Rape is Rape!

After much consideration, I decided to write this as it pains me to disagree with a very senior journalist commanding my respect; namely, the editor of this newspaper. It is about a recent unfortunate incident which has evoked a lot of correspondence, many shades of opinion being expressed.The editorial in the Sunday Island on 13 November titled “Danushka: price that must be paid” states:

“But one thing is clear and needs to be said in Gunathilaka’s defence. He did not repeat not (emphasis added) seize the victim, thrust her forcibly into a shrub jungle or wherever and commit an offence. He accompanied her to her home, presumably by invitation, where the alleged acts of sexual intercourse without consent were committed. This after meeting through a dating device, drinks at a public bar and a restaurant meal.”

Though I agree with the theme of the editorial, where the editor in no uncertain terms states that the errant cricketer must pay the price for his actions; on reading this paragraph, more so because of the added emphasis, I began wondering whether there were different types of rape; gentlemanly rape, the variety supposed to be committed by this cricketer and Damarika or criminal rape where the victim is seized and pushed into a jungle. Of course, one must not forget that there is yet another type of rape which is deadly; murdered after rape or raped after murder. In the event, of course, the perpetrator would be charged with murder too.

Further, this statement unfortunately gives the impression of supporting the silly excuses doled out by some ageing politicians with uncontrollable sons: “Boys will be boys!” That era of harassment of women, especially young girls, should be in the past. Rape is a world-wide problem and statistics, where available, are staggering. It is said that, one out of every six American women has been the victim of an attempted or completed rape in her lifetime.

Since reading this editorial I have been trying to find a good definition of rape, not necessary a legal one, as the legal definition seems to vary from country to country. According to the US Department of Justice, the definition of rape which has remained unchanged since 1927, was revised in January 2012 and is as follows:

“The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”

However, ‘Rape’ is best explained in Wikipedia as follows:

“Rape is a type of sexual assault usually involving sexual intercourse or other forms of sexual penetration carried out against a person without their consent. The act may be carried out by physical force, coercion, abuse of authority, or against a person who is incapable of giving valid consent, such as one who is unconscious, incapacitated, has an intellectual disability, or is below the legal age of consent.”

So, Rape is rape! In most countries, the bar for conviction of rape seems to have been lowered and Australia is no exception, much to the misfortune of our cricketer; provided, of course, what is reported in the media is true. Though initially I was hesitant go into details, as Australian courts have released a lot of information since, it seems to fair to comment that he is far from what the editorial portrayed. Apparently, he had strangled the victim on more than one occasion making her lose consciousness and needing a CT scan subsequently.

Even if you go by the explanation given by his supporters that this was an attempt at extortion and is found not guilty of rape by the Australian courts, he is guilty of bringing the country and the game of cricket to disrepute. In fact, this is what I wrote in a piece titled “What our unofficial ambassadors do reflects on us!” (The Island, November 11):

“Sri Lanka had to bow out of the Cricket World Cup in shame, not so much due to bad play (after all not every team can win), but due to the extra-curricular activities of one player; so much so that the Minister-in-charge had to make an open apology to all concerned. As court actions are pending, it unfair to go into details but what is intriguing is the decision by the Cricket Board to bear the legal expenses. There is no doubt whatsoever that he should be provided with consular support but using tax-payers money, especially at a time when we have no money to import even essentials, for an act committed totally outside play is wholly indefensible. I greatly doubt Sri Lanka Cricket contracts cover sexual adventures. Maybe, our selectors are offering incentives; after all, there is nothing impossible in the land like no other. This is not the first offence either and as Rex Clementine has meticulously analysed “VVIPs still backing Danushka” (The Island, November 8).

What is wrong is that by these actions we are sending a wrong signal to our children. Though mentioned in reference to a separate incident, I totally agree with the editorial comment “The process of coaching children in lying and flouting rules and regulations commences at a tender age.” (A shocking incident, The Island November 10). At this rate, is there any hope for Sri Lanka?”

Dr Upul Wijayawardhana