Last update - 02:31 29/06/2007
Mazuz's decision / Why indict Ramon and not Katsav?
By Ruth Sinai
This year will not be noted as a good one in the fight for women's respect and basic rights.
It began well, with former minister Haim Ramon's conviction for committing an indecent act on a soldier he had kissed in the Prime Minister's Bureau.
But despite the judges' castigation of Ramon's conduct, they ruled that the indecent act bore no moral turpitude - paving his way back to the cabinet.
It was clear then that something had gone wrong in the justice and law enforcement systems. Following the public and political support for the verdict, Mazuz decided not to appeal the judges' inexplicable ruling.
While Ramon should not have been indicted for his despicable act, it is imperative to indict outgoing president Moshe Katsav after the release of such a grave indictment draft against him.
Mazuz argued yesterday that Katsav's admission of an indecent act and sexual harassment was preferable to a long rape trial whose outcome was uncertain and which could have ended without a conviction, badly damaging the institution of the presidency and the state's honor.
And what about the damage done to the 10 percent of women who are raped, harassed or assaulted, who muster the courage to complain to the police despite all their fears of the implications?
What about the honor of the thousands of victims who suffer in silence? There is no doubt that the message they will receive from Mazuz's decision is not to complain. Complaining means exposure, reenacting the assault, embarrassing questions, skepticism, pitying looks and criticism of clothes that provoked the assailant. Who needs that?
When the man is a public figure, the message is even more injurious. The number of women who dare to complain against their superiors and commanders is even smaller. The fear of losing their job and livelihood and the heavy pressures of assistants and advisers and famous attorneys is added to the fear of complaining.
Hundreds of rape cases land in the courts each year. The law no longer requires corroborating testimony to determine rape. It is sufficient for the judges to believe the complainant to rule that he or she had been raped. Usually the judges succeed in deciding which version is the truth. They may err sometimes, but for that the appeal process exists.
Mazuz said in the past that he believed the complainants who spoke against Katsav. Why shouldn't the judges believe them? And if Katsav had gone to trial like any other person and the judges had found him innocent, or convicted him for some of the offenses, we would not complain.
One can only hope that the Jerusalem Magistrate's Court will refuse to rubber stamp the plea bargain and will let justice take its proper course.