Sexual Harassment

News

An allegedly progressive university that cannot deal with the victims of campus sexual harassment and assault is not as progressive as it claims. A culture of victim-blaming, administrative delays, and refusal to hold the perpetrators to account is indicative of rape culture that only profits the most sinister patriarchal forces in a school in dire need of change. No local example demonstrates this quite so well as what is going on at Concordia.

Concordia has a sexual harassment and assault problem.

It is a problem that exists despite the university’s policy regarding security which applies to students, employees, and visitors. According to said policy, effective as of September 2002 (and thus unchanged):

“[N]o person shall…engage in violent behavior, threaten violence, or engage in any other illegal behavior on campus.”

In addition to a security policy, Concordia has a stand-alone policy on sexual violence that came into effect at the end of May 2016. Like the security policy, it applies to all members of Concordia.

Its purpose is to provide a safe environment for students, faculty, staff, and visitors in which sexual violence will not be tolerated, while providing support for those impacted by sexual violence. It also provides definitions of such terms as “sexual violence” and “consent”.

Unfortunately, the policy focuses primarily on the victim and fails to state what consequences a perpetrator would face for sexual harassment and assault. If Concordia truly has a zero-tolerance policy for sexual harassment and assault, the penalty for such behavior should be stated clearly from the start.

Historically rules that are vague are prone to misinterpretation, abuse, and a lack of enforcement and this is sadly what has happened at Concordia. Their current policy leaves the choice of action almost entirely with the victim, which increases the risk that their abuser will get off easy if they successfully scare their victim(s) into silence.

It is to Concordia’s credit that they have recently allowed student government to participate in the drafting of an official sexual assault policy, but is this too little too late?

In November 2015, after numerous complaints to Concordia about the racial discrimination and sexual harassment she’d endured at the hands of fellow members of the Arts and Science Federation of Associations (ASFA) of Concordia University, “Mei Ling” with the help of The Center for Research Action on Race Relations (CRARR) and the Quebec Human Rights Tribunal, reached a settlement with ASFA.

Then there is the case of “Cathy”, who spoke to this reporter anonymously about her ordeal.

Cathy was assaulted by a fellow Concordia student at her home in 2014. The police were called and the man was arrested. She then sought medical attention for her injuries. The courts took action, knowing that victims of domestic abuse are often coerced or bullied into silence and applied laws that indict domestic assaulters regardless of whether or not the victim withdraws the charges.

A month after the assault, having been informed that domestic abusers often re-offend, she told Concordia Security about the restraining order. Her actions had no effect, for the student assaulted her again, this time on campus, in 2015.

Unfortunately for Cathy and in spite of the school’s security policy, the only recourse she could take with them against her assaulter was to seek recourse from the Office of Student Rights and Responsibilities. She found that what this amounted to was a formal or informal complaint that she would have to put her real name on, despite the intimate nature of the assaults and the likelihood that he would try and hurt her again.

She presented letters from a social worker and the court explaining the risk of her assaulter reoffending, and Concordia did nothing with them. They offered to have security escort her around campus, but Cathy knew it would just draw attention to her from other students, including her abuser, putting her further at risk.

At this point, Concordia seems to have given up. Despite a policy that bans violence and threats on campus, Concordia gave up on Cathy.

It took the breaking of stories of sexual and racial harassment survivors like Mei Ling and what happened to Cathy and so many others in the media to finally wake the university up.

Unfortunately for Cathy, the consequences of her assault and the university’s actions have been long term. The assaults gave her a severe concussion resulting in difficulties reading and writing and she lost hearing in one of her ears, requiring the intervention of neurologist and an ear, nose, and throat doctor.

The assaults and Concordia’s toothless responses to her ordeal ravaged her psychologically. Cathy now struggles with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), has constant flashbacks, and she is terrified of meeting new people and trusting them.

The health consequences of Cathy’s ordeal hurt her academically and changed her career aspirations. To this day she never feels safe and cannot return to Concordia. She no longer feels university is for her and is afraid that going back to school would result in her being assaulted and dismissed again. She said of her ordeal:

“This is happening at universities all over the country, and I don’t feel like I could risk going through this again for any reason. I’d worked really hard to get to post secondary education and it had always felt like education was what would open doors, as long as I worked hard and put effort into it. Effort isn’t enough when the institutions responsible don’t support victims or make it safe for them to come forward. I’d love to keep studying… but the only way through is university.”

Cathy’s abuser got off light for his crimes.

He pled guilty and was given a conditional discharge, a restraining order to keep him away from her, and thirty hours of community service at Concordia for threatening and violent conduct.

He should have been expelled from the university.

Outrageously and despite his legally documented threat to students, he was not only permitted to stay at Concordia, but he wasn’t even disqualified from an Academic award he won.

In 2015 when the Mei Ling scandal made news, Concordia University president Alan Shephard announced in an open letter that the school considered student safety to be “paramount”. Unfortunately, the words were empty ones as Concordia took its usual tack of doing nothing for the victims.

In 2015 when the Mei Ling scandal made news, Concordia University president Alan Shephard announced in an open letter that the school considered student safety to be “paramount”. Unfortunately, the words were empty ones as Concordia took its usual tack of doing nothing for the victims.

In January 2018 when harassment complaints against a professor at the school’s Creative Writing reached the press, Shephard said that the university would “treat seriously” allegations of sexual misconduct. The Center for Research-Action on Race Relations (CRARR) called for an independent inquiry while the university announced the establishment of a Task Force on Sexual Misconduct and Sexual Violence.

Their plan to cooperate with students on this is a good one, but it needs to be enforceable and enforced in order to work. Concordia is trying to do better by its students, and they’d better.

FTB was contacted by a representative of Concordia requesting that the article be rewritten. While I added a policy update and some steps taken by Concordia not mentioned in the original version of this article, I stand by the central theme.

The rep also pointed out that there are penalties mentioned in their 2017 document, including expulsion, well, more specifically “a recommendation of Expulsion, subject to confirmation by the Provost and VicePresident, Academic” is listed as a potential consequence. On page 25 of 38. At the end of a long list of possible outcomes that begins with a written reprimand.

Not only is this a far cry from a logical policy, say immediate expulsion for anyone who admits in a court of law to assault, it also, as I mentioned above, comes only at the end of a process that is difficult for those, like Cathy, who fear reprisals, to enter into. It’s basically a second trial.

It’s also not well advertised. It took a PR rep showing us where to dig to find it. We’re media, we have the time. Assault victims generally don’t have that luxury.

An academic institution that doesn’t have an established punishment for admitted perpetrators and makes it difficult for victims to seek justice clearly isn’t doing enough to protect victims of assault.

Here’s hoping the new policy Concordia is drafting has more teeth.

* Featured image by deeelee via WikiMedia Commons

CultureFeminismLaw

It is utterly disgusting that in 2017 we still need to have conversations about the unacceptability of sexual harassment and sexual assault. Though our laws guarantee equality of the sexes and freedom from discrimination, the fact that so many Canadians shared the hashtag #MeToo indicates that sexual harassment and assault are still very much a problem.

For those unfamiliar with the #MeToo movement, it started with reports that movie producer Harvey Weinstein sexually harassed and assaulted the women he worked with. The hashtag was used to show the magnitude of the problem of sexual harassment and assault, the idea being that if every victim shared it on their social media feed, society would finally understand how vast the problem is.

This article is a primer on sexual harassment and assault in Canada.

Sexual harassment is a form of harassment based on the person’s sex. According to the Quebec Institut National de Santé Publique, legally a victim must prove three things in order to prove sexual harassment:

  1. “Unwanted sexual behaviour
  2. That manifests itself repeatedly, and
  3. That has adverse effects on its victims.”

The behavior can be anything from words to actions to posters, but for the victim it has to feel “targeted and unwelcome” with adverse effects. In Quebec the behavior has to be repetitive and harassment can manifest itself in being denied raises or promotions in retaliation for refusing sexual advances, or sexual behavior in the workplace that creates a hostile environment for the victim(s).

Legal recourse for victims of sexual harassment can consist of filing a complaint against your employer with the Commission des Normes de Travail (CNT), filing a civil liability suit against their harasser, or lodging a criminal harassment complaint which could get the offender up to ten years in jail. The employee could also, where applicable, file a complaint for psychological harassment with the Commission de la santé et de la sécurité au travail (CSST) and request compensation if the harassment is so severe he or she can no longer work.

Now let’s talk about sexual assault and consent.

Sexual assault is any application of force to another person that is sexual and without the other person’s consent.

Consent is the voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity. It can be withdrawn at any time, and there is no consent where the victim was coerced, incapable of agreeing to the sexual activity due to their age or, for example, because they’re unconscious, or if someone agreed to the activity on their behalf.

There is also no consent if you abuse a position of power or trust, or of course, if the person expresses lack of consent. Passivity does not constitute consent.

Without consent, there is sexual assault. The penalty for sexual assault in Canada is a maximum penalty of five years, or if a weapon was used causing bodily harm, a maximum of ten years.

Myths

That said, we need to debunk a few myths:

  • MYTH: A woman’s behaviour or style of dress provokes sexual assault

The argument goes like this:

“If she’d been more modest (in dress or behavior) this never would have happened.”

No behavior or manner of dress excuses sexual assault.

Arguments about behavior and dress shift the blame from the assaulter to the victim, and reinforce toxic gender stereotypes against men and women by claiming that sexual assault is a woman’s problem, and that the reason assaults happen is because men are horny aggressive beasts who can’t control themselves and women provoke them.

Here’s a wakeup call: conservatively dressed people get assaulted, as do less conservatively dressed people. Quiet, modest people get assaulted, as do the bombastic and loud. Men get assaulted, as do women. To quote the Ontario Coalition of Rape Crisis Centers:

“Offenders are solely responsible for their own behaviour.”

  • MYTH: Sexual Assault is over reported

Less than ten percent of all sexual assaults are reported.

There is a huge stigma associated with reporting assaults, making harder on the victim than on the offender. This is likely because our culture still lacks a proper grasp of what constitutes consent. As a result victims are often interrogated and dragged through the mud about their behavior before and after the assault, rather than their attackers.

  • MYTH: It’s not Sexual Harassment if the victim does not complain about it

The unequal relationship that often exists between employees and their harasser will often lead to silence for fear of causing conflict that could jeopardize their job.

  • MYTH: Sexual Harassment and Sexual Assault are Women’s Problems

Men are often the victims of sexual harassment and assault, though it is likely that the available numbers about it are a modest estimate due to under-reporting.

The stigma associated with males reporting their victimization is likely because our society still adheres to notions of toxic masculinity. Toxic masculinity pushes a narrow and repressive notion of what it means to a man, specifically that any display of stereotypically feminine traits, such as emotional vulnerability or even being victimized makes you less of a man. According to a 2015 article in Psychology Today, the men most likely to be victims of sexual harassment were those who deviated from stereotypical notions of masculinity by being members of a sexual minority or being involved in feminist causes. Men who challenged traditional gender roles were also more likely to be victimized.

It should be said that even if sexual harassment and assault were strictly women’s problems, it does not lessen importance of fixing the problem. If we as a society recognize that women are fully human, a problem that affects only them must be recognized as a problem that hurts us all.

It should also be said that gender segregation is not a solution because it puts the onus of avoiding harassment and assault on the people who are victimized. This encourages and exacerbates a culture of victim blaming.

So what is the solution?

We need to teach people about consent as early as possible, that means teaching kids about the importance of personal physical boundaries and evils of sexism and unwanted touching. The lessons should be taught to all genders and not just to girls as they generally are now.

Schools should have a zero-tolerance policy about sexual harassment and assault and even something we used to think of as a common joke – snapping bra straps – should be recognized as a form of assault and punished accordingly. Our education ministries would be wise to consult experts on sexual harassment and assault to better develop these policies and education programs.

The rules in Quebec about sexual harassment need to change.

Under our current rules, isolated incidents of sexual harassment are not considered as such, and they should be, particularly if the actions or words of the offender are significant enough to make a work environment hostile for the victim. A boss who tells a female employee “fuck me or you’re fired” and does not pursue it further should be seen as just as much of a harasser as one who regularly makes sexist jokes around his or her coworkers.

Last but not least, we need to better screen judicial appointees and law enforcement to ensure that, for example, people like former superior court judge Robin Camp are NEVER allowed to decide a rape case.

Law enforcement needs to be better trained to treat the victims like victims so they’re not so scared to come forward. Anyone lacking proper knowledge and empathy to deal with issues of sexual violence should be made to undergo sensitivity training and pass an exam to secure their position. Those who fail should be denied employment.

Sexual harassment and sexual assault are problems that affect us all. There’s no avoiding it, and there’s no denying it.

It’s time we fight it.

News

“To all the women who have been impacted by the forces’ failure to protect your experience at work, and on the behalf of every leader […], I stand humbly before you today and solemnly offer our sincere apology.”

Such were the words of the RCMP commissioner Bob Paulson, this Thursday, during a press conference in Ottawa. He was looking at ex-officers Janet Merlo and Linda Davidson, the two main plaintiffs of a class-action lawsuit for gender-based harassment and discrimination. Also present were the Justice Bastarache, as well as Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale and Employment Minister MaryAnn Mihychuk.

They were together to announce the “historic” settlement of the lawsuit that now involves 500 women, who are current or former employees of the national police force. Four years after the lawsuit was filed, the RCMP apologizes, promises tens of millions in compensation for the victims and commits to improving the situation.

“This is a great day for myself, women in the RCMP and women in Canada… I have total fate that this is the beginning of a new era, hopefully a better era” said Merlo.

The ex-Mountie choked back tears as she talked about the dedication of the women who stepped forward: “they all love the RCMP, they love their jobs. They just want it to be a better place to work; a place for their daughters to work.”

Davidson expressed similar hope, before promising that she will “continue to watch developments and continue to right the wrongs” in the RCMP.

The settlement was accepted by all parties but has yet to be approved by the court. It entails three main aspects: an official apology from the RCMP, a compensation scheme for the victims and measures to improve the situation.

Confidential and independent process

Six different levels of compensation have been set, based on the severity of the offence and on the impact of said offence on the claimant. The highest compensation possible is $220 000.  Based on the 500 victims that are part of the initial law suit, the RCMP has planned a budget of $100 million, taking into account that the number of claimants could reach 1 000. The commissioner called the estimates “a ballpark” and insisted that it wasn’t a cap on the spending.

Justice Bastarache took great care of insuring, in both official languages, that the compensation process will be “absolutely confidential.” The RCMP will transfer the compensation money to an account only Bastarache manages, and thus will be kept in the dark about the details of the claims and the identity of the claimants.  Women who have suffered bullying, harassment and discrimination can come forward without fearing retaliation from colleagues and community.

The confidentiality, necessary as it is, also means that the identity of the perpetrators will be just as secret as the identity of the victims.

This raises obvious concerns about harassers not only going unpunished, but being allowed to continue working with the RCMP.

The commissioner, visibly uncomfortable at the mention of such concerns, assured that victims were welcome to address the RCMP or the police directly if they wanted the guilty party sanctioned. “Be assured that the fist of God will descend upon [the perpetrators],” he promised.

“Cultural transformation”

“We don’t think women should be in the force, and especially not French-speaking ones.”

That’s how Joanne Mayer was greeted by her sergeant when she started working for the RCMP in Gibson, B.C.

In Nanaimo, B.C, when Merlo told her supervisor she was pregnant, he started yelling at her that next time, she “should keep [her] fucking legs closed.”

Dildos left on their desks, constant crude remarks and sexual propositions, superiors groping their breasts, less time off than their male coworkers and even less assistance in dangerous situations are all part of what some female RCMP agents described as part and parcel of their daily life.

After retiring prematurely, Merlo spoke out about the gender-based discrimination, bullying and harassment that she endured during her 20 years of career in the national police force. In 2012, she wrote a book titled No One to Tell: Breaking My Silence on Life in the RCMP and filed a civil claim.

500 then came forward with similar stories. This number is expected to double.

Commissioner Paulson pronounced the words “cultural transformation” as many times as he could fit into one press conference. He admitted that it was more than time to bring the RCMP into the modern days and thanked the plaintiffs multiple times for playing their part in this progress. The way that complaints and sexual harassment are processed in the RCMP is under review.

“You can now take some comfort in the knowledge that you have made a difference” he said to Merlo and Davidson. “The RCMP will never be the same.”

LawMediaNews

On May 11, 2016 the Jian Ghomeshi scandal was brought to what is for many a disappointing end. On that day it was announced that Ghomeshi agreed to sign a peace bond provided the Crown withdrew any further sexual assault charges. On the surface it looks like Jian Ghomeshi has gotten a free pass for assaulting and harassing so many women, but when you look at peace bonds in greater detail it’s clear the former radio host has hardly gotten a slap on the wrist.

Peace bonds are covered in section 810 of the Canadian Criminal Code. The loose definition of peace bonds is that they’re a formal commitment by a defendant to keep the peace. It’s one of the more common results of plea bargaining between defense attorneys and the prosecution.

In order for a defendant to be made to sign a peace bond, a justice of the peace or court has to be convinced that the victim(s) in a criminal case have reasonable grounds to fear that she, her spouse or common law partner or her children will come to harm without one. The peace bond is also granted if there’s a risk that the defendant could damage victim’s property or if the defendant is at risk of violating Canada’s revenge porn laws.

A peace bond is not a criminal conviction. It does not result in a criminal record or jail time. However, like a prison sentence, peace bonds have a set duration, the maximum being twelve months.

Peace bonds almost always come with conditions decided on by the court and prosecution. These conditions can include making a defendant abstain from drugs and alcohol with the exception of prescriptions. The bond can stipulate that the defendant provide samples of bodily substances for testing like blood or urine either at regular intervals or upon request from a probation officer.

The court can also ban the defendant from possessing any weapons, ammunition or explosives and any licenses or permits to have them. If the court bans the defendant from possessing said weapons, it has to specify in the peace bond the conditions in which they will be surrendered to the authorities and how they’ll be stored or disposed of.

borel

In addition to rules regarding drugs and weapons, peace bonds often include specific conditions made to protect the victim, her spouse or her children. The stipulations are similar to a restraining order and can include forbidding the defendant from directly or indirectly communicating with her or her family and prohibiting him from being at any place where the victim or her family is regularly found.

Since peace bonds generally come with many conditions, the reasons for a peace bond without conditions have to be included in the court’s records.

The duration of Jian Ghomeshi’s peace bond is the maximum twelve months prescribed by law.

Following his signing of the bond, Jian Ghomeshi issued an apology but it was hardly the one Canadian women were looking for. Instead of apologizing to all the women he assaulted and abused, he directed his apology only at Kathryn Borel whom he physically, sexually and verbally abused during the time she worked for him. His apology included one particularly troubling statement in which he said:

“I now recognize that I crossed boundaries inappropriately.”

It’s Ghomeshi’s use of the word “now” that’s problematic. By saying he has only now realized that his behavior was inappropriate he’s implying that he didn’t know at the time that punching, choking, sexually harassing, assaulting, and abusing women was illegal or wrong.

His claim violates one of the most fundamental notions of law: nul n’est censé ignorer la loi aka ignorance is not an excuse. Neither Ghomeshi nor anyone else deserves a free pass for heinous crimes simply because they didn’t know they were crimes. As a media figure Ghomeshi’s claim that he didn’t know his actions were illegal or wrong is particularly doubtful for he would certainly have been apprised of all the news stories of men convicted and jailed for sexual assault and sued for sexual harassment.

It’s more likely that the real reason Ghomeshi is apologizing now is because he got caught.

Though Ghomeshi is currently not going to jail, we can take comfort in the fact that his chances of salvaging his reputation and career are slim to nil and we owe it all to Kathryn Borel. Kathryn Borel worked for Jian Ghomeshi at the CBC and during that time was regularly abused, sexually assaulted and harassed by him. When she went to her employers for help, they sided with Ghomeshi and said it was her job to endure the abuse.

Following the signing of the peace bond Borel turned a public outrage into a glorious vindication. On May 11, 2016 she boldly told the press:

Jian Ghomeshi is guilty of having done the things that I’ve outlined today. So when it was presented to me that the defense would be offering us an apology, I was prepared to forego the trial. It seemed like the clearest path to the truth. A trial would have maintained his lie, the lie that he was not guilty and it would have further subjected me to the very same pattern of abuse that I am currently trying to stop.

Since Ghomeshi’s sexual assaults have come to light, twenty more women have come forward with allegations of his violent, rapey tendencies. Though Ghomeshi has lied, denied guilt, and done a lot of victim blaming it’s clear he’s guilty and a repeat offender.

That means that even though he’s out on the street now, the chance that he’ll be able to obey the terms of his peace bond is pathetic at best, and disobeying the terms of a peace bond can result in jail time. Though most agree that Ghomeshi should be locked up, Canadian women everywhere can take comfort in the fact that though he’s out now, he won’t be for long.