Blame the victim

When I saw this on the front page of my morning paper today, I almost tossed my granola.

OTTAWA — The victim of a violent and still-unsolved sex attack in a Carleton University chemistry lab in Ottawa nearly two years ago has filed a half-million-dollar lawsuit against the university.

In a statement of claim, the 25-year-old Ottawa woman says university officials were negligent by failing to take adequate security measures, including equipping laboratory buildings with such security devices as swipe cards and ensuring that door and tunnel entrances to the building were visibly monitored by security cameras.

But in a statement of defence, the university alleges the victim was herself negligent by failing to keep a "proper lookout" for her own safety and failing to register with Department of University Safety as a student working late.

The university alleges the science student chose to remain on the premises alone and chose not to lock the door to the laboratory in which she was working. She knew, or ought to have known, the steps she could take to notify the safety department of her intention to work late on her own, the Ottawa university says.

"She failed to take appropriate or any action for her own safety," says the statement of defence.

The woman is seeking $525,000 in damages for injuries she suffered in the Aug. 31, 2007 attack as well as mental suffering and psychological harm, out-of-pocket expenses and the future loss of income.

According to the victim's statement of claim, her physical injuries included three fractures to her jaw, a fractured cheekbone, broken tooth, bruising to her neck and chest and a black eye. She has also sought counselling to cope with the psychological harm from the sexual assault, but still experiences "intense anxiety," according to her statement of claim.

The fact that the university has since spent $1.6 million upgrading its security systems is very telling.

Was she taking a risk by working alone late at night? Of course.

But did she, you know, ask for it?

Pay up, Carleton.

H/t to friend Pete Blais.

Comments

[Anon]

Really? Make the college pay up? Really?

Sounds like an angry rape victim looking for justice from the college because the cops can't find her attacker, which to me seems like an even better target for a law suit. Sue the jerks who can't find her attacker.

Who is to say the attacker wouldn't have had a badge and known how to evade cameras and monitors?!

The rape is no more the college's fault than her own.

[Keith]

It appears that the policy in effect at the time was for all students working late were required to register so that they could be given security. It appears the women ignored the system of security that was in effect. It's called you cann't claim someone else's security system was in effective because you didn't follow the procedures of the security system.

[sooey]

A male student can work alone late at night without fear. Seems like the university has a double standard at play here.

[PaulR]

Sooey, if that is a double standard, it isn't one provided by the university. A male student, working alone at night, has little besides money that might be of interest to a would-be attacker.

It would be a double-standard if the university offered special services to women, but not men, as the TTC does, for instance. That does not appear to be the case here.

[Keith]

Maybe that's because he would be smart enough to notify security that he would be working late so that they could supply him with the necessary security, thereby eliminating his fear.

Fear is self induced. No patriarcal boogie man in self induced fear. Woman heal thy self. Protect yourself by following the security policy and notifiying security that you will be working late. Othewise, YOU HAVE CHOOSEN to be on your own!!!!!

[sooey]

Let me make this perfectly clear (so that even a Carleton university lawyer or anti-Feminist men's rights commenter on Broadsides) can understand it: A female student pays the same fees as a male student. She should have the same right as a male student to work alone in a lab late at night without fear of being sexually assaulted whether she registers with night security - or not.

[The Stygian and his Shemitish Dogs]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCHtw6WbbnM&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fvladtepesblog.com%2F&feature=player_embedded

Sooey Sweetie,

Ted Nugent has an interesting take. And don't forget that the US Second Amendment derives from the 1688 Bill of Rights, which IS part of Canada's heritage.

[Keith]

I agree with you totally Sooey. Where we disagree is whether or not the University has some type of liability based on the fact that this woman CHOOSE to ignore the security that was being offered to her. She has the right to ignore it, but in doing so, she loses the right to blame the university with not providing effective security. I, and I believe the courts will find, that she has no basis for making such a claim because she failed to uphold her responsibility in the security system.

Why is it that feminists fail to realise that with rights also go responsibilities. Oh ya, I forgot, in the world of entitlements no one has responsibilities. Responsibilities are the governments obligation, and the peoples right to have that which they don't have to be responsibile for.

[PaulR]

Sooey, we are discussing the assignment of responsibility. There is certainly an offender here, but you seem to want to reassign that blame to another entity, and to change the nature of that blame to a kind of environmental hazard, rather than a direct assault from another individual. It is not disputed here that someone did something to this woman, and should be held accountable. But if the offender isn't handily available, I don't think it's good enough to just reach for the next most proximate target.

Is it the university's fault (and thus liability) that a woman, and not a man, is a more likely target for rape? Or is this just a factor of biology that exists in any place that woman travels?

Did the university have a security system in place, that, if it not declined, would have had a reasonable chance of changing the outcome of this scenario?

Given that the woman declined to use the security system that was present at the university for her benefit in specifically this scenario, do you think the woman has any responsibility whatsoever for taking precautions to preserve her safety against a third party? Hypothetically, is there a point - any point at all - where a woman is considered at least partly responsible for her own safety? What of other kinds of environmental hazards besides rapists - say, wet floors with signs posted? What if someone simply shot her, for example, in the middle of a class? Would the university be held liable for the death there for failing to provide adequate security? What would be reasonable, adequate security?