ?that	 ?highlighted	 ?survivors?	 ?responsibility	 ?for	 ?their	 ?own	 ?risk-??taking	 ?and	 ?protection.363	 ?As	 ?well,	 ?courts	 ?justified	 ?conditional	 ?sentences	 ?based	 ?on	 ?the	 ?circumstances	 ?of	 ?the	 ?offender,	 ?which	 ?often	 ?demonstrated	 ?masculinist	 ?beliefs	 ?about	 ?the	 ?worthiness	 ?of	 ?men	 ?based	 ?on	 ?the	 ?idealization	 ?of	 ?breadwinners	 ?and	 ?business	 ?owners,	 ?for	 ?whom	 ?incarceration	 ?was	 ?inappropriate	 ?and	 ?their	 ?risk	 ?in	 ?the	 ?community	 ?manageable.364	 ?	 ?	 ? 	 ?Benedet	 ?has	 ?also	 ?analyzed	 ?sentencing	 ?decisions,	 ?specifically,	 ?ancillary	 ?orders.	 ?In	 ??A	 ?Victim-??Centred	 ?Evaluation	 ?of	 ?the	 ?Federal	 ?Sex	 ?Offender	 ?Registry?,	 ?she	 ?assessed	 ?the	 ?judicial	 ?interpretation	 ?of	 ?exceptions	 ?from	 ?the	 ?registration	 ?requirements365	 ?under	 ?the	 ?Sex	 ?Offender	 ?Information	 ?Registration	 ?Act,366	 ?exceptions	 ?that	 ?had	 ?been	 ?recently	 ?eliminated	 ?to	 ?make	 ?registration	 ?of	 ?sex	 ?offenders	 ?mandatory.367	 ?She	 ?determined	 ?that	 ?decisions	 ?on	 ?applications	 ?for	 ?judicial	 ?exception	 ?revealed	 ?the	 ??persistence	 ?of	 ?problematic	 ?assumptions	 ?about	 ?what	 ?a	 ??real?	 ?sex	 ?offender	 ?looks	 ?like.?368	 ?In	 ?the	 ?case	 ?law,	 ?she	 ?found	 ?the	 ?development,	 ?and	 ?then	 ?limiting,	 ?of	 ?the	 ??predatory	 ?stranger	 ?model.?	 ?Using	 ?this	 ?model,	 ?courts	 ?excepted	 ?perpetrators	 ?who	 ?committed	 ?offences	 ?against	 ?their	 ?spouses	 ?or	 ?against	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?362	 ?Ibid	 ?at	 ?711.	 ?363	 ?Ibid	 ?at	 ?712?717.	 ?364	 ?Ibid	 ?at	 ?717?722.	 ?365	 ?Formerly	 ?Criminal	 ?Code,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?67,	 ?s.	 ?490.012(4).	 ?366	 ?Sex	 ?Offender	 ?Information	 ?Registration	 ?Act,	 ?SC	 ?2004,	 ?c	 ?10.	 ?367	 ?Bill	 ?S-??2,	 ?Protecting	 ?Victims	 ?from	 ?Sex	 ?Offenders	 ?Act,	 ?3rd	 ?Sess,	 ?40th	 ?Parl,	 ?2010,	 ?SC	 ?2010,	 ?c	 ?17.	 ?368	 ?Janine	 ?Benedet,	 ??A	 ?Victim-??Centred	 ?Evaluation	 ?of	 ?the	 ?Federal	 ?Sex	 ?Offender	 ?Registry?	 ?(2012)	 ?37:2	 ?Queen?s	 ?LJ	 ?437	 ?at	 ?440	 ?[?Registry?].	 ?	 ? 86	 ?acquaintances,	 ?were	 ?middle-??class	 ?or	 ?professionals,	 ?or	 ?were	 ?generally	 ?perceived	 ?to	 ?not	 ?be	 ??predatory.?369	 ?	 ?Discursive	 ?Analysis:	 ?Attributions	 ?in	 ?Judicial	 ?Constructions	 ?	 ?	 ? The	 ?sentencing	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?offenders	 ?has	 ?also	 ?attracted	 ?discursive	 ?analysis.	 ?As	 ?I	 ?discussed	 ?above,	 ?studies	 ?have	 ?looked	 ?at	 ?whether	 ?judicial	 ?language	 ?in	 ?trial	 ?decisions	 ?reflects	 ?stereotypes	 ?or	 ?biases.	 ?Similar	 ?studies	 ?have	 ?been	 ?conducted	 ?on	 ?sentencing	 ?decisions,	 ?assessing	 ?whether	 ?language	 ?choices	 ?are	 ?correlated	 ?with	 ?sentence	 ?outcome.	 ?	 ? Coates,	 ?often	 ?with	 ?her	 ?colleagues,	 ?has	 ?studied	 ?the	 ?language	 ?of	 ?judges	 ?and	 ?sentence	 ?length.	 ?In	 ?her	 ?1997	 ?study	 ?of	 ?B.C.	 ?sentencing	 ?decisions	 ?from	 ?1986	 ?to	 ?1994	 ?entitled	 ??Causal	 ?Attributions	 ?in	 ?Sexual	 ?Assault	 ?Trial	 ?Judgments?,	 ?Coates	 ?used	 ?an	 ?empirical	 ?methodology	 ?to	 ?correlate	 ?judicial	 ?language	 ?of	 ??causal	 ?attributions?	 ?to	 ?the	 ?length	 ?of	 ?sentences.370	 ?She	 ?discovered	 ?that	 ?judges	 ?often	 ?depicted	 ?the	 ?causes	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?offences	 ?as	 ?non-??violent,	 ?including	 ?psychological	 ?or	 ?sexual,	 ?decontextualized	 ?from	 ?offences,	 ?and	 ?arising	 ?from	 ?an	 ?external	 ?circumstance	 ?rather	 ?than	 ?something	 ?within	 ?the	 ?offender?s	 ?control.371	 ?She	 ?also	 ?found	 ?that	 ?nonviolent	 ?attributions,	 ?and	 ?all	 ?three	 ?attributions	 ?together,	 ?correlated	 ?with	 ?shorter	 ?sentences.372	 ?	 ?	 ? With	 ?Allan	 ?Wade,	 ?Coates	 ?elaborated	 ?on	 ?this	 ?topic	 ?in	 ?2004.	 ?In	 ?sexual	 ?assault	 ?trial	 ?and	 ?sentencing	 ?judgments	 ?from	 ?British	 ?Columbia	 ?and	 ?the	 ?Yukon	 ?from	 ?1986	 ?to	 ?1993,	 ?they	 ?found	 ?that	 ?judges	 ?described	 ?violence	 ?in	 ?mutual	 ?and	 ?erotic	 ?language	 ?and	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?369	 ?Ibid	 ?at	 ?449?462.	 ?370	 ?Linda	 ?Coates,	 ??Causal	 ?Attributions	 ?in	 ?Sexual	 ?Assault	 ?Trial	 ?Judgments?	 ?(1997)	 ?16	 ?Journal	 ?of	 ?Language	 ?and	 ?Social	 ?Psychology	 ?278	 ?at	 ?283?284.	 ?371	 ?Ibid	 ?at	 ?289.	 ?372	 ?Ibid	 ?at	 ?290?291,	 ?293.	 ?	 ? 87	 ?commonly	 ?attributed	 ?sexual	 ?offences	 ?to	 ??psychological	 ?theories	 ?and	 ?concepts?,	 ?most	 ?usually	 ?alcohol	 ?and	 ?drug	 ?addiction	 ?or	 ?sexual	 ?dissatisfaction	 ?and	 ?deviance.373	 ?These	 ?causal	 ?explanations	 ??were	 ?psychologizing	 ?attributions;	 ?that	 ?is,	 ?they	 ?functioned	 ?to	 ?conceal	 ?violence	 ?or	 ?reduce	 ?the	 ?offender?s	 ?responsibility.?374	 ?As	 ?a	 ?result,	 ?judges	 ?recommended	 ?offenders	 ?receive	 ?counselling	 ?for	 ?psychological	 ?issues	 ?other	 ?than	 ?their	 ?propensity	 ?to	 ?commit	 ?sexual	 ?violence.375	 ?E. Incomplete	 ?Knowledge	 ?	 ? In	 ?sexual	 ?offence	 ?law	 ?and	 ?sentencing,	 ?discriminatory	 ?myths	 ?have	 ?found	 ?their	 ?way	 ?into	 ?both	 ?legal	 ?doctrine	 ?and	 ?language.	 ?They	 ?can	 ?be	 ?seen	 ?in	 ?both	 ?the	 ?law	 ?as	 ?interpreted	 ?and	 ?applied	 ?and	 ?the	 ?narratives	 ?and	 ?attributions	 ?in	 ?judicial	 ?discourse.	 ?Feminist-??inspired	 ?reforms	 ?have	 ?eliminated	 ?rape	 ?myths	 ?in	 ?formal	 ?statements	 ?of	 ?the	 ?law;	 ?however,	 ?recent	 ?scholarship	 ?has	 ?demonstrated	 ?that	 ?myths	 ?and	 ?discrimination	 ?continue	 ?within	 ?the	 ?law?s	 ?application.	 ?	 ? Although	 ?a	 ?significant	 ?amount	 ?of	 ?research	 ?has	 ?been	 ?conducted	 ?on	 ?sexual	 ?offender	 ?sentencing,	 ?the	 ?state	 ?of	 ?knowledge	 ?is	 ?incomplete.	 ?Specifically,	 ?no	 ?contemporary	 ?research	 ?has	 ?been	 ?conducted	 ?on	 ?B.C.	 ?sentencing	 ?decisions	 ?generally	 ?to	 ?determine	 ?if	 ?rape	 ?myths	 ?continue	 ?to	 ?surface.	 ?Most	 ?analyses	 ?focus	 ?on	 ?trial	 ?decisions,	 ?including	 ?procedural	 ?applications	 ?and	 ?acquittals/convictions.	 ?Although	 ?some	 ?scholars	 ?have	 ?looked	 ?at	 ?sentencing,	 ?including	 ?Du	 ?Mont,	 ?Coates,	 ?and	 ?their	 ?colleagues,	 ?their	 ?research	 ?is	 ?limited.	 ?The	 ?most	 ?comprehensive	 ?studies,	 ?looking	 ?at	 ?sentencing	 ?as	 ?a	 ?whole	 ?for	 ?the	 ?purpose	 ?of	 ?identifying	 ?myths,	 ?is	 ?dated,	 ?studying	 ?cases	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?373	 ?Coates	 ?&	 ?Wade,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?66	 ?at	 ?8?18.	 ?374	 ?Ibid	 ?at	 ?10.	 ?375	 ?Ibid	 ?at	 ?18.	 ?	 ? 88	 ?in	 ?the	 ?1970s,	 ?1980s	 ?and	 ?1990s,	 ?during	 ?the	 ?time	 ?Parliament	 ?was	 ?reforming	 ?the	 ?Criminal	 ?Code	 ?and	 ?the	 ?Supreme	 ?Court	 ?of	 ?Canada	 ?was	 ?actively	 ?interpreting	 ?and	 ?shaping	 ?reforms.	 ?These	 ?studies	 ?are	 ?also	 ?often	 ?limited	 ?jurisdictionally,	 ?with	 ?the	 ?most	 ?recent	 ?studies	 ?on	 ?case	 ?law	 ?in	 ?the	 ?later	 ?1990s	 ?to	 ?present	 ?addressing	 ?only	 ?Ontario	 ?cases	 ?or	 ?confined	 ?to	 ?particular	 ?aspects	 ?of	 ?sentencing	 ?or	 ?sentence	 ?outcomes.	 ?The	 ?existing	 ?literature	 ?is	 ?illuminating	 ?about	 ?the	 ?use	 ?of	 ?myths	 ?in	 ?sentencing,	 ?but	 ?it	 ?is	 ?far	 ?from	 ?comprehensive.	 ?	 ? I	 ?will	 ?build	 ?on	 ?the	 ?existing	 ?knowledge	 ?that	 ?suggests	 ?that	 ?discriminatory	 ?myths	 ?continue	 ?to	 ?be	 ?used	 ?in	 ?sentencing	 ?to	 ?contribute	 ?to	 ?the	 ?scholarship	 ?in	 ?a	 ?critical	 ?area	 ?of	 ?feminist	 ?concern.	 ?In	 ?2011,	 ?Balfour	 ?and	 ?Du	 ?Mont	 ?called	 ?on	 ?feminist	 ?researchers	 ?to	 ?further	 ?study	 ?the	 ?use	 ?of	 ?rape	 ?myths	 ?in	 ?sentencing,	 ?to	 ?ensure	 ?that	 ?feminist	 ?scholars	 ?participate	 ?in	 ?shaping	 ?the	 ?meaning	 ?of	 ??harm	 ?and	 ?reparation.?376	 ?My	 ?ability	 ?to	 ?meet	 ?Balfour	 ?and	 ?Du	 ?Mont?s	 ?challenge	 ?is	 ?necessarily	 ?limited:	 ?I	 ?cannot	 ?study	 ?all	 ?aspects	 ?of	 ?sentencing	 ?in	 ?this	 ?thesis.	 ?Methodology	 ?is	 ?dictated	 ?in	 ?part	 ?by	 ?the	 ?distinct	 ?objectives	 ?of	 ?each	 ?study,	 ?to	 ?which	 ?I	 ?now	 ?turn.	 ?	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?376	 ?Balfour	 ?&	 ?Du	 ?Mont,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?179	 ?at	 ?724.	 ?	 ? 89	 ?	 ?III.	 ?Conceptual	 ?Approach	 ?and	 ?Methodology	 ?	 ? I	 ?devote	 ?this	 ?chapter	 ?to	 ?explaining	 ?my	 ?methodology.	 ?To	 ?determine	 ?whether	 ?myths	 ?inform	 ?current	 ?B.C.	 ?sexual	 ?assault	 ?sentencing	 ?decisions,	 ?I	 ?take	 ?a	 ?feminist	 ?approach.	 ?My	 ?approach	 ?is	 ?grounded	 ?in	 ?feminist	 ?theory	 ?that	 ?identifies	 ?the	 ?role	 ?law	 ?and	 ?legal	 ?discourse	 ?have	 ?in	 ?creating	 ?and	 ?reproducing	 ?mythologies	 ?about	 ?gender,	 ?sexuality,	 ?and	 ?ultimately,	 ?sexual	 ?violence.	 ?I	 ?analyze	 ?a	 ?sample	 ?of	 ?recent	 ?cases	 ?from	 ?B.C.	 ?sexual	 ?offender	 ?sentencing	 ?decisions	 ?to	 ?see	 ?how	 ?sentencing	 ?judgments	 ?may	 ?reflect	 ?or	 ?perpetuate	 ?discriminatory	 ?ideas,	 ?and	 ?in	 ?particular	 ?whether	 ?judges	 ?blur	 ?the	 ?line	 ?between	 ?sexual	 ?violence	 ?and	 ?consensual	 ?sex.	 ?I	 ?ascertain	 ?the	 ?presence	 ?of	 ?prejudicial	 ?assumptions	 ?or	 ?beliefs	 ?within	 ?legal	 ?doctrine,	 ?including	 ?judicial	 ?determinations	 ?of	 ?the	 ?admissibility	 ?and	 ?relevance	 ?of	 ?evidence,	 ?aggravating	 ?and	 ?mitigating	 ?factors,	 ?and	 ?sentencing	 ?objectives.	 ?This	 ?work	 ?can	 ?be	 ?understood	 ?as	 ?primarily	 ?doctrinal.	 ?I	 ?also	 ?conduct	 ?non-??doctrinal	 ?research	 ?that	 ?consists	 ?of	 ?feminist	 ?discourse	 ?analysis.	 ?Using	 ?this	 ?method,	 ?I	 ?examine	 ?the	 ?narrative	 ?judges	 ?tell	 ?about	 ?sexual	 ?assault	 ?to	 ?determine	 ?the	 ?presence	 ?of	 ?sexist	 ?assumptions	 ?including	 ?the	 ?use	 ?of	 ?rape	 ?myths.	 ?Although	 ?these	 ?two	 ?approaches	 ?overlap	 ?in	 ?many	 ?ways,	 ?thinking	 ?about	 ?them	 ?as	 ?distinct	 ?has	 ?helped	 ?me	 ?structure	 ?my	 ?methodology.	 ?	 ?	 ?A. Conceptual	 ?Framework	 ?	 ? My	 ?framework	 ?draws	 ?on	 ?a	 ?feminist	 ?approach	 ?to	 ?sexual	 ?violence.	 ?I	 ?also	 ?understand	 ?legal	 ?discourse	 ?as	 ?shaping	 ?the	 ?perceived	 ?reality	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?assault	 ?and	 ?reproducing	 ?or	 ?creating	 ?discrimination.	 ?Although	 ?I	 ?have	 ?mentioned	 ?these	 ?	 ? 90	 ?conceptualizations	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?violence	 ?and	 ?discourse	 ?already,	 ?I	 ?now	 ?discuss	 ?them	 ?in	 ?more	 ?depth,	 ?to	 ?frame	 ?my	 ?approach.	 ?A	 ?Feminist	 ?Approach	 ?to	 ?Sexual	 ?Violence	 ?	 ? Taking	 ?a	 ?feminist	 ?approach,	 ?I	 ?understand	 ?sexual	 ?violence	 ?as	 ?an	 ?expression	 ?of	 ?systemic	 ?gender	 ?inequality.	 ?This	 ?approach	 ?sees	 ?the	 ?basis	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?violence	 ?as	 ?not	 ?grounded	 ?in	 ?biology	 ?but	 ?based	 ?on	 ?the	 ?social	 ?construction	 ?of	 ?gender	 ?within	 ?a	 ?particular	 ?cultural	 ?and	 ?historical	 ?context.377	 ?I	 ?adopt	 ?MacKinnon?s	 ?conception	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?violence	 ?as	 ?acts	 ?of	 ??sex	 ?inequality?378	 ?enabled	 ?by	 ?the	 ??erotization	 ?of	 ?subordination	 ?and	 ?dominance?	 ?of	 ?women	 ?based	 ?on	 ?cultural	 ?norms	 ?of	 ?femininity	 ?and	 ?masculinity379	 ?and	 ?by	 ?institutions	 ?that	 ?oppress	 ?women	 ?and	 ?ignore	 ?violence	 ?against	 ?them.380	 ?	 ? Although	 ?women	 ?are	 ?the	 ?primary	 ?targets	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?violence,	 ?their	 ?experiences	 ?are	 ?not	 ?universal.	 ?Aboriginality,	 ?race,	 ?class,	 ?sexual	 ?orientation,	 ?physical	 ?and	 ?mental	 ?ability,	 ?and	 ?involvement	 ?in	 ?prostitution	 ?are	 ?circumstances	 ?that	 ?make	 ?women	 ?more	 ?vulnerable	 ?to	 ?and	 ?shape	 ?their	 ?experiences	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?violence.381	 ?They	 ?also	 ?affect	 ?their	 ?experiences	 ?of	 ?the	 ?criminal	 ?justice	 ?system	 ?in	 ?the	 ?discrimination	 ?they	 ?face	 ?from	 ?myths	 ?designating	 ?them	 ?as	 ?less	 ?credible	 ?or	 ?the	 ?harms	 ?against	 ?them	 ?less	 ?opprobrious.382	 ?Because	 ?inequalities	 ?are	 ?related	 ?to	 ?and	 ?reinforce	 ?one	 ?another,	 ?they	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?377	 ?MacKinnon,	 ??Dominance?,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?171	 ?at	 ?37?40.	 ?378	 ?MacKinnon,	 ??Equality	 ?Approach?,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?52	 ?at	 ?267.	 ?379	 ?Ibid	 ?at	 ?265.	 ?380	 ?McIntyre,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?23	 ?at	 ?78?79;	 ?See	 ?e.g.	 ?Backhouse,	 ?Carnal	 ?Crimes,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?38;	 ?Boyle,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?62.	 ?381	 ?Kimberle	 ?Crenshaw,	 ??Race,	 ?Gender,	 ?and	 ?Sexual	 ?Harassment?	 ?(1991)	 ?65	 ?S	 ?Cal	 ?L	 ?Rev	 ?1467	 ?at	 ?1468.	 ?382	 ?McIntyre,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?23	 ?at	 ?78;	 ?See	 ?e.g.	 ?Benedet	 ?&	 ?Grant,	 ??Consent?,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?211	 ?at	 ?251?253;	 ?Backhouse,	 ?Carnal	 ?Crimes,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?38;	 ?Crenshaw,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?381	 ?at	 ?1469?1472;	 ?Razack,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?7;	 ?Ruparelia,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?40	 ?at	 ?672?687,	 ?689?692.	 ?	 ? 91	 ?cannot	 ?be	 ?considered	 ?in	 ?isolation	 ?from	 ?one	 ?another;383	 ?therefore,	 ?an	 ?intersectional	 ?approach	 ?is	 ?necessary	 ?to	 ?ensure	 ?that	 ?all	 ?women?s	 ?experiences	 ?are	 ?considered.384	 ?	 ?	 ? Although	 ?sexual	 ?violence	 ?has	 ?a	 ?fundamentally	 ?gendered	 ?character,	 ?it	 ?does	 ?not	 ?follow	 ?that	 ?sexual	 ?assault	 ?against	 ?men	 ?and	 ?children	 ?holds	 ?no	 ?interest	 ?for	 ?feminist	 ?analysis.	 ?Gender	 ?norms	 ?dictate	 ?roles	 ?for	 ?men	 ?and	 ?children	 ?as	 ?well	 ?as	 ?women.	 ?Male	 ?gender	 ?norms	 ?come	 ?to	 ?the	 ?fore	 ?in	 ?homophobia,	 ?since,	 ?as	 ?stated	 ?by	 ?Trina	 ?Grillo,	 ??[h]omophobia	 ?enforces	 ?sexism	 ?by	 ?making	 ?people	 ?pay	 ?a	 ?heavy	 ?price	 ?for	 ?departing	 ?from	 ?socialized	 ?gender	 ?roles.?385	 ?Therefore,	 ?cases	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?violence	 ?against	 ?men	 ?and	 ?boys,	 ?although	 ?less	 ?common,	 ?can	 ?also	 ?reveal	 ?discriminatory	 ?notions	 ?about	 ?gender	 ?and	 ?sexuality.386	 ?As	 ?well,	 ?sexual	 ?offences	 ?against	 ?children,	 ?even	 ?young	 ?children,	 ?have	 ?the	 ?potential	 ?to	 ?reflect	 ?rape	 ?myths	 ?about	 ?sexual	 ?assault.387	 ?The	 ?Law	 ?as	 ?Discourse:	 ?A	 ?Powerful	 ?Voice	 ?Discourse	 ?and	 ?the	 ?Law	 ?	 ? Michel	 ?Foucault?s	 ?concept	 ?of	 ??discourse?	 ?expresses	 ?the	 ?idea	 ?that	 ?our	 ?perception	 ?of	 ?reality	 ?is	 ??mediated	 ?through	 ?language.?388	 ?Discourse	 ?denotes	 ?language	 ?situated	 ?within	 ?a	 ?cultural,	 ?historical,	 ?and	 ?institutional	 ?context,	 ?contexts	 ?that	 ?provide	 ??frameworks	 ?which	 ?structure	 ?what	 ?can	 ?be	 ?experienced	 ?or	 ?the	 ?meaning	 ?that	 ?experience	 ?can	 ?encompass,	 ?and	 ?thereby	 ?influence	 ?what	 ?can	 ?be	 ?said,	 ?thought	 ?and	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?383	 ?Grillo,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?169	 ?at	 ?17?21,	 ?27.	 ?384	 ?Crenshaw,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?381	 ?at	 ?1474?1475.	 ?385	 ?Grillo,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?169	 ?at	 ?27.	 ?386	 ?See	 ?generally	 ?Caroline	 ?Ramazanoglu	 ?&	 ?Janet	 ?Holland,	 ?Feminist	 ?Methodology:	 ?Challenges	 ?and	 ?Choices	 ?(London:	 ?Sage,	 ?2002)	 ?at	 ?147.	 ?387	 ?See	 ?e.g.	 ??Exactly	 ?what	 ?the	 ?judge	 ?said	 ?to	 ?the	 ?convicted	 ?sex	 ?offender?,	 ?The	 ?Vancouver	 ?Sun	 ?(1	 ?December	 ?1989)	 ?A17	 ?[in	 ?an	 ?unreported	 ?sentencing	 ?hearing	 ?in	 ?1989,	 ?the	 ?judge	 ?characterized	 ?the	 ?three-??year	 ?old	 ?survivor	 ?as	 ??sexually	 ?aggressive?].	 ?388	 ?Alan	 ?Hunt,	 ?Foucault	 ?and	 ?Law:	 ?Towards	 ?a	 ?Sociology	 ?of	 ?Law	 ?as	 ?Governance	 ?(London:	 ?Pluto	 ?Press,	 ?1994)	 ?at	 ?7.	 ?	 ? 92	 ?done.?389	 ?Discourse	 ?in	 ?institutional	 ?contexts	 ?is	 ?powerful	 ?because	 ?it	 ?presents	 ?a	 ?situated	 ?and	 ?contingent	 ?truth	 ?as	 ?a	 ?universal	 ?truth,	 ?to	 ?become	 ?accepted	 ?as	 ?fact	 ?or	 ?commonsense	 ?within	 ?society.390	 ?Discourse	 ?therefore	 ?works	 ?to	 ?dictate	 ?social	 ?norms,	 ?including	 ?standards	 ?of	 ?expected	 ?behaviour	 ?and	 ?behaviour	 ?requiring	 ?sanction	 ?or	 ?deterrence.391	 ?	 ?	 ? Law	 ?is	 ?discourse.392	 ?Law	 ?is	 ?produced	 ?and	 ?disseminated	 ?through	 ?specialized	 ?institutional	 ?language:	 ?legal	 ?knowledge	 ?can	 ?be	 ?understood	 ?as	 ??embodied,	 ?habituated	 ?expertise	 ?in	 ?legal	 ?discourse.?393	 ?Like	 ?other	 ?forms	 ?of	 ?discourse,	 ?legal	 ?discourse	 ?governs	 ?who	 ?speaks,	 ?what	 ?is	 ?said,	 ?what	 ?amounts	 ?to	 ?knowledge,	 ?and	 ?the	 ?meaning	 ?of	 ?words.	 ?Within	 ?these	 ?power	 ?structures,	 ?courts	 ?adjudicate	 ?the	 ?legal	 ??truth?,394	 ?creating	 ?a	 ?version	 ?of	 ?what	 ?occurred	 ?between	 ?the	 ?parties.395	 ?Legal	 ?institutions	 ?then	 ?enforce	 ?the	 ??truth?	 ?through	 ?sanctions	 ?or	 ?orders.	 ?As	 ?a	 ?result,	 ?legal	 ?discourse	 ?influences	 ?cultural	 ?norms.396	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ? Although	 ?presented	 ?as	 ?a	 ?universal,	 ?neutral	 ?truth,	 ?the	 ?law	 ?is	 ?situated	 ?and	 ?partial.	 ?It	 ?often	 ?reflects	 ?dominant	 ?cultural	 ?assumptions	 ?and	 ?biases.	 ?As	 ?Coates	 ?and	 ?Wade	 ?suggest,	 ?because	 ?of	 ?its	 ?pervasive	 ?and	 ?invisible	 ?power	 ?in	 ?shaping	 ?perceptions	 ?of	 ?reality,	 ?intention	 ?is	 ?not	 ?necessary	 ?to	 ?reproduce	 ?discrimination	 ?through	 ?discourse:	 ?	 ?Our	 ?view	 ?is	 ?that	 ?it	 ?is	 ?not	 ?essential	 ?to	 ?take	 ?up	 ?an	 ?ideological	 ?position	 ?to	 ?produce	 ?and	 ?reproduce	 ?social	 ?injustices.	 ?The	 ?simple	 ?act	 ?of	 ?participating	 ?in	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?389	 ?Ibid	 ?at	 ?8.	 ?390	 ?Smart,	 ?Feminism,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?29	 ?at	 ?9.	 ?391	 ?Ramazanoglu	 ?&	 ?Holland,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?386	 ?at	 ?87?88.	 ?392	 ?Coates,	 ?Beavin	 ?Bavelas	 ?&	 ?Gibson,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?64	 ?at	 ?189.	 ?393	 ?Pether,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?64	 ?at	 ?62.	 ?394	 ?Smart,	 ?Feminism,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?29	 ?at	 ?11.	 ?395	 ?Coates,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?370	 ?at	 ?281.	 ?396	 ?Ehrlich,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?29	 ?at	 ?18?19.	 ?	 ? 93	 ?everyday,	 ?taken-??for-??granted	 ?discursive	 ?practices,	 ?such	 ?as	 ?those	 ?we	 ?have	 ?documented	 ?here,	 ?directly	 ?and	 ?indirectly	 ?reproduces	 ?social	 ?injustices...397	 ?Absent	 ?malicious	 ?intent,	 ?judicial	 ?discourse	 ?can	 ?reproduce	 ?and	 ?construct	 ?discrimination	 ?because	 ?it	 ?comes	 ?from	 ?within	 ?an	 ?institution	 ?and	 ?a	 ?society	 ?with	 ?histories	 ?of	 ?inequality.	 ?Nor	 ?do	 ?judges	 ?construct	 ?a	 ?case	 ?in	 ?law	 ?and	 ?discourse	 ?alone:	 ?they	 ?are	 ?informed	 ?and	 ?rely	 ?on	 ?the	 ?discourse	 ?of	 ?existing	 ?case	 ?law,	 ?lawyers,	 ?and	 ?witnesses,	 ?also	 ?situated	 ?and	 ?partial.398	 ?Placing	 ?rape	 ?myths	 ?in	 ?the	 ?criminal	 ?justice	 ?system	 ?within	 ?greater	 ?society,	 ?L?Heureux-??Dub?	 ?J.	 ?reminded	 ?us,	 ??[t]his	 ?baggage	 ?belongs	 ?to	 ?us	 ?all.?399	 ?	 ? Legal	 ?discourse	 ?has	 ?reproduced	 ?and	 ?maintained	 ?gender	 ?inequality.	 ?Susan	 ?Ehrlich	 ?has	 ?described	 ?this	 ?inequality	 ?as	 ?the	 ??androcentric	 ?and	 ?sexist	 ?assumptions	 ?that	 ?typically	 ?masquerade	 ?as	 ??objective?	 ?truths?	 ?within	 ?the	 ?law.400	 ?Sexist	 ?assumptions	 ?find	 ?their	 ?way	 ?into	 ?sexual	 ?offence	 ?cases	 ?when	 ?judges	 ?rely	 ?on	 ?pervasive	 ?and	 ?discriminatory	 ?cultural	 ?norms	 ?about	 ?gender	 ?and	 ?sexuality	 ?to	 ?interpret	 ?and	 ?apply	 ?the	 ?law,401	 ?including	 ?the	 ?procedural	 ?rules,	 ?interpretations	 ?of	 ?consent,	 ?and	 ?requirements	 ?of	 ?forceful	 ?resistance	 ?grounded	 ?in	 ?the	 ?presumed	 ?low	 ?credibility	 ?of	 ?survivors,402	 ?and	 ?when	 ?judges	 ?construct	 ?narratives	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?violence	 ?that,	 ?for	 ?example,	 ?normalize	 ?or	 ?conceal	 ?coercion	 ?and	 ?violence.403	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?397	 ?Coates	 ?&	 ?Wade,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?66	 ?at	 ?26.	 ?398	 ?Coates,	 ?Beavin	 ?Bavelas	 ?&	 ?Gibson,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?64	 ?at	 ?189;	 ?For	 ?an	 ?in-??depth	 ?analysis	 ?on	 ?how	 ?a	 ?judge	 ?constructs	 ?an	 ?offence,	 ?infanticide,	 ?from	 ?a	 ?trial	 ?record	 ?in	 ?its	 ?institutional	 ?context	 ?from	 ?a	 ?feminist	 ?perspective,	 ?see	 ?generally:	 ?Emma	 ?Cunliffe,	 ??(This	 ?Is	 ?Not	 ?a)	 ?Story:	 ?Using	 ?Court	 ?Records	 ?to	 ?Explore	 ?Judicial	 ?Narratives	 ?in	 ?R	 ?v	 ?Kathleen	 ?Folbigg?	 ?(2007)	 ?27	 ?Austl	 ?Feminist	 ?LJ	 ?71.	 ?399	 ?R.	 ?v.	 ?Seaboyer,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?26	 ?at	 ?para	 ?153,	 ?L?Heureux-??Dub?	 ?J,	 ?dissenting	 ?[emphasis	 ?in	 ?original].	 ?400	 ?Ehrlich,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?29	 ?at	 ?9.	 ?401	 ?Pether,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?64	 ?at	 ?54?55,	 ?67?68.	 ?402	 ?See	 ?Chapter	 ?II.	 ?403	 ?See	 ?e.g.	 ?Coates	 ?&	 ?Wade,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?66	 ?at	 ?7;	 ?Pether,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?64	 ?at	 ?79?86.	 ?	 ? 94	 ?	 ? Carol	 ?Smart	 ?has	 ?examined	 ?how	 ?legal	 ?discourse	 ?constructs	 ?gender	 ?identities,	 ?in	 ?being	 ?both	 ??gendered?	 ?and	 ??a	 ?gendering	 ?strategy.?404	 ?According	 ?to	 ?Smart,	 ?legal	 ?discourse	 ?creates	 ?gender	 ?identities	 ?by	 ?distinguishing	 ?and	 ?dichotomizing	 ?abstract	 ?ideas	 ?of	 ?woman	 ?from	 ?man,	 ?as	 ?well	 ?as	 ?certain	 ?women,	 ?like	 ??bad	 ?mothers?,	 ?from	 ?other	 ?women.405	 ?Law	 ?then	 ?coaxes	 ?women	 ?into	 ?the	 ?identities	 ?legal	 ?discourse	 ?has	 ?created.406	 ?In	 ?time,	 ?these	 ?gendered	 ?identities	 ?or	 ?norms	 ?become	 ??self-??evident	 ?and	 ?matters	 ?of	 ?common	 ?sense.?407	 ?	 ?	 ? The	 ?power	 ?of	 ?law	 ?to	 ?reproduce	 ?and	 ?create	 ?gendered	 ?identities	 ?is	 ?within	 ?both	 ?legal	 ?doctrine	 ?and	 ?narrative.	 ?Judges	 ?extend	 ?the	 ?law?s	 ?power	 ?beyond	 ?laws	 ?and	 ?legal	 ?interpretation	 ?to	 ?encompass	 ?cultural	 ?knowledge	 ?by	 ?relying	 ?on	 ?legal	 ?discourse:	 ?as	 ?Smart	 ?noted,	 ??the	 ?judge	 ?does	 ?not	 ?remove	 ?his	 ?wig	 ?when	 ?he	 ?passes	 ?comment	 ?on,	 ?for	 ?example,	 ?issues	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?morality	 ?in	 ?rape	 ?cases.	 ?He	 ?retains	 ?the	 ?authority	 ?drawn	 ?from	 ?legal	 ?scholarship	 ?and	 ?the	 ??truth?	 ?of	 ?law,	 ?but	 ?he	 ?applies	 ?it	 ?to	 ?non-??legal	 ?issues.?408	 ?Similarly,	 ?Ehrlich	 ?identifies	 ?the	 ?duality	 ?of	 ?law?s	 ?power	 ?in	 ?both	 ??the	 ?enactment	 ?of	 ?rules	 ?and	 ?the	 ?imposition	 ?of	 ?punishments?	 ?and	 ??the	 ?capacity	 ?to	 ?impose	 ?and	 ?affirm	 ?culturally	 ?powerful	 ?definitions	 ?of	 ?social	 ?reality.?409	 ?Therefore,	 ?legal	 ?doctrine	 ?and	 ?legal	 ?narrative	 ?are	 ?two	 ?important	 ?sites	 ?for	 ?feminist	 ?legal	 ?research.410	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?404	 ?Carol	 ?Smart,	 ??The	 ?Woman	 ?of	 ?Legal	 ?Discourse?	 ?(1992)	 ?1:1	 ?Soc	 ?&	 ?Leg	 ?Stud	 ?29	 ?at	 ?30.	 ?405	 ?Ibid	 ?at	 ?34?39.	 ?406	 ?Ibid	 ?at	 ?37.	 ?407	 ?Ibid	 ?at	 ?39.	 ?408	 ?Smart,	 ?Feminism,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?29	 ?at	 ?13.	 ?409	 ?Ehrlich,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?29	 ?at	 ?18.	 ?410	 ?Ibid	 ?at	 ?19.	 ?	 ? 95	 ?Sentencing	 ?Decisions	 ?as	 ?a	 ?Source	 ?of	 ?Legal	 ?Discourse	 ?	 ? Sentencing	 ?decisions,	 ?like	 ?trial	 ?judgments,	 ?are	 ?important	 ?sources	 ?of	 ?legal	 ?discourse.	 ?Each	 ?decision	 ?is	 ?an	 ?expression	 ?of	 ?judicial	 ?interpretation	 ?of	 ?the	 ?law	 ?at	 ?the	 ?time	 ?of	 ?the	 ?decision,411	 ?as	 ?well	 ?as	 ?a	 ?construction	 ?of	 ?what	 ?occurred,	 ?the	 ?facts.412	 ?	 ?	 ? Given	 ?the	 ?precedential	 ?nature	 ?of	 ?sentencing,	 ?written	 ?sentencing	 ?decisions	 ?have	 ?significant	 ?value	 ?in	 ?common	 ?law	 ?systems.	 ?Although	 ?judges	 ?have	 ?discretion	 ?to	 ?determine	 ?fit	 ?sentences	 ?within	 ?a	 ?range	 ?of	 ?possibilities,413	 ?sentencing	 ?is	 ?precedent	 ?driven	 ?to	 ?promote	 ?parity	 ?among	 ?cases.414	 ?By	 ?analogizing	 ?to	 ?past	 ?cases,	 ?lawyers	 ?and	 ?judges	 ?rely	 ?on	 ?written	 ?sentencing	 ?decisions	 ?to	 ?craft	 ?sentences	 ?for	 ?similar	 ?offences	 ?and	 ?similar	 ?offenders.415	 ?Sentencing	 ?decisions	 ?therefore	 ?guide	 ?future	 ?dispositions	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?assault	 ?cases,	 ?together	 ?constituting	 ?the	 ?body	 ?of	 ?case	 ?law	 ?on	 ?sexual	 ?offender	 ?sentencing	 ?as	 ?well	 ?as	 ?representing	 ?an	 ?important	 ?source	 ?of	 ?legal	 ?discourse	 ?on	 ?sexual	 ?violence.416	 ?For	 ?this	 ?reason,	 ?sentencing	 ?is	 ?also	 ?a	 ?site	 ?likely	 ?to	 ?reproduce	 ?rape	 ?myths	 ?from	 ?the	 ?past	 ?into	 ?the	 ?future.	 ?	 ? Within	 ?sentencing	 ?decisions,	 ?judges	 ?interpret	 ?and	 ?apply	 ?the	 ?law	 ?in	 ?a	 ?number	 ?of	 ?ways,	 ?all	 ?of	 ?which	 ?may	 ?rely	 ?on	 ?myths	 ?about	 ?sexual	 ?assault.	 ?Judges	 ?interpret	 ?and	 ?apply	 ?procedural	 ?law,	 ?including	 ?what	 ?evidence	 ?is	 ?considered	 ?relevant	 ?and	 ?relied	 ?upon,	 ?as	 ?well	 ?as	 ?the	 ?substantive	 ?law	 ?of	 ?sentencing,	 ?determining	 ?what	 ?constitutes	 ?aggravating	 ?and	 ?mitigating	 ?factors	 ?and	 ?what	 ?principles	 ?of	 ?sentencing	 ?are	 ?paramount	 ?in	 ?each	 ?case,	 ?based	 ?on	 ?the	 ?offender,	 ?offence,	 ?and	 ?impact	 ?on	 ?the	 ?survivor.	 ?These	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?411	 ?Coates,	 ?Beavin	 ?Bavelas	 ?&	 ?Gibson,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?64	 ?at	 ?189.	 ?412	 ?Coates	 ?&	 ?Wade,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?66	 ?at	 ?4,	 ?7;	 ?Coates,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?370	 ?at	 ?281;	 ?Du	 ?Mont,	 ?Forte	 ?&	 ?Badgley,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?359	 ?at	 ?485?486.	 ?413	 ?Manson,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?274	 ?at	 ?57?61,	 ?80?81.	 ?414	 ?Ibid	 ?at	 ?92.	 ?415	 ?Ibid	 ?at	 ?94;	 ?Du	 ?Mont,	 ?Forte	 ?&	 ?Badgley,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?359	 ?at	 ?486.	 ?416	 ?Coates,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?370	 ?at	 ?281;	 ?Du	 ?Mont,	 ?Forte	 ?&	 ?Badgley,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?359	 ?at	 ?494?495.	 ?	 ? 96	 ?features	 ?are	 ?also	 ?present,	 ?in	 ?modified	 ?ways,	 ?in	 ?appellate	 ?judgments.417	 ?Studying	 ?these	 ?aspects	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?offender	 ?sentencing	 ?cases	 ?will	 ?allow	 ?me	 ?to	 ?assess	 ?whether	 ?they	 ?foster	 ?inequality	 ?within	 ?the	 ?law.	 ?	 ? Sentencing	 ?decisions	 ?also	 ?contain	 ?narratives	 ?about	 ?sexual	 ?violence	 ?that	 ?form	 ?the	 ?factual	 ?basis	 ?for	 ?sentencing.	 ?Within	 ?narratives,	 ?discriminatory	 ?ideas	 ?may	 ?be	 ?expressed	 ?through	 ?stereotypical	 ?images	 ?and	 ?norms	 ?as	 ?well	 ?as	 ?word	 ?choice	 ?and	 ?grammatical	 ?constructions.	 ?Judicial	 ?language	 ?can	 ?subtly	 ?convey	 ?ideas	 ?about	 ?the	 ?nature	 ?of	 ?offences,	 ?responsibility,	 ?and	 ?harm:	 ?	 ?Accounts	 ?are	 ?not	 ?objective	 ?or	 ?impartial	 ?reflections	 ?of	 ?events;	 ?rather,	 ?they	 ?must	 ?be	 ?treated	 ?as	 ?representations	 ?of	 ?events	 ?that	 ?vary	 ?in	 ?accuracy.	 ?Such	 ?fundamental	 ?constructs	 ?as	 ?the	 ?nature	 ?of	 ?the	 ?events	 ?(e.g.	 ?violent	 ?versus	 ?sexual),	 ?the	 ?cause	 ?of	 ?events	 ?(e.g.	 ?deliberate	 ?verses	 ?accidental),	 ?the	 ?character	 ?of	 ?the	 ?offender	 ?(e.g.	 ?good	 ?versus	 ?bad),	 ?and	 ?the	 ?character	 ?of	 ?the	 ?victim	 ?(e.g.	 ?passive	 ?versus	 ?active)	 ?are	 ?constructed	 ?within	 ?the	 ?account	 ?of	 ?the	 ?crime.418	 ?	 ?Judicial	 ?narratives	 ?are	 ?part	 ?of	 ?legal	 ?discourse,	 ?and	 ?so	 ?like	 ?interpretations	 ?and	 ?applications	 ?of	 ?the	 ?law,	 ?are	 ?partial	 ?and	 ?situated	 ?expressions	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?violence	 ?that	 ?can	 ?promote	 ?inequality	 ?by	 ?depicting	 ?sexual	 ?offences	 ?in	 ?discriminatory	 ?ways.	 ?B. Methodology	 ?	 ? Relying	 ?on	 ?these	 ?conceptualizations	 ?of	 ?legal	 ?discourse,	 ?I	 ?have	 ?constructed	 ?a	 ?methodology	 ?that	 ?includes	 ?two	 ?frameworks	 ?for	 ?analysis.	 ?To	 ?interrogate	 ?legal	 ?discourse	 ?in	 ?sentencing	 ?decisions	 ?for	 ?rape	 ?myths	 ?about	 ?the	 ?credibility	 ?and	 ?blame	 ?of	 ?survivors,	 ?the	 ?blameworthiness	 ?of	 ?offenders,	 ?and	 ?other	 ?notions	 ?of	 ?what	 ?sexual	 ?assault	 ?is	 ?and	 ?is	 ?not,	 ?I	 ?examine	 ?both	 ?legal	 ?doctrine	 ?and	 ?narrative.	 ?Although	 ?these	 ?categories	 ?overlap	 ?when	 ?law	 ?and	 ?narrative	 ?are	 ?woven	 ?together,	 ?this	 ?division	 ?helps	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?417	 ?See	 ?generally	 ?Chapter	 ?II.	 ?418	 ?Coates	 ?&	 ?Wade,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?66	 ?at	 ?7.	 ?	 ? 97	 ?me	 ?to	 ?identify	 ?my	 ?two	 ?purposes	 ?in	 ?reading	 ?the	 ?cases:	 ?as	 ?a	 ?source	 ?of	 ?law	 ?and	 ?as	 ?a	 ?source	 ?of	 ?judicial	 ?narrative.	 ?I	 ?therefore	 ?follow	 ?both	 ?doctrinal	 ?and	 ?non-??doctrinal	 ?research	 ?methods.	 ?Doctrinal:	 ?An	 ?Expansive	 ?Approach	 ?	 ? My	 ?doctrinal	 ?method	 ?analyzes	 ?the	 ?cases	 ?as	 ?a	 ?source	 ?of	 ?law.	 ?The	 ?purpose	 ?of	 ?this	 ?method	 ?is	 ??to	 ?describe	 ?a	 ?body	 ?of	 ?law	 ?and	 ?how	 ?it	 ?applies?,	 ?including	 ?the	 ?development	 ??of	 ?judicial	 ?reasoning?.419	 ?In	 ?particular,	 ?I	 ?examine	 ?two	 ?doctrinal	 ?aspects	 ?of	 ?sentencing	 ?within	 ?the	 ?cases:	 ?procedural	 ?law,	 ?including	 ?the	 ?evidence	 ?admitted,	 ?considered	 ?relevant,	 ?and	 ?relied	 ?upon;	 ?and	 ?substantive	 ?law,	 ?including	 ?aggravating	 ?and	 ?mitigating	 ?factors	 ?and	 ?sentencing	 ?principles.	 ?	 ? My	 ?doctrinal	 ?methodology	 ?is	 ?qualitative:	 ?it	 ?is	 ?a	 ?subjective	 ?task	 ?that	 ?requires	 ?synthesis,	 ?interpretation	 ?and	 ?contextual	 ?analysis.420	 ?I	 ?primarily	 ?rely	 ?on	 ?inductive	 ?reasoning,	 ?a	 ?doctrinal	 ?tool	 ?that	 ?works	 ?from	 ?the	 ?level	 ?of	 ?individual	 ?cases	 ?to	 ?identify	 ?principles	 ?and	 ?themes	 ?among	 ?them.421	 ?	 ?	 ? I	 ?take	 ?an	 ?expansive	 ?approach	 ?to	 ?my	 ?doctrinal	 ?method.	 ?Unlike	 ?traditional	 ?doctrinal	 ?research,	 ?I	 ?do	 ?not	 ?focus	 ?on	 ?finding	 ?a	 ?statement	 ?of	 ?the	 ?law;	 ?rather,	 ?I	 ?am	 ?interested	 ?in	 ?the	 ?law	 ?as	 ?it	 ?is	 ?interpreted	 ?and	 ?applied	 ?by	 ?judges,	 ?regardless	 ?of	 ?stare	 ?decisis	 ?and	 ?precedent.	 ?Although	 ?I	 ?am	 ?cognizant	 ?of	 ?the	 ?important	 ?distinctions	 ?between	 ?the	 ?institutional	 ?roles	 ?of	 ?appellate	 ?and	 ?trial	 ?courts,422	 ?my	 ?project	 ?seeks	 ?to	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?419	 ?Ian	 ?Dobinson	 ?&	 ?Francis	 ?Johns,	 ??Qualitative	 ?Legal	 ?Research?	 ?in	 ?Mike	 ?McConville	 ?&	 ?Wing	 ?Hong	 ?Chui,	 ?eds,	 ?Research	 ?Methods	 ?for	 ?Law	 ?(Edinburgh:	 ?Edinburgh	 ?University	 ?Press,	 ?2007)	 ?16	 ?at	 ?19.	 ?420	 ?Terry	 ?Hutchinson	 ?&	 ?Nigel	 ?Duncan,	 ??Defining	 ?and	 ?Describing	 ?What	 ?We	 ?Do:	 ?Doctrinal	 ?Legal	 ?Research?	 ?(2012)	 ?17	 ?Deakin	 ?Law	 ?Review	 ?83	 ?at	 ?116.	 ?421	 ?Ibid	 ?at	 ?111;	 ?Dobinson	 ?&	 ?Johns,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?419	 ?at	 ?21	 ?&	 ?32.	 ?422	 ?Stephen	 ?Robertson,	 ??What?s	 ?Law	 ?Got	 ?to	 ?Do	 ?with	 ?It?	 ?Legal	 ?Records	 ?and	 ?Sexual	 ?Histories?	 ?(2005)	 ?14:1	 ?Journal	 ?of	 ?the	 ?History	 ?of	 ?Sexuality	 ?161	 ?at	 ?173.	 ?	 ? 98	 ?provide	 ?illumination	 ?on	 ?the	 ?law	 ?as	 ?both	 ?apply	 ?it;	 ?therefore,	 ?I	 ?have	 ?analyzed	 ?trial	 ?and	 ?appellate	 ?decisions	 ?alike.	 ?	 ?	 ? According	 ?to	 ?Gotell,	 ?who	 ?has	 ?used	 ?a	 ?similar	 ?methodology,	 ?moving	 ?away	 ?from	 ?rigid	 ?conceptions	 ?of	 ?doctrinal	 ?analysis	 ?can	 ?enable	 ?researchers	 ?to	 ?better	 ?understand	 ?the	 ?law.	 ?Because	 ?each	 ?written	 ?decision	 ?is	 ?an	 ?expression	 ?of	 ?judicial	 ?interpretation	 ?of	 ?the	 ?law	 ?at	 ?the	 ?time	 ?of	 ?the	 ?decision,423	 ?an	 ?analysis	 ?of	 ?a	 ?group	 ?of	 ?cases	 ?can	 ?reveal	 ?how	 ?one	 ?aspect	 ?of	 ?the	 ?law	 ?is	 ?being	 ?interpreted	 ?and	 ?applied.424	 ?A	 ?similar	 ?methodology	 ?allows	 ?me	 ?to	 ?assess	 ?whether	 ?mythologies	 ?about	 ?sexual	 ?violence	 ?inform	 ?judicial	 ?interpretation	 ?of	 ?legal	 ?doctrine	 ?within	 ?sentencing	 ?and	 ?appellate	 ?decisions.	 ?	 ? The	 ?framework	 ?for	 ?my	 ?doctrinal	 ?analysis	 ?is	 ?informed	 ?by	 ?feminist	 ?theories	 ?of	 ?legal	 ?discourse	 ?and	 ?will	 ?be	 ?based	 ?on	 ?feminist	 ?legal	 ?methods.	 ?In	 ?particular,	 ?to	 ?interrogate	 ?the	 ?statements	 ?of	 ?legal	 ?doctrine	 ?in	 ?sentencing	 ?cases	 ?for	 ?rape	 ?myths,	 ?I	 ?rely	 ?on	 ?two	 ?of	 ?the	 ?feminist	 ?legal	 ?methods	 ?described	 ?by	 ?Katharine	 ?T.	 ?Bartlett:	 ?asking	 ??the	 ?woman	 ?question?	 ?and	 ?feminist	 ?practical	 ?reasoning.	 ?These	 ?methods	 ?direct	 ?me	 ?to	 ?interrogate	 ?legal	 ?doctrine?s	 ?claims	 ?of	 ?truth	 ?by	 ?considering	 ?whether	 ?the	 ?law	 ?is	 ?discriminatory	 ?in	 ?application	 ?or	 ?consequence.	 ?Asking	 ?the	 ?woman	 ?question	 ?exposes	 ?biases	 ?within	 ?doctrine	 ?by	 ?asking	 ?how	 ?law	 ?may	 ?exclude	 ?the	 ?perspectives	 ?or	 ?experiences	 ?of	 ?women	 ?or	 ?other	 ?marginalized	 ?groups425	 ?or	 ?reflect	 ?embedded	 ?assumptions	 ?about	 ?gender	 ?and	 ?sexuality	 ?that	 ?subordinate	 ?or	 ?exclude.426	 ?Using	 ?this	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?423	 ?Coates,	 ?Beavin	 ?Bavelas	 ?&	 ?Gibson,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?64	 ?at	 ?189.	 ?424	 ?Gotell,	 ??Tracking	 ?Decisions?,	 ?supra	 ?note	 ?189	 ?at	 ?114.	 ?425	 ?Katharine	 ?T	 ?Bartlett,	 ??Feminist	 ?Legal	 ?Methods?	 ?(1990)	 ?103:4	 ?Harv	 ?L	 ?Rev	 ?829	 ?at	 ?831,	 ?836.	 ?426	 ?Ibid	 ?at	 ?843.	 ?	 ? 99	 ?method,	 ?I	 ?pose	 ?questions	 ?such	 ?as	 ??[w]hose	 ?point	 ?of	 ?view	 ?do	 ?these	 ?assumptions	 ?reflect?	 ?Whose	 ?interests	 ?are	 ?invisible	 ?or	 ?peripheral??427	 ?	 ?	 ? The	 ?method	 ?of	 ?feminist	 ?practical	 ?reasoning	 ?questions	 ?the	 ?doctrine	 ?of	 ?relevance428	 ?by	 ?analyzing	 ?whose	 ?interests	 ?it	 ?advances.429	 ?It	 ?works	 ?to	 ?promote	 ?legal	 ?reasoning	 ?that	 ?is	 ?contextual	 ?rather	 ?than	 ?abstract	 ?and	 ?to	 ?include	 ?perspectives	 ?of	 ?marginalized	 ?and	 ?excluded	 ?groups,430	 ?on	 ?the	 ?basis	 ?that	 ?there	 ?is	 ?not	 ?one	 ?universal	 ?perspective	 ?but	 ?competing	 ?perspectives.431	 ?It	 ?also	 ?helps	 ?to	 ?unmask	 ?the	 ?operation	 ?of	 ?privilege	 ?that	 ?favours	 ?certain	 ?groups.	 ?Using	 ?feminist	 ?practical	 ?reasoning,	 ?I	 ?use	 ?a	 ?contextual	 ?method	 ?to	 ?be	 ?attentive	 ??to	 ?certain	 ?forms	 ?of	 ?injustice	 ?that	 ?otherwise	 ?go	 ?unnoticed	 ?and	 ?unaddressed?432	 ?in	 ?a	 ?neoliberal	 ?approach.	 ?	 ? Using	 ?this	 ?method,	 ?I	 ?determine	 ?whether	 ?judges	 ?use	 ?myths	 ?in	 ?their	 ?interpretation	 ?and	 ?construction	 ?of	 ?doctrine	 ?in	 ?sentencing.	 ?Comparing	 ?my	 ?findings	 ?to	 ?previous	 ?scholarship,	 ?I	 ?also	 ?assess	 ?whether	 ?rape	 ?myths	 ?have	 ?changed	 ?over	 ?time.	 ?Non-??Doctrinal:	 ?Feminist	 ?Discourse	 ?Analysis	 ?	 ? Since	 ?gender	 ?discrimination	 ?can	 ?be	 ?found	 ?in	 ?both	 ?doctrine	 ?and	 ?narrative,	 ?I	 ?also	 ?analyze	 ?judicial	 ?narratives.	 ?Specifically,	 ?I	 ?assess	 ?sentencing	 ?decisions	 ?for	 ?unequal	 ?or	 ?discriminatory	 ?constructions	 ?of	 ?sexual	 ?violence	 ?using	 ?feminist	 ?discourse	 ?analysis,	 ?a	 ?non-??doctrinal	 ?approach.	 ?	 ?	 ? Although	 ?it	 ?examines	 ?legal	 ?texts	 ?like	 ?doctrinal	 ?research,	 ?a	 ?discourse	 ?analysis	 ?does	 ?not	 ?seek	 ?to	 ?determine	 ?the	 ?law.	 ?A	 ?critical	 ?discourse	 ?analysis,	 ?similar	 ?to	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?427	 ?Ibid	 ?at	 ?848.	 ?428	 ?Ibid	 ?at	 ?836?837.	 ?429	 ?Ibid	 ?at	 ?856?857.	 ?430	 ?Ibid	 ?at	 ?850?851.	 ?431	 ?Ibid	 ?at	 ?857.	 ?432	 ?Ibid	 ?at	 ?863.	 ?	 ? 100	 ?qualitative	 ?content	 ?analysis,	 ?looks	 ?at	 ?language	 ?to	 ??identify	 ?meaning	 ?behind	 ?the	 ?words	 ?of	 ?judicial	 ?and	 ?legislative	 ?text.	 ?It	 ?is	 ?a	 ?way	 ?of	 ?deconstructing	 ?text	 ?rather	 ?than	 ?reading	 ?and	 ?synthesising	 ?meaning	 ?from	 ?the	 ?text.?433	 ?This	 ?aspect	 ?of	 ?my	 ?project	 ?can	 ?therefore	 ?be	 ?seen	 ?in	 ?another	 ?light:	 ?doctrinal	 ?research	 ?for	 ?a	 ?non-??doctrinal	 ?purpose.	 ?	 ? Discourse	 ?analysis	 ?is	 ?inherently	 ?qualitative	 ?because	 ?it	 ?is	 ??aimed	 ?at	 ?understanding	 ?how	 ?human	 ?expression	 ?articulates	 ?social	 ?order,	 ?begin[ning]	 ?by	 ?picking	 ?apart	 ?the	 ?order	 ?that	 ?is	 ?presented	 ?to	 ?us	 ?as	 ?common	 ?sense.?434	 ?	 ?	 ? To	 ?analyze	 ?judicial	 ?narratives	 ?for	 ?rape	 ?mythologies,	 ?I	 ?adapt	 ?Ehrlich?s	 ?framework	 ?of	 ??unpacking	 ?the	 ?discourse	 ?of	 ?law?	 ?to	 ?analyze	 ?the	 ?language	 ?in	 ?sentencing	 ?cases	 ?to	 ??understand	 ?the	 ?way	 ?that	 ?gendered	 ?meanings	 ?are	 ?constructed	 ?and	 ?reproduced	 ?in	 ?discourse?.435	 ?Together	 ?with	 ?the	 ?approach	 ?and	 ?insights	 ?of	 ?Coates	 ?and	 ?her	 ?colleagues,436	 ?I	 ?assess	 ?how	 ?judicial	 ?discou