 |
|
The case of Malayalam actor Siddique's anticipatory bail plea, where he attempted to discredit the survivor of alleged rape by employing tactics of character assassination, highlights the pervasive issue of victim-blaming in legal proceedings. This approach, while not new, was particularly egregious in this instance, drawing condemnation from the Kerala High Court itself, which ultimately denied Siddique's bail request. The court deemed his arguments 'unwarranted and uncharitable,' emphasizing the unethical nature of the defense strategy.
The crux of Siddique's defense, presented by senior criminal lawyer Raman Pillai, centered on undermining the survivor's credibility. He argued that her Facebook posts contradicted her claim of being a 'vulnerable' victim, portraying her as someone who could engage in 'vitriolic' and public commentary. Pillai submitted 12 of the survivor's Facebook posts as evidence, aiming to paint a picture of an empowered woman who, according to him, did not fit the traditional narrative of a rape survivor. This deliberate attempt to utilize the survivor's online activity to question her vulnerability and credibility is a clear example of the harmful practice of victim-blaming.
The article further exposes the flaws in Siddique's argument by analyzing the survivor's Facebook posts. Many of the posts cited by Pillai were found to be unrelated to the case, and instead, reflected her social commentary or personal expressions of frustration. In fact, one of the posts explicitly discussed Siddique's alleged actions and even described the harrowing details of the alleged assault. This revelation highlights the malicious intent behind Pillai's strategy – selectively presenting only those posts that could be twisted to fit a narrative of a 'strong' woman, while ignoring the posts that explicitly described the trauma she endured. Such manipulation undermines the survivor's voice and attempts to shift the focus away from the perpetrator's actions.
The case of Siddique's bail plea stands as a stark reminder of the systemic biases and prejudices that often plague legal systems. The defense tactic of victim-blaming, fueled by outdated stereotypes and a lack of understanding of trauma, seeks to undermine the survivor's narrative and shift the blame onto the victim. This approach is not only unethical but also deeply harmful, as it can discourage survivors from coming forward and seeking justice. The Kerala High Court's decision to reject Siddique's bail plea, recognizing the harmful nature of his arguments, is a positive step towards combating victim-blaming and promoting a more just and equitable legal system. It sends a message that such tactics will not be tolerated, and that the legal system should prioritize protecting victims and ensuring their voices are heard, not silenced.
Source: Siddique's anticipatory bail plea: A case study in victim-blaming