This post contains content about sexual abuse and assault.

This past spring, the Hon. Rona Ambrose proposed The Judicial Accountability through Sexual Assault Training (JUST) Act. According to the bill’s website, the JUST Act seeks to do the following things:

• • “Require any lawyer applying for a position in the Canadian judiciary to have first completed sexual assault case training and education;

• • Require the Canadian judiciary to produce an annual report that details how many judges have completed sexual assault training, how many cases were heard by judges who have not completed the training, as well as a description of the courses that have been;

• Require a greater number of written decisions from judges presiding over sexual assault trials, ensuring the cases receive adequate consideration.”

The full text of the bill can be read here.

This bill is common sense, it’s long overdue, it’s something we desperately need, and while sexual assault impacts both women and men, it’s something that will certainly elevate that status of women in this country.

So why it is still being held up in the Senate?

Some have questioned the bill’s constitutionality. Let’s set the record straight: it’s not unconstitutional in the slightest. The JUST Act does not interfere with the training requirements of sitting judges. It does not interfere with ongoing cases. It also does not seek to remove the presumption of innocence from the defendant that is critical to the integrity of due process.

What Ambrose’s bill seeks to do is ensure that incoming judges are qualified to hear sexual assault cases prior to doing so. Time and time again there have been judges who have heard cases of sexual assault with no formal training in sexual assault law. This goes to show how our justice system still views sexual violence as a petty crime, something not worthy of ensuring those who hear the cases actually understand the severity of the crime at hand.

Still, when I give this justification of why we must support the JUST Act, I’m often met with disbelief and skepticism about the bill’s effectiveness. Therefore, I invite you to consider the following cases.

Consider the recent case of Judge Gregory Lenahan, who acquitted taxi driver Bassam Al-Rawi of assaulting a patron. The reason? Judge Lenahan thinks a drunk individual can give consent.

What about Judge Jean-Paul Braun of Quebec who told a seventeen-year-old sexual assault victim that she should have been “flattered” by the defendant’s advances?

How about Judge Ray Bodnarek, who ordered that the complainant in a sexual assault trial, an Indigenous woman, be put into an Edmonton Remand Centre for almost a week?

Consider Judge Michael Savryn, who acquitted a 15 year old boy of sexually assaulting a female classmate. Despite the event being captured on video, Judge Savaryn was reluctant to believe that an assault even took place. Judge Savaryn judged the complainant by saying that he was “not convinced she clearly expressed her objections,” and the boy “did not mean to touch the girl sexually without her consent.” Judge Savaryn even said the girl’s actions were “tolerant” towards the boy’s actions. The acquittal was overturned by Justice Juliana Topolniski. Proper sexual assault sensitivity training would have shown Judge Savryn that fear can manifest itself in various ways. The girl in question may simply have been paralyzed with fear.

Justice Kirk Sisson of Red Deer acquitted a man in a 2013 sexual assault trial. The complainant testified that she eventually stopped resisting due to fatigue and that she “wanted to get it over with.” Justice Sisson concluded that this meant the encounter was consensual. However, appeal court ultimately convicted the defendant.

Just recently, an Ottawa man was acquitted of sexual assault because he believed he could have sex with his wife whenever he pleased.

Perhaps the most infamous case of judge misconduct is that of Justice Robin Camp. During a 2014 sexual assault trial, Justice Robin Camp asked the 19-year-old female complainant why she did not keep her knees together. He also referred to the complainant as “the accused” many times during the trial. He resigned from office in May 201715. Camp acquitted the defendant, Alexander Wagar, in 2014. Justice Camp finally resigned in March after the judicial council recommended his removal from the bench.

As a women, I don’t just fear the risk of assault; I also fear our legal system. Many victims/survivors of assault never report their assaults. And if they do, many are failed by the police. In this country, one in five sexual assault claims is deemed baseless by police. And if a case does make it to a courtroom, the victim/survivor is often treated as though they are the ones on trial.

Holding this bill up isn’t helping anyone. Recently, Alberta’s justice minister appointed a number of new judges to the bench, yet none were required to undergo any form of sexual assault sensitivity training. Who knows if one of them will become the next Robin Camp? Ontario recognized the immediate need for legislation like this. They recently passed Bill 120, requiring all judges appointed to provincial courts to undergo sexual assault sensitivity training.

I know I’m writing this piece on a partisan platform, but I’m not trying to politicize the issue of sexual violence. There are many from across the political spectrum who support this bill. It passed unanimously in the House of Commons, after all. Recently, MP Ruth-Ellen Brosseau asked the House when the bill will pass in the senate. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau gave Rona Ambrose his word about passing the bill.

#QP @RE_Brosseau Will PM ask Senate to pass C-337? @Puglaas Committed to fair treatment for sex-assault victims; hope bill moves forward. pic.twitter.com/xldN6mQt4j

— CPAC (@CPAC_TV) October 26, 2017

I had the great honour and privilege of meeting the Hon. Rona Ambrose, Prime Minister Trudeau, and NDP MP Sheila Malcolmson last March in Ottawa to discuss the urgency of ending violence against women. To all of them, I said, “I don’t care which party gets this done or who gets the credit, I just want to see action being taken.” Sexual violence and violence against women in general transcends partisan politics. It’s something we should all be outraged about regardless of our political stripe.

Great to talk with Natasha Kornak. After hearing about the prevalence of sexual assault on campuses across the country and after her own friend was sexually assaulted she’s become an advocate for more education on consent and sexual violence. @Right2KnowAB is a fantastic initiative, Natasha! #Right2Know C’était bien de discuter avec Natasha Kornak. Après avoir entendu parler de la prévalence des agressions sexuelles sur des campus partout au pays et après que sa propre amie a été agressée, elle est devenue une défenseure de l’éducation sur le consentement et la violence sexuelle. @Right2KnowAB est une initiative fantastique Natasha! #Right2Know‎

A post shared by Rona Ambrose (@ronaambrose) on Mar 7, 2017 at 4:11pm PST

The JUST Act alone won’t fix the sexual assault epidemic our society is facing. We still need reforms in our police services to take accusations seriously. We need to teach our students about consent. We need to improve health services for sexual assault survivors. There’s so much that needs to be done. But this is a piece of the puzzle, and an integral one at that. It’s time for all Senators to get behind this bill. Women from coast to coast to coast are watching.

SaveSave

SaveSave

SaveSave