Thread by @RobynPorteous

I have been struggling to put into words my thoughts on the discourse surrounding the convicted child rapist mayor, Jeffrey Donson.

First off, it's not a mark against a singular party with regards to the fact that this man is where he is today. Icosa worked with the ANC and DA from 2006, working with latter in Outdtshoorn as recently as 2020 and 2021.

There is a general acceptance of him across party lines.

Secondly, when he was on trial, "members of the community supported and attended his trial", "the same community that voted for this councillor in the past and current elections".

Are there statements from the community as to why this is?

I've seen implications online that the girl he raped in 2004 may have been only 15 at the time, but is considered to have been "willing". Such comments indicate that there are people who think that his status as a convicted child rapist is an inaccurate one.

It is not.

The fact of the matter is that irrespective of what the girl said, what she wore, or how she behaved, the onus is always on the adult - in this case, Jeffrey Donson - to draw the line.

ALWAYS.

The statement that he "assumed that she was of legal age" is even more problematic, because (again) the responsibility lies with the adult - Jeffrey Donson - to enquire, and verify, this information.

Men complain that it'll "ruin the mood" to ask for consent, or confirm their partner checks all the boxes, such as with their age, but I genuinely do not care to hear it.

When you live in a nation devastated daily by GBV, you ask for consent *every* chance you get - and yes, more than once. You double- and triple-check. Every time. Because making that part of our national consciousness may be one way we begin to see the change we sorely need.

Lastly, the suggestion that Jeffrey has "paid his dues as deemed fit by our courts" is a cop-out of exceptional proportion.

When you live in a nation where the conviction rate for reported rape is lower than 8%, and the punishment received by perpetrators leaves much to be desired, you don't get to suggest that his paying R20 000 fine and attending a rehabilitation programme is enough.

And I know we need to believe in the potential for rehabilitation of criminals and wrong-doers in our society. I'm aware of that.

However, the complex and problematic narrative that's developed around this case is indicative of ignorance (which then perpetuates rape culture and the like) and a disregard of the reality of victims by those who've unwaveringly supported people like Jeffrey Donson.

As for the political parties that've worked with him since 2006, it similarly seems to suggest that so long as they're getting their way, they'll overlook wrongdoing - which hardly bodes well for a nation sick with corruption and criminal rot in all sectors of society.

I don't know. As I've already said, I know we need to believe that rehabilitation is possible (which is obviously not to suggest that we currently get rehabilitation right).

But there should perhaps also be limitations on the ability for people who have engaged in serious crime, like rape, to attain and hold positions of power and influence. Surely?