I’ve been considering the reaction to the closing of the Patrick Kane case, both my own and that of the pieces of fandom I still see, despite not using tumblr anymore and generally avoiding the strongest discourse. I was, initially, going to avoid saying much of anything publicly, but I’ve realized that’s inconsistent with my own internal logic, so here goes nothing.
First, a bit of context: I have not spent much time in the past few months researching the investigation, and certainly none seeking out information not presented in reputable media. I have read Sedita’s statement and watched two different (similar but with a few salient differences) half-hour interviews with the DA. To anyone mired in uncertainty, I highly recommend watching at least one of the interviews (either from WIBV and WGRZ). The statement was fairly informative but the interviews provide context of the allegations, details of the components of the investigation, and clarity as to the DA’s choices in the statement.
In light of that material, I don’t believe Kane committed the crime he was accused of. I am also doubtful any similar crimes were committed, due to Sedita’s clarity as to the complainant’s particular allegations. In full, I don’t believe Kane assaulted the complainant. To continue to think so would require me to believe that the DA’s office was not only incompetent but outright fabricating evidence that contradicted her story, which is a level of pessimism and conspiracy theory that I’m not able to engage with. Having spent several months assuming Kane is guilty, the transition to presumptive innocence isn’t exactly easy on the mind, but the DA has provided far more information than I ever expected to receive. It is not quite the best case scenario I alluded to in my day zero post, but it is sufficient for my peace of mind. I do not believe this is wishful thinking on my part, as I gave up all hope of being able to personally believe in Kane’s innocence, or retrieve the fandom associated with him, the day the allegations broke. It was a long period of time in which I spent accepting of his guilt and emotionally detached from the situation, too long for me to believe that I’ve suddenly regressed to irrational fannish desires.
I don’t believe I’m betraying rape survivors by believing he’s innocent. I don’t believe I’m a bad feminist for believing he’s innocent. I don’t believe I’m supporting a corrupt system by believing he’s innocent. When I did accept his guilt, it was never because I knew in my heart-of-hearts that he did it (lacking even the specifics of the allegations), but because it was statistically likely and thus safer for me, and for the complainant, and for rape survivors at large to act in a way consistent with that. I found those who publicly proclaimed his innocence right off the bat and championed continued support reprehensible.
However, I was wary of the more aggressive actions and more definitive statements made by the presumptive-guilt camp, especially those who claimed things as extreme as “false rape accusations never happen!” First of all, that’s simply not true. The 2–8% number thrown around is, of course, questionable in its accuracy but at least non-zero. At 2–8% belief in the accused’s guilt and the accuser’s honesty is the safer choice, but it’s not wise to rest everything on that being the outcome, especially in a case like this were we lacked almost any real information for the majority of the investigation. By making the validity of our dialogue contingent on Kane’s guilt, we are not doing the cause any favours. It is possible to have a conversation about how individuals and organizations should act, how we should protect victims, how we should support women who report sexual assault to the police (including this one) without relying on the outcome of a single case. Progress for marginalized groups should never rest on the integrity of single members of those groups.
People say they hate false rape claims because they give misogynists ground to stand on and more reasons to hate women and the feminists who defend them. One way we can give them less ammunition is by making it clear that women deserve support in these situations a priori because of the inherent and historical biases in our society and our legal systems, not because women are always truthful. False rape claims are worthy of despair, but they are neither as damaging as men believe nor as rare as women believe. They are only fatal to the cause if we make their non-existence a prerequisite to giving victims — alleged and proven in a court of law — kind and fair support.
I’ve seen it said — and thought myself — that despite the clarity of the resolution of the Kane investigation it is ‘safer’ to publicly act as if and publicly state that you still believe he is guilty, regardless of your actual beliefs. After some reflection, I don’t believe this is true. First, by continuing to say in public something you do not believe, you are causing others to doubt the reliability of their own minds and morals on the topic. To sit there alone while everyone is saying “this in no way proves the complainant was untruthful!” when the DA is explicitly stating that the complainant was untruthful is both disingenuous and damaging to other people’s emotional states and other women’s ability to trust their own intellect and instinct.
It suggests that if you are a good enough feminist, you will believe Kane is guilty, and if you believe he is innocent, you are broken, anti-feminist garbage. I can’t conclude that that is a more helpful approach to the situation than honesty in your conclusions. Silence, of course, is an option available to all of us, but when one side is silent out of fear of retaliation (as many parts of me would like to be), the end result is the same as joining in the vitriol at the other extreme. If you lie somewhere in the middle, unsure and unable to know what to believe, then that too is a valid conclusion and not one worth feeling shame over. If you truly believe he is guilty, as well, then my intent is not at all to silence you, but to welcome you to engage constructively and with recognition that the other side is not an evil demon to be slayed.
The major argument in favour of continuing to believe the complainant’s allegations are true is that it protects rape victims.
This, more than anything, seems utterly and completely false.
Why? If we, as feminists, as decent human beings, as people with hope that we can improve society, want rape victims to feel safe and comfortable and hopeful when they approach the police to report a sexual assault, we want them to believe the DA’s conclusions are correct. We want them to have confidence that their case will not be dismissed for lack of corroborating evidence, and that their allegations will be listened to and respected. We want them to feel that the DA did a thorough, fair job in this investigation, and to understand that it was dismissed because little to no evidence supported the claim and much evidence contradicted it, and that this is not indicative of what they will experience. Rape victims already know it is very difficult to prove sexual assault in a court of law, but we should not be shouting from the rooftops that this case is an example of that, because it is not. If a person is a victim of rape, they should not have to fear that the forensic evidence and the physical evidence will contradict their story, that no witnesses will corroborate salient details, and that no material evidence supporting their claim will appear.
If we keep shouting that the dismissal of this case is an egregious failure of the legal system, we are doing nothing but telling rape victims they have no hope. I do not believe this is a better option. Publicly changing your mind is a difficult process, but if you believe the evidence presented by the DA, I believe there are good reasons to do so. It might be more comfortable to refuse to consider the information presented, but I do not believe it’s a better option.
I want rape victims to feel like they can report their crimes. I do not believe yelling at people that they are trash for believing this woman was not raped is going to achieve that.
Do I think we should call the complainant garbage? No. As Sedita says, we do not know what happened, only that the complainant’s version of events did not happen. I have no need to attack a woman whom I do not know, whom I have nothing to do with. Do I think we should have entertained Kane-sympathising gossip and unfounded rumours? Absolutely not. Does this require me to continue to believe she was truthful in light of the final report on the closure of the investigation? I don’t in any way believe it does, nor do I believe it is helpful to rape victims going forward.
The bottom line for me is this: there are deep problems in society with how we treat rape allegations involving other parties, particularly when the accused is a male celebrity. We must be able to place the needs of victims over our own emotional attachments and our own discomforts. Nobody should be so attached to a celebrity that his fall from grace is tantamount to the destruction of their happiness, but similarly, no single case should be the totality of our argument for progress. Clinging to proven untruths will neither create the progress we are so desperately seeking nor support rape victims going forward.
