So I happened to be reading up some articles related to the origin of SlutWalk and came across this: http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2011/02/18/cop_apologizes_for_sluts_remark_at_law_school.html

It has a quote in it:

Rosemary Gartner, a University of Toronto criminologist, said linking style of dress to sexual assault is “ridiculous.”

“If that were the case, there would be no rapes of women who wear veils and we know there are rapes in those countries,” she said.

I got curious about who this person was, and found http://criminology.utoronto.ca/home/rosemary_gartner.html

Not only is she a 'criminologist', but she apparently is a professor employed by the university to TEACH sociology and criminology.

This has me very worried, because looking at this quote, there is an extreme gap in her logic. She essentially makes this proposal:

IF: style of dress and sexual assault have a cause-effect link

THEN: women whose style of dress is veils would never be raped

Please tell me, anyone, if you disagree with my paraphrasing of her stance. I am hoping it does not requite a huge deal of elaboration or exploration for people to understand why this is bullshit. If anyone is having trouble, I'll make what I view to be an argument with similar problems:

IF: the wearing of safety hats and people surviving workplace accidents have a cause-effect link

THEN: people who wear safety hats would never be injured in the workplace

Basically the problem she is making here is she only recognizes effects to have singular causes, and is treating a contributing cause to a multifaceted problem as being all-or-nothing.

My vocabulary isn't the best for explaining in more raw terms why her argument is shit, any pros at logic want to dissect this better?