unforgiven?

IT'S ODD, how we can remember the banalities of life, the tiny minutiae that radiate outwards from the throbbing core of a traumatic event. Even when, sometimes, the details of the trauma itself are unrecoverable.
Jane Doe does not know, to this day, if the 12-inch butcher knife that her rapist held against her throat in the early hours of Aug. 24, 1986, came out of her own cutlery drawer. Perhaps it was one of those spare kitchen utensils her mother was always pressing on her, when she went home to visit. Perhaps the rapist -- the same man who had already sexually assaulted four other women in downtown Toronto -- had brought the knife with him.

It was never recovered.

But Jane Doe can recall, as she told a Toronto courtroom yesterday, the warm drip-drip of her rapist's sweat, falling against her bare skin, as he repeatedly penetrated her.

In relating this to her lawyer, Sean Dewart, Jane Doe's left hand fluttered to her throat, and she rubbed her fingers against the hollow of her neck, as if trying to remove the acidic stain of such an intimate violation.

She has a sharp, fox face, keenly expressive, her eyes widening with the effort of her own attempts to remember, her voice a sibilant whisper, but emphatic.

Despite her tiny, fragile appearance, she is battle-hardened. And she has not lost her humour, as she proved yesterday with the occasional ironic observation.

Jane Doe has told this story so many times in the 11 years since she was raped as she fought for, and won, the right to sue police for negligence; as she attempts, now, to hold them accountable for not giving her proper warning as a potential target of this particular rapist, given what they knew about his habits and how closely she fit the profile of other victims.

She is the heart of the matter: her account of the "invasive" post-rape procedure a chilling indictment of the system as it existed a decade ago; her recalled conversations with police investigators a shocking example of what her lawyer has called the systemic gender-based discrimination against women that allegedly existed on the force.

It had been, Jane Doe told the court, such an unexceptional day. Though a Saturday, she was working at a demanding job, but had managed to squeeze a few hours of free time to take her 5-year-old niece on a birthday shopping outing.

She returned to work till about 7 p.m., stopped for a slice of pizza and a Coke, picked up a video, went out later in the evening to buy some fruit at the corner store, watched the news on TV, read for a while and fell asleep with the bedside light still turned on.

"I was actually shaken awake. I felt somebody shaking my body. a man had his hand over my mouth, was in my bed and had a knife to my throat."

For about an hour, the rapist subjected her to various sexual acts, all the time asking her questions: How old was she? What did she do for a living? Did she have a boyfriend?

"It's terrifying... it's terrorizing," she told the court. "It contrasted so completely with the violence."

The assailant had some difficulty maintaining an erection, and Jane Doe was seized with conflicting fears, thinking, "if he didn't maintain an erection, he would kill me, that it would be my fault. That contrasted with the fear that if he did ejaculate, at the moment of ejaculation he would plunge the knife into my heart."

When the assailant left, Jane Doe called 911. While she was still on the phone, police arrived in her lobby. Once in her apartment, they wouldn't even allow her to use the washroom, unless she left the door open.

She didn't want medical attention, could not understand why police insisted she submit to a hospital exam if she intended to file a rape complaint, saw no need for the stretcher that ambulance attendants brought to her door. Her neighbours were all huddled out in the corridor by now, she told police. She didn't want to be seen being wheeled out of her apartment.

"I was adamant. I didn't want to leave that way. It was very disempowering."

In the end, they compromised. "I sat on the stretcher, with a sheet over my head."

and, so a victim describes her attack and its effects. Jane Doe, victim of the paul callow, known as the balcony rapist, sued the Toronto PD for failing to issue a proper warning about the balcony rapist. the excerpt is from a 1997 interview published in a Toronto newspaper. that inteview took place 10 years ago. and the man who terrorized Jane Doe has recently received his release from prison. so ... now what? i mean, really? Jane Doe will continue to heal, only up to a particular degree, i suppose. regardless of paul callow's fate, she will never achieve her pre-rape state of being. that's a given. but ... what of paul callow? what of the balcony rapist?

i read an article in the commuter rag this morning that detailed the harrassment which paul callow's family - his sister, nephew and brother-in-law - have received in an area of Surrey, British Columbia. you see, paul callow has gone to live with his sister and her family in in Surrey. the residents of their community do not like this. karen callow and her family have received death threats and veiled threats of violence and harassment at work. the community feels adamant ~ paul callow must leave.

i understand the response ... the frenzy of intense emotion. it's only natural people should want to feel safe in their own neighbourhood. unfortunately, i think of that perception of safety as quite mythical. at any rate ... how can a man rehabilitate if his community refuses to acquiesce and give him a guarded chance? for those who believe in some sort of supernal being ... for those who attend that building with the cross and spire each weekend ... does not forgiveness figure prominently in your belief code?

so ... what's ok to forgive? seems to me the answer to that one = everything and anything. and what do we mean when we say 'forgive?' that, my friend, i cannot answer. i believe everyone has their own notion of 'forgiveness.' i don't believe we mean erasing the offensive events from existence or memory. i don't believe we mean condoning the offensive events. i don't believe we mean minimizing the events devastating consequences. or minimizing the reality that perpetrator must account for behviour taken. so ... what's left? surrender. surrender of the hurt the offensive events caused. and what if the perpetrator never did anything to you? do you still need to forgive him for his sins against another, whom you do not know?

just wondering ... and not sure if i have expressed myself clearly.

here is a link that will tell you about the balcony rape victim and her struggle with the Toronto PD. Jane Doe launched her lawsuit against the PD, arguing her 1986 rape might not have happened had officers properly investigated a series of attacks in her Toronto neighborhood and warned women of the rapist. the victim and her lawyer felt the PD attempted to use her [the victim] as bait in catching callow.

here is a link that will tell you about the balcony rapist and his struggle to reintegrate. this news clip does not indicate, but, since his release from prison, callow has found himself unable to secure any funding for and or any psychological counselling. yet ... in much of the release information, law enforcement labels him as high risk to reoffend.

any thoughts? we all can only imagine how we would feel, finding ourselves in the shoes of the surrey residents. however, i cannot help but think they're all making a mountain out of what's yet to even show itself as a molehill. y'know? the man did his crimes. he did his time in prison. does he deserve more punishment? as far as i can see, that's not for me to decide. and i have learned ... anger never healed a fucking thing. as a child, i have suffered ugly things in a powerless position at the hands of lustful men ... on multiple occasions. still, does that preclude me from forgiving? or a friend ... or a loved one ... [on my behalf?]

you tell me.