The Australian reports today on a 51-year-old Hobart man found guilty of prostituting a 12-year-old girl. Men were charged $100 for half an hour, with $50 extra for ‘no condom’. One man used her to make pornography. The report states that 120 men were alleged “to have had sex with the girl…” between August and September last year.
“Had sex with”?
No, they didn’t have sex with her. They raped her. One hundred and twenty men raped a child for six weeks. One perpetrator used her to make child sexual assault images. Now she has sexually transmitted diseases. And unspeakable trauma.
I’ve written about this before. It’s time to update the language and name these acts for what they are.
26 Responses
Here, here Melinda. This is a deeply shocking series of crimes and all those involved must be acknowledged as rapists and child abusers.
The story has left me, like many others, simply heartbroken for this child.
The story reported by the Australian almost couldn’t have described a worse scenario for a 12-year-old girl to have to face. Not only was the girl pimped and raped, but she had her torture recorded, and was infected with STIs by the multitudes of men who raped her. This story should have been on the front page of every Australian newspaper, and should have been written in language that properly reflected the horror of the girl’s situation–which mainly consisted of being raped by over a hundred men. Perhaps properly labelling these men rapists, as Melinda suggests, will force authorities to take women’s interests seriously and have all the men brought to justice.
The use of the word ‘sex’ in place of ‘rape’ is so pervasive in our media. It’s really extremely worrying. I don’t know if it is sometimes done because rape is only ‘alleged’, but in that case, ‘allegedly raped’ rather than ‘had sex with’ would be far more appropriate. We should never read or hear the sentence ‘had sex with a 12 year old’. That’s simply validation for all the sex abusers who are reading or listening and have deluded themselves that their abuse counts as ‘sex’.
From the age of 12-16 I was sexually abused by one person. He did not rape me until I was 16. My trauma has shattered me. I’ve struggled with an eating disorder and self harm. I have post-traumatic stress disorder with body memories, flashbacks, nightmares. I do not sleep unless I am heavily medicated – because when I do I scratch my chest to shreds, frequently wake up with bruises, scream, sob and sleep walk. I am on anti-depressants and probably will be for the rest of my life. Sometimes I dissociate and I do not know where I am. It’s only now, that I’m starting to get my life back together – slowly, after 3 years of being ‘in treatment’ and doing ‘nothing’ but self destructing.
This girl, a GIRL she is, has gone through something more tragic than words can explain. If she’s anything like me, her trauma will live with her until the day she dies, and impact every single aspect of her life. It devistates me that people are softening the true nature of the vile crimes committed against her. She is a victim, at 12 years old NO ONE can make the choice to have sex, nor can anyone of any age be held responsible for being forced into sex or prostitution.
I hope she’s being offered the hope and help and support she needs. I hope she’s given a chance to lead a life of slight normality. I hope she’s given treatment before she develops full blown PTSD.
The men who did that to her? No punishment is ever sufficient for the rape of a child. I do not believe in capital punishment, except for sex offenders. I do not believe that they can ever be rehabilitated. I know they’ll get a light sentence – sentencing for sex offenders is so very pathetic. But gosh I hope they prosecute every single one of them. I hope they’re put on the sex-offenders registry. I hope this impedes their employment. I hope all of them are imprisoned for a VERY LONG TIME.
What about the sentence 8 – 10 years. A front page needs to be dedicated to that alone for a story.
Anon for this one – Thank you for being so brave to post. Thank you for your honesty and vulnerability.
I can just hear the excuses;
But she looked older…
She consented to it….
Her pimp assured me she was older…
But she was only 12 years old!
But she was a child.
But she was in year 6 at school (She should have been learning about Maths, English, sciences, creative arts and the like – not experience in depravity and rape)
But she was a minor and deserved to be protected.
There is never any validation -she was a child and she was raped, over and over by many men. What is to be done about this?
There are laws specifically designed to protect children and young people from sexual exploitation, abuse and rape. These men did not consider this at all nor the well being of the child. These were all criminal offences. There are 150 men in Tasmania that have committed serious criminal offences.
The lack of protection from the very people who were caring for her is immoral. Her perception now warped and the disregard for her life is disgraceful. It saddens me that this child’s experience now shapes her views of herself and of others, her whole world affected. What is to be done about this?
She is a child. She is 12 years old.
Gee, one element that Melinda seems to have purposely left out here from the Australian article; “A 41-year-old woman has been charged with joining the enterprise that involved advertising the girl in a newspaper as an 18-year-old, who was new in town. She faces similar charges to Devine and has been remanded in custody to reappear in court next month. She is yet to enter a plea. […] The court in Hobart heard the woman took most of the money, Devine took a smaller cut and the girl used her own share to buy drugs for herself, the woman and Devine.”
So for all the talk of men this and that, the unnamed woman in this case is certainly just a guilty of prostituting this girl as Gary Devine. Funny how no one here has made mention of that fact.
I’m note sure why Melinda is upset with the media, as in this case they only reported the facts; “He pleaded guilty yesterday to procuring a young person to have unlawful sexual intercourse, permitting sexual intercourse with a young person on premises, being a commercial operator of a sexual services business and receiving a fee from sexual services provided by a child. Two charges of rape were dropped.” [Source: Man pimps girl, 12, to 100 men shares profits with mum By Sally Glaetzer From: The Mercury March 23, 2010 11:08AM]. So why the hell is Melinda getting upset at a journalist reporting exactly what happened in the court? For reasons unknown to me the charges of rape were dropped. Blame the prosecutors for that, not the journo. The anger here is misdirected.
As a teenager, i was raped repeatedly over a period of two months, by a trusted family member.
While i should have been preparing to sit my HSC exams, i was instead preparing to testify in a 10 day criminal trial.
Multiple charges were put forth against the perpetrator, & included ‘Indecent assault’, & ‘Sexual intercourse without consent’.
‘Sexual intercourse without consent’ – it sounds fairly mild doesn’t it? It doesn’t sound like a violent, soul-destroying act. But that is exactly what it was.
It was rape.
I was raped.
He raped me of my self-worth, & very nearly raped me of my life.
‘Sexual intercourse without consent’ does not come anywhere close tot describing my experience.
I totally agree with ‘Anon on this one’ when she states: “The men who did that to her? No punishment is ever sufficient for the rape of a child. I do not believe in capital punishment, except for sex offenders.” (A male who is disgusted by the males who did not commit sexual intercourse but RAPE.)
Matthew W,
The gender of the person/people who commit acts like this against a child is irrelevant. It’s the impact of the crime we’re talking about. Your argument is a red herring – and, to put it bluntly, pretty boring.
Melinda’s post is about the minimising language we – collectively – use to describe one of the most devastating crimes that one person can commit against another human being – let alone a child.
We’re discussing these horrific crimes against a child, and you’re arguing semantics?
Why are you even here?
Matthew W
Seemingly you have a dig at many of Melinda’s blogs and miss the point each time. I agree with Shona ‘We’re discussing these horrific crimes against a child, and you’re arguing semantics?’
Rick Skeleton did mention the lack of protection from the very people who were caring for her. Maybe you missed that???
I assume Rick was highlighting the 41 year old woman in the child’s world.?
Big picture- Melinda is blogging re the rape of a child – something that society, people, governments, MP’s, the media should show huge concern about.
Unless you think this crime is okay? Matthew, is this crime okay?
How many more children’s lives will be devastated?
Both Jackie and anon for this one have been super bold to share their stories here. It is and never will be okay for a child to be raped and experience what they have. My heart goes out to them.
(Jackie and Anon for this one – we will always be loud and even shout on behalf of girls like you. Your courage is honourable).
Shona said “Melinda’s post is about the minimising language we – collectively – use to describe one of the most devastating crimes that one person can commit against another human being – let alone a child.”
Except Melinda incredibly misleading and dishonest here. Do you understand that the reporter she was laying the boot into WAS doing their job and reporting EXACTLY what happened in court.
The man at the centre of this crime had the charges of rape where dropped against him for some reason not outlined in media report. You know, I know, every bloody one knows that sex with a person under 16 boils down to rape, and I for the life of me can’t see why the prosecutors couldn’t charge him with rape.
So the question again, if you didn’t understand it; why is Melinda blaming the journalist for essentially repeating what happened in court? I think it’s really unhelpful to do this. Why blame the media for what happened in the court? I note in Ric’s post, he made no mention of the woman involved in the crime. None whatsoever.
Makey said “Unless you think this crime is okay? Matthew, is this crime okay?”
When did I say this was OK? A girl who is under 16 who is being prostituted by a couple is rape, and the men who paid for her services must have known she was not 18. No 12 year old child looks like they’re 18. It boils down to the fact the men who paid for her services are paedophiles. You can’t see them in any other light. It’s a morally repugnant crime.
The problem I have with Melinda is she continually distorts the truth. This blog post is a prime example of that. The issue here should be on the crime and what happened in the court, yet she seems to focused on the language used by the media. Same with her linked previous blog piece about Keith Windschuttle’s attack on “Rabbit-Proof Fence” The point there was three women were being slandered horribly by making out they were “sexually promiscuous” by a history revisionist, and she’s blabbing on about language again. Sorry, she’s saying that some old white dude trying to defame three women who were part of the stolen generation is less important that than his use of words he used to defame them? It beggars belief.
Matthew W I think you may be missing the point of this post. Melinda is using a specific incident to illustrate a broader social problem. This post and the one concerning Windschuttle are about not naming rape as rape, not about the actual rapes themselves.
Melinda’s issue is society’s acceptance of applying adult sexual norms to children. If adults engage in intercourse they are “having sex” if anyone under the age of 16 engages in sex (“willingly” or not) they are being raped – this is what the law states.
Regardless of specific charges, evidence, convictions, court reportings; sex acts with a person under the age of consent is objectively defined as rape and should rightly be name as such.
Chris Herbert, then Melinda has got the target wrong. Journalists are NOT meant to give their opinion. They are meant to report the facts. The Australian article reported exactly what happened in court. What she has done in her blog post was attack the journalist in question for reporting the facts, then, and this is what makes me so angry, she then she deliberately misleads her audience by saying that this is an example of the language changing around child rape.
What she has done here is really unethical and I find it to be in really poor form. In a way I feel like she is exploiting the story for her own gain. In another comment in this blog, someone accused me of being pedantic, but Melinda is doing just that right here. She is taking a line almost out of context and reporting it as if it was a fact that people now consider child rape as sex.
The facts are; the man in question, Gary Devine, was not convicted with rape as his charges were dropped by the prosecution. The journo reported this. The journo cannot say that Gary Devine raped her as it would be untrue as per the judgment made by the court and it would be completely unethical. Journalism is about reporting the facts, not opinion. It would seem that the Australian journalist has got way more ethics than Melinda.
Hi Matthew W. I still think you’re missing the point. This is the passage that Melinda has quoted from the article:
“Another man, who was one of the 120 men ALLEGED TO HAVE HAD SEX with the girl in a Hobart hotel room or at Devine’s northern suburbs unit between August 1 and September 30 last year, is also due in court next month.”
Melinda isn’t commenting on court results or charges that have been dropped against Devine, she is stating that this sentence should have read “…the 120 men alleged to have raped the girl…”
Once again I would like to say that the point isn’t about the specifics of this horrendous case, but that a crime (alleged or proven) should be named for what it is. If an adult engages in sexual intercourse with a minor then they have raped that child – this is the fact that Melinda is pointing out here.
Chris Herbert, how does one line in an online news article proof that there is something wrong in how the media report these cases?
Melinda has quite deliberately trawled through the many news items about this case, found a SINGLE line in ONE news report, points and screeches “Ah ha! The media are now reporting child rape as if it was normal adult sex!”. It’s dishonest, it’s unethical, it’s immoral. She’s attempting make connections where there are none. She’s making a massive mountain range out of a mole hill.
No, Melinda isn’t commenting on court results, but she should be. Because the language and terms used in the COURT are what the journalist is using here.
The Keith Windschuttle post is even more absurd as she is more concerned at the language he used rather than the fact that he is defaming three women by using completely unsubstantiated remarks about their sexual behaviour as children. She doesn’t seem to care if three aboriginal women are publicly defamed through claims which have no factual basis, but is more concerned he said “having sex” instead of “raped”. Melinda really needs to get some perspective here. It boggles the mind. It really does.
honestly matthew, she’s not critiquing the journalist here, but the LANGUAGE! We don’t really care who said it, but the fact that it was said in this minimizing way.
No where in her post does she suggest that the journalist is the one in the wrong, more that the language that is used, in the courts, in the media, whatever, is wrong.
What exaclty is your agenda in attacking this post, you seem to agree that the crime is heinous and that the wording is wrong, but instead of looking at the big picture, you feel the need to attack Melinda, for your interpretation of her post. If you don’t like what she has to say, find a different blog. The big picture here and the issues that Melinda raise are important.
Matthew W, I just “trauled” through the media on this and found the following:
“Gary John Devine, 51, acted as the girl’s pimp last year while she had sex with more than 100 men at his Hobart unit.”
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/national/man-sold-girl-12-for-sex-and-shared-proceeds-with-girls-mother/story-e6freooo-1225844131392
“”The stark and straightforward reality is that the defendant caused a child of 12 years of age to be subjected to sexual intercourse with in excess of 100 men,” Justice Peter Evans said. ”
http://www.themercury.com.au/article/2010/03/26/136135_scalesofjustice.html
“A TASMANIAN man who admitting he pimped a 12-year-old girl to have sex with 100 men has been jailed for 10 years.”
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/tasmanian-man-gary-john-devine-jailed-for-at-least-eight-years-for-pimping-12-year-old-girl-to-have-sex-with-100-men/story-e6frea6u-1225845218664
This link has the girl “working” and “servicing clients” –
“The man then started running his underage prostitution business from his unit, where the girl worked Thursday to Sunday, seeing more than 100 clients.”
http://www.news.com.au/national/man-admits-prostituting-12-year-old-girl-sharing-proceeds-with-mother/story-e6frfkvr-1225844153315
These are the only articles where I found the word rape, in the judges comments:
“”I have paid some regard to the sort of sentence that a conviction for instigating the multiple rape of a child would attract,” the Mercury quoted Justice Evans as saying.
“Whilst lack of consent is a significant point of difference between the crime of rape and the conduct in question, the starkness of that difference is diminished when the victim is a 12-year-old,” he said.”
http://story.australianherald.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/88f7d0d02bea1b33/id/615840/cs/1/
http://in.news.yahoo.com/139/20100325/900/twl-oz-man-who-pimped-12-year-old-girl-j.html
Language is important when talking about sexual assault as it is related to our attitudes about it.
Read slowly Matthew W, Melinda’s point is “It’s time to update the language and name these acts for what they are.” This is the same point as in the other article she wrote on this issue. If you don’t like what she’s writing, find another blog.
The fact is this journalist’s deliberate use of the phrase ‘man had sex with girl’ is not an isolated one because it is widespread within all mainstream, male-dominated media. No longer must the media report the facts instead they deliberately reinterpret rape so that it becomes just ‘unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl.’
The reasons are obvious – trivialising rape and making it appear the only crime was ‘unlawful sexual intercourse’ because the girl was only 12 serves to hide the fact rape is a crime wherein the male perpetrator not only commits violence but specifically sexual violence in order to satisfy his sexual gratification as well as inflicting immense serious harm on the sexual bodily autonomy of the victim. In other words rape is a sexual crime wherein the male perpetrator(s) use sex as a weapon in order to inflict harm on the female victim.
Hiding rape and re-defining it as ‘unlawful sexual intercourse’ benefits which group? Men or women – answer men because naming male sexual violence against women and girls as sexual violence means the male perpetrators cannot hide behind euphemisms such as ‘unlawful sexual intercourse.’
The facts are over 120 men made the free choice to rape a 12 year old girl because these men believe it is their innate right to have sexual access to any female. 120 men Matthew not a small number and clearly all these men are not paedophiles – no they are men who believe it is their right to buy women’s and girls’ bodies for the purpose of gratifying their sexual desires.
Matthew you are a troll whose only reason for coming to this blog is to dismiss and disrupt Melinda’s excellent analysis. If you really wish to learn then I suggest you read Victim or Vamp by Helen Benedict. Because Ms. Benedict analyses precisely how male-dominated and male-controlled mainstream media commonly minimalises cases such as males charged with committing interpersonal violence against female partners and males who rape known women/girls. Male perpetrators must never be held accountable for their crimes instead they continue to be excused and/or trivialised.
If you do read Ms. Benedict’s book you would quickly learn the numerous tactics used by mainstream media in order to minimalise the harm and immense violence males inflict on women and girls.
Matthew believes the focus should have been on the woman who was also charged with pimping but this too is a diversionary tactic. Yes women are involved in pimping out girls and other women but the real power lies with the men who buy these women and girls as well as male demand which is the real issue. Men are the ones demanding women and girls must be turned into men’s sexual service stations – not women.
Melinda I was shocked and very disturbed to read this. 8 years?!?!?!?!! What a disgrace. Another example of Australian legal systems being in need of serious reform for sexual crimes.
Simone, I think YOU need to look at the bigger picture. Surely you’re not suggesting that in the case of Keith Windschuttle’s attack on the three women in “Rabbit-Proof Fence”, that his language in terms of abuse is worse than him attacking their characters by implying they were “sexually promiscuous”? Oh wait a second, you are. Now why is this? Is it because they’re black? Do you agree with Windschuttle that there was no stolen generation or white settlers didn’t massacre the indigenous population?
It’s a similar story with this case. Jennifer Drew makes even more absurd suggestions that Melinda. Sorry, Jennifer, you’re seriously suggesting there is some sort of conspiracy between journalists to “reinterpret rape so that it becomes just ‘unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl””. What, even the female journalists? Jennifer, please tell me, for purpose would journalists do this? What would be their goal? Is this some bizarre Illumnati conspiracy? Instead of the absurd conspiracy theories, do you think that maybe overworked and under resourced journalists and sub editors leapt on Justice Peter Evans remark “The stark and straightforward reality is that the defendant caused a child of 12 years of age to be subjected to sexual intercourse with in excess of 100 men” and ran with it. This happens all the time in journalism. A one of viewing of the ABC’s “Media Watch” confirms this. There is no conspiracy.
Also Jennifer, I never said or suggested that the woman should be the focus of the story. I just noticed how curious it was that no one seemed to mention her in the comments or in Melinda’s post. Jennifer are you saying that Melinda’s work should be free of any criticism? Why is OK for her to criticise the work of others, yet it is not OK for me to do the same to her? You and Kelly also seem to be suggesting that even though this blog has a function to leave comments, and it’s owner seems to have no interest in moderating those comments, I should not leave any comments that are negative or critical of her work?
As per the absurd Facebook posts on this blog, it seems quite clear to me that a number of you do not have any idea how the internet functions. I don’t have to have to find another blog if I don’t like what she writing. If comments are enabled on her blog, I will write what I feel about that post. That’s the function of making comments on a blog post. Guess what? Some of comments are not going to agree with the poster. Don’t like it? Tough. People have different opinions than you and don’t agree with Melinda’s view. I honestly can’t see that most of the issues that Melinda raises are important. Lady Gaga’s video? Who cares? Most people won’t remember who she is in five years time. Use of language in journalists coverage on a rape case? Unimportant in the scale of things. The guy is gaol (though a longer sentence would be good), other men are being charged. Justice is being served. Melinda deliberately mines insignificant details and blows them up to size of worldwide epidemics. In my opinion she’s really no better that Andrew Bolt or Piers Ackerman. All three of them are on the far right and will write anything to get some attention.
Each post sounds more hysterical than the last Matthew W.
Melinda could write about the colour blue and we could expect a short essay from you on why blue is wrong and the colour red so much better. You have a lot of time on your hands to be frequenting blogs of authors you don’t like and telling them what they should and shouldn’t be writing about.
How on earth would you know how the blog is moderated?
Matthew W:
For someone who thinks Melinda writes just to get attention,
you sure give her alot. You seem to be here all the time.
March 25th, 26th, 26th, 26th (that was a big day) then again today.
I wonder why you are here?
Troll?