END VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
Sunday, December 14, 2008 03:52 AM
by Justice Wallace Craig, (retired)
DECEMBER 6, 1989: Gunman massacres 14 women at Montreal’s L’Ecole Polytechnique.
Woman-hating Marc Lepine, armed with a rifle, storms through hallways and into various classrooms shouting hatred for feminists. Sparing men, he mercilessly guns down woman after woman until he kills himself.
On the 19th anniversary of this horrifying murder of so many defenceless and undefended women, the YWCA has launched a national “Rose Button” campaign calling for a federal strategy to stop violence against women.
YWCA spokeswoman Paulette Senior says a major societal shift is needed to end the problem. She calls on Ottawa to formulate a plan and take action against violence in the home, workplace and community.
“To prevent violence before it starts, it must be treated as unacceptable behaviour whenever and wherever it occurs,” says a YWCA statement. The organization also reports that women are more likely than men to be the victims of the most severe forms of partner abuse, such as homicide, sexual assault and stalking.
Until the 1970s, domestic violence was virtually a private family matter. If a battered wife was courageous enough to call the police, resulting charges would be resolved in family court with a tap on the husband’s wrist. In some cases a victimized wife would be chastised for supposedly provoking her battering husband. Our political/judicial leaders seemed unable to accept the obvious: that the crime of assault and battery inside the bonds of marriage is a criminal offence even more at odds with our society’s expectations of essential decency and morality than a cowardly assault by a stranger.
In the late 1960s, provincial magistrates court was replaced by a full-fledged court composed of judges drawn from the legal profession. Many seemed reluctant to come down hard on bullying husbands, meting out suspended sentences and probation rather than a sharp jail sentence that would have served to deter the offender.
During my 26-year-long perch in criminal court I was dismayed by the expedient of plea-bargaining that reduced serious spousal assaults to quasi-criminal allegations of breaching the peace. No consequences for the man, with the victimized woman left to worry endlessly over when her husband would drop the other shoe. At times the other shoe might be dropped as soon as they returned home – slaps, punches or kicks administered by a once-upon-a-time trusted boyfriend or husband.
On May 14, 1992, Alberta’s Court of Appeal clarified the principles of sentencing applicable to spousal assault in three cases reviewed together: R. v. Brown; R. v. Highway; R. v. Umpherville. The court said: “When a man assaults his wife or other female partner, his violence toward her can be accurately characterized as a breach of the position of trust which he occupies. It is an aggravating factor. Men who assault their wives are abusing the power and control which they so often have over the women with whom they live. The vulnerability of many such women is increased by the financial and emotional situation in which they find themselves, which makes it difficult for them to escape. (It) is frequently one of economic dependence upon the man. Their emotional or psychological state militates against leaving the relationship because the abuse they suffer causes them to lose their self-esteem and to develop a sense of powerlessness and inability to control events.”
Beyond the need to deter the offender and other like-minded men, the court stated the importance of the principle of denunciation being an expression of the community’s repudiation of such conduct in a society that values the dignity of the individual. “Too frequently in the past domestic violence has been downplayed as if it were somehow unimportant. This is a mistake.”
That admonition foreshadowed a worst-case of judicial negligence: four separate bail releases that ended with the maniacal killing of a woman who publicly predicted her own murder.
“Domestic Violence Hits ‘Epidemic’ Levels” – was the headline that appeared over a perfunctory Canadian Press report on jury recommendations following a four-month inquest in 1998 into the murder of Arlene May, of Ontario. The last paragraph is a chilling reminder that bail, granted too freely, may be a prelude to murder. “Randy Isles, a married father of three from Oshawa, was on four bail releases for stalking, assaulting and attempting to murder May during their tumultuous two-year affair. He was twice ordered not to contact her but persisted in harassing and threatening to kill her.”
As predictable as the sun rising and setting, but apparently not to the judges, Randy Isles finally went to Arlene May’s home and shot her dead.
Previous Story - Next Story
Email
Print
Facebook
Twitter
Digg
Del.icio.usReturn to Home
Posted by: seamutt on December 14 2008 9:37 AM