What’s Current: Hedley to take ‘indefinite hiatus’ in light of sexual assault allegations

What’s Current is Feminist Current’s daily news roundup.

  • Canadian band Hedley have announced they will be taking “an indefinite hiatus” after their current tour to “work on our personal relationships and who we are as individuals.” Singer Jacob Hoggard has been accused of rape and of exploiting young fans.
  • Pussy riot members found safe after being detained. Their disappearance while traveling alarmed friends and family members.
  • RCMP releases a warning for women in Vancouver after reports of a string of threatening phone calls. The male caller identifies women by name and tells them he’s installed cameras to watch them.
  • Alex Jones of internet news site InfoWars has been accused by employees of sexual harassment, sexual assault, and racist abuse.
  • A new court has been opened in Halifax to deal specifically with domestic violence cases.
  • Loretta Lee, a former developer at Google, has launched a suit against the company for enabling constant sexual harassment.
Jess Martin
Jess Martin

Jess Martin is a public relations professional, an aspiring writer, and an assistant editor at Feminist Current. She prefers to write about feminist topics, disability, or environmental issues, but could be persuaded to broaden her horizons in exchange for payment and/or food. In her spare time Jess can be found knitting, gardening, or lying in the fetal position, mulling over political theory that no one in their right mind cares about.

Like this article? Tip Feminist Current!

Personal Info

Donation Total: $1

  • Kathleen Lowrey

    About PR, here’s an ancient text from Twisty showing why their shtick is not really feminist at all


    • Simone Firestone

      I’m stunned. Thank you for this revelatory info, Ms. Lowrey.

  • Kathleen Lowrey

    holy potatoes that is horrifying.

  • Martin Langevin

    Any man or woman who sexually assaults another or has sex with a person under the age of fifteen should be forced to submit to surgical castration, be it gonadectomy or oophorectomy followed by a minimum of one year of institutional sex-addiction therapy. While the above might seem cruel, we also need to consider the consequences of sexual assault.

    Firstly, whether we are talking about male-on-male, female-on-female, male-on-female, or female-on-male sexual assault, it poses a risk of spreading a venereal disease.

    Secondly, even in the absence of a venereal disease, it risks causing trauma which itself can contribute to different social ills including different addictions. It can even increase the risk of the victim abusing in his turn and so contribute to the spread of trans-generational trauma.

    Thirdly, in the case of inter-sexual assault, it presents a risk of pregnancy, In the case of a male victim, he will have no say in the abuser’s decision to abort a fetus and can still be held responsible for the child after birth. In the case of a female victim, she is forced to make the difficult decision to keep or abort the child and, should she choose to keep it, she must accept responsibility for raising it.

    Where I could possibly see one exception to the forced surgical oophorectomy of a female convicted sex offender would be when the male victim agrees to exempt her from the forced procedure in exchange for her agreeing to not abort the fetus unless medically necessary. In that case, she should still be forced into institutionalized sex-addiction therapy for at least a year. This could prevent the female convicted sex offender from victimizing the victim yet a second time by unnecessarily aborting the fetus.

    There would no need to exempt a male offender in any case since he doesn’t carry the child himself anyway.

    In any case, the convicted sex offender should automatically lose all parental rights to a child conceived through sexual assault and should be allowed to interact with the child only on the assaulted parent’s terms.

    Given the severity of such a punishment, an accused should most certainly have the right to a fair trial. Firstly, he or she should have the right to request an inquisitorial hearing. Secondly, he or she should be protected from rape-shield laws. Given how difficult sexual assault is to prove beyond reasonable doubt, as long as the judge respects that burden of proof, then the risk of a wrongful conviction would be small enough to warrant forced surgical castration. Should society fear the risk of forcibly surgically castrating a person who is wrongfully convicted, then one solution would be to allow the person to refuse surgical castration for as long as he accepts to remain incarcerated for life. Even should he change his mind and later accepts surgical castration, he or she should still then be forced to undergo institutionalized sex-addiction therapy for at least one year after the surgical castration.

    Again, the above might seem harsh; but I think anyone, man or woman, who has ever experienced sexual abuse, whether in childhood or adulthood and whether at the hands of a man or a woman, would understand the severity of this crime.