©METRO Ottawa

When interviewed by Metro, Sunny Marriner, executive director of the  and one of CFICE’s Violence Against Women hub partners, said that these statistics reinforce the need for police to allow outside experts to review sexual assault files to determine why the charge rate is so low.

The Ottawa police, however, are confident that sexual assault files are being properly investigated and have claimed that files closed without charges laid are closed for good reason.

Here is a snippet from the Metro Ottawa article:

“More than 2,500 sexual assaults reported to the Ottawa Police Service within the past 15 years have been deemed unfounded – a statistic one victims’ advocate says is “shocking.”

Even a veteran Ottawa police officer struggled to find the words to put that number into context. “I have a really hard time commenting on that. The number is what the number is,” said Insp. John Maxwell. “I have to trust in my detectives that they’ve done complete, thorough investigations and that there simply wasn’t enough evidence to lay a charge.”

Metro requested information on the number of sexual assaults deemed unfounded between 2000 and 2015 from Ottawa police under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

There were 2,538 sexual assault cases deemed unfounded in that period, according to the data. In 2012 alone, there were 220 reported sexual assaults that the police deemed to be unfounded.”

or learn about the Violence Against Women hub’s work on .

On Tuesday January 19th, 2016, the ĐÓ°ÉÔ­´´ University community with the support of every ĐÓ°ÉÔ­´´ faculty and the Office of the Vice-President (Students and Enrollment) plus numerous campus  institutes, departments, associations, and centres was invited to a screening of the documentary “The Hunting Ground “. The campus was a fitting setting for the screening as the film provides an “exposĂ© of rape crimes on U.S. college campuses, their institutional cover-ups, and the devastating toll they take on students and their families”. Over 100 people, primarily students, attended the event. A panel discussion of current issues related to sexual violence on Canadian University campuses, and more specifically ĐÓ°ÉÔ­´´ University,  followed the screening of the film. GSA’s Leigh-Ann Worrell and ‘s Tara Henderson contributed as panel members, as did Dawn Moore and from the Department of Law and Legal Studies.

The event raised interesting questions about community and about the nature of partnerships. As members of the Community First: Impacts of Community Engagement (CFICE) project, we often question what constitutes a community. When we refer to community in an academic setting, do we actually mean the community outside the University premises? What about the campus community? Similar issues of access and power apply to internal partnerships within the campus community and haunt academic/community partnerships. Do the current legislative initiatives on campus violence offer an opportunity to build a strong university- campus community partnership through the development and implementation of a campus sexual violence policy? And what is the potential to extend that partnership to work with off-campus activists and survivors to strengthen the movement against sexual violence?

In recent years, we have witnessed highly publicized incidents of sexual violence at Canadian universities (for example the University of Ottawa and Dalhousie University).  These incidents and the responses to them highlighted the entrenched problem of on campus sexual violence and campus rape culture. Consequently, universities across Canada and Quebec are looking to develop or revise campus sexual violence policies. Through Bill 132 – Sexual Violence and Harassment Action Plan Act (Supporting Survivors and Challenging Sexual Violence and Harassment,) – the Ontario Government is seeking to make stand alone campus policies on sexual violence mandatory for Ontario universities and colleges. In her panel remarks following the film screening, Diana Majury, the Academic Co-Lead for the of CFICE, spoke to the potential and the concerns with this proposed legislation. She raised questions about the definition of sexual violence, about how to entrench transparency and accountability, and how to ensure that the expertise of campus activists and survivors is used in developing and implementing the policy at ĐÓ°ÉÔ­´´ University.

Majury made a number of recommendations for revisions to the legislation and the content of the ĐÓ°ÉÔ­´´ policy. She pointed out that the legislation currently only refers to sexual violence involving students and recommended that coverage be extended to include faculty, staff and visitors who are also at risk. She emphasized the need for public input into the Bill and the regulations, and the need for an intersectional systemic approach to the issue and to the development of the policy. Majury raised a number of matters that need to be addressed, noting the importance of avoiding tokenism in fulfilling the requirement of student input into the policy. This process opens up an opportunity for a student/administration partnership that could be a model for addressing campus issues.

In thinking about policy content, Majury raised questions about who would be appointed in the roles of investigators and decision makers and what training would be provided to them. She noted that, if imposed, a mandatory reporting requirement might be counterproductive and actually inhibit survivors from seeking support and advice. She raised the possibility of anonymous reporting, recognizing that many victims are understandably reluctant to report because of stigma, fear of reprisal and because complaint processes often re-traumatize the victim. These concerns were dramatically demonstrated in the cases covered in The Hunting Ground. Decisions will have to be made about the investigation and adjudication processes – whether formal or informal. Majury warned against processes dominated by lawyers. The questions of what sanctions should be available and on what basis they would be imposed are central. The policy will need to be clear on the purpose of the sanction and how to ensure the safety and support of victims. And importantly, the policy will need to address the underlying rape culture. Majury advised that ĐÓ°ÉÔ­´´ seriously consider adopting a system of oversight over the implementation of the policy by external community experts on sexual violence as is in place with respect to sexual assault complaints to police in some cities in the USA. This would be an opportunity for a productive and unique campus/community partnership that would put community expertise first.

Important issues were also raised by ĐÓ°ÉÔ­´´ community members who attended the event. The film depicted the many incentives for universities to deny, cover up and down play the level of sexual violence on their campus. Concerns were raised about these issues on our campus. Students raised the need for faculty to get more involved in these issues — to stand up against sexual violence and to support sexual violence survivors. The suggestion was made that the development of, and compliance with, campus sexual violence policies should be tied to government funding.

The film and the discussion were an effective call to action. Within three days, ĐÓ°ÉÔ­´´ graduate students had organized and submitted recommendations on Bill 132 to the Standing Committee on Social Policy where the Bill is under review.

References

Gilbert, D., & Sheehy, E. (2015). “Responding to Sexual Assault on Campus: What Can Canadian Universities Learn from US Law and Policy?” (Forthcoming, in Elizabeth Quinlan, Andrea Quinlan, Curtis Fogel & Gail Taylor, Eds Sexual Assault on Canadian University and College Campuses (Wilfrid Laurier University Press) Retrieved from      

Ontario Government  (March, 2015). It’s Never Okay: An Action Plan to Stop Sexual Violence and Harassment.