‘Non-Ideal’ Victims: The Persistent Impact of Rape Myths on the Prosecution of Intimate Partner Sexual Violence Against Racialized Immigrant Women in Canada

Abstract

Intimate Partner Sexual Violence (IPSV) is a global issue that impacts women of all social locations, but it disproportionately impacts racialized immigrant women. While there is a lack of literature on the topic of IPSV in general, there is a particular dearth of research on the prosecution of IPSV cases involving racialized immigrant women in Canada. There is little research on how these women are revictimized within the criminal justice system because of rape myths pertaining to IPSV, race, and citizenship. In this project, I aim to interrogate the legal rhetoric within judicial decisions regarding cases of IPSV involving racialized immigrant women. In so doing, I ask: How do judges conceptualize racialized immigrant women in cases of IPSV? How do these conceptualizations reproduce myths and stereotypes about these women who report IPSV? I use Feminist Critical Discourse Analysis (FCDA) to mobilize law as a gendering and racializing practice in my analysis of eight summaries of judicial decisions of criminal and immigration proceedings pertaining to IPSV. Critical Race Theory (CRT) contributes to my theoretical framework to advance our understanding of law as a gendering and racializing practice. Through an abductive process, I find three discourses that dominate judicial decisions: ‘ideal’ victims resist sexual assault and do not delay in reporting; ‘ideal’ victims do not know or maintain ongoing contact with the accused; and judges excuse defendants of sexual assault due to the beliefs that male sexuality is uncontrollable, and women pursue false allegations. These rape myths normalize violence against women of colour and immigrant women by reinforcing the view that they are ‘non-ideal’ victims.