CAVEAT

STOPWATCH Vol. 5, No. 2

April 1997

Ribbons Worn
in Memory of the Victims

CAVEAT joined the families of the child victims of Clifford Olson in a news conference held March 10, 1997, at the Vancouver Police Athletic Club. The news conference was organized to honour the memory of the victims and to protest Olson's March 11 application for early parole. Support was overwhelming. Over 6000 white ribbons with the names of Olson's 11 known victims were distributed by CAVEAT BC and worn by the public throughout the week. An emotionally charged rally was held the following day.

(Photos appeared in newsletter as follows: Top left: A Vancouver police officer wears a ribbon in memory of the victims; Bottom left: Margit and Brigitte Kozma, relatives of 14-year-old victim Judy Kozma, participated in the emotional news conference; Right: CAVEAT BC Chairman Chris Simmonds addresses the media.)

The following statement was read by Ray King at the March 10 news conference in Vancouver. Mr. King's son Raymond King Jr. was brutally murdered by Olson at the age of 15.

For too long now, clifford olson has been made the focal point of the tragedy involving the brutal deaths of at least 11 children. The same judicial system, which allowed him the freedom to visit horror on a few and disgust upon millions, now gives him the ability and the right to resurrect and perpetuate those feelings at will. Somehow, the children who are gone and those of us left behind to grieve have been lost in the shuffle and forgotten.

While no effort or expense has been spared to insure that this individual, who has destroyed so many lives, is afforded rights that boggle and offend our sensibilities, we are denied closure. It is difficult enough to deal with the losses we have suffered without his constant intrusion into our lives through the media and the numerous suits he has brought against the corrections system over the past 16 years; suits which have been frivolous at best and designed only to amuse him and inflict more pain on us.

The amendments to section 745 of the criminal code of Canada were implemented too late by the government to prevent him from having a platform from which he will be able to heap more indignities on an already revolted Canadian public. He will be brought back to BC to taunt us in person and display his supposed cleverness.

In a real sense, however, clifford olson is insignificant. He, and those like him, are not the problem in this country. They are merely a symptom of a system unable or reluctant to deal with the rabid animals produced by an ineffective, in some respects, criminal code. It seems obvious that those who have no regard for human life in the first instance or compassion for the suffering they have caused and continue to cause in the aftermath, are not deserving of the consideration granted to them by section 745.6. Apparently, not everyone understands this.

We wear these ribbons today, imprinted with the names of olson's known innocent victims. But in our hearts and in our minds, they are representative of all the young people in Canada who have been so brutally snatched from protective and loving environments and abused in so many unspeakable ways and, too often, by repeat offenders. Our prime concern is to draw attention to the plight of those left behind who are trying to rebuild hopelessly shattered lives and seeking consolation where there is none to be found. While countless dollars are squandered on protecting the rights of people like olson, we are left to fend for ourselves as best we can and told merely to get on with our lives. Yet we are offered no assistance to do so.

In so many ways, the present government has failed to protect its citizens from people like olson and literally hundreds of others who now await their own 745 hearings. Failure to repeal section 745.6 can only result in the visiting of renewed anguish on many families across Canada. This is not acceptable. I would invite the Canadian voters to consider this at the polls this year.

What you can do about Section 745:

• Make your views known at the federal level. Write to your M.P., to The Honourable Allan Rock, Minister of Justice, to The Honourable Herb Gray, Solicitor General, postage free: House of Commons, Ottawa, ON, K1A 0A6.
  
• Write to provincial politicians. Write to your M.P.P. or M.L.A., to your provincial Attorney General and to your Solicitor General.

Are Victims Being Exploited?

Clifford Olson's Section 745.6 preliminary hearing was held in British Columbia on March 11. His actual application will be heard by a jury in August.

The agony for the families of the young people whose lives were snuffed out by Olson continues. Yet these brave families are willing to relive the horror in order to put a human face to what otherwise would be a meaningless, dry legal proceeding. They do this in the hope that in the future other families will not have to go through the same ordeal. Through their appearances at press conferences and rallies, they hope to achieve what CAVEAT has long advocated--the repeal of the Criminal Code's Section 745.6 that gives murderers the opportunity to ask for early parole.

Following the media attention centered around the hearing, Justice Minister Allan Rock sent a letter to a B.C. newspaper, accusing the Reform Party of exploiting victims for "narrow partisan purposes" through their activities relating to Olson's Section 745.6 application. Rock called their actions a "shameless attempt to capitalize on the pain of victims." Through this maneuver, Rock, himself, deflects attention from the tragic events being relived by the victims' families and moves the focus to the political arena.

CAVEAT is a non-partisan organization. We agree that victims should not be exploited by any political party. While we welcome, from any quarter, initiatives that prevent crime and assist victims, we are horrified by the spectacle of parties latching on to the misery of victims. It is about time that all parties stopped using victims as pawns in the political game.

The issue is plain and simple--Canadians want s.745.6 repealed. Tens of thousands voiced their opposition to s.745 through CAVEAT's postcard campaign. In 1994, a free vote in the House of Commons on the repeal was won when members from all parties voted

their conscience. Family after family that has had to endure a s.745 hearing has called for its repeal. Now, the families of the children murdered by Clifford Olson must go through the same ordeal. The government had four years to prevent this and to deny Olson the attention he craves.

These brave families should not be asked to sit back quietly, nor be accused of playing into Olson's hand by giving him undue publicity, nor should they be used by any politician or party. They should be thanked by each of us and they should get what they so justly deserve--the complete repeal of the "faint hope" clause. There was no faint hope for Christine, Colleen, Daryn, Sandra, Ada, Simon, Judy, Raymond, Sigrun, Terry Lyn or Louise.

Caring Canadians Campaign

For the first time ever, CAVEAT is initiating a special campaign to raise much needed funds to expand its work and launch a new Safe & Healthy Communities initiative. Currently, most of the $250,000 annual budget for three offices across the country comes from memberships, small donations and special events organized by volunteers. Supporters, in general, are not victims, but ordinary Canadians shaken by senseless acts of violence and injustice. They see the organization's work as important and are genuinely concerned about crime prevention and public safety.

Although the organization recently tried to get government funding to enhance its research and outreach capabilities, a grant was not forthcoming. On one hand that was very disappointing since we had to shelve some research. On the other hand, it was a relief. We prefer to stay away from government money or any thought that it might influence our work. We are non-partisan. The research we do saves lives, and the information we provide to victims, students, the media and, yes, even government, is vital to the establishment of safe and healthy communities. We work on behalf of all Canadians.

So what does the future hold? To keep the status quo--maintain our credibility and level of professionalism--we must constantly keep an eye on the bottom line. We are very careful to make the money we receive go as far as it can. We feel a responsibility to our members and donors. To grow, to build on what we have learned, to offer more training programs, and to be more efficient in disseminating our body of knowledge, we will need an influx of new money.

To accomplish the expansion, CAVEAT has set a 1997/98 target of $100,000 in new funding. Some might think this is a lofty goal for a small volunteer-based organization, but we know CANADIANS CARE about what we do. That is only 100 good men, women, families, or corporations each giving $1,000. This is not an unreachable target.

Contributions in any amount should be made payable to CAVEAT and sent to its head office in Burlington. Mark your donation "Canadians Care," and your name (unless you advise us to the contrary) will be added to our 1997/98 campaign recognition list published in upcoming issues of Stopwatch. Thank you for caring about the health and safety of your community.

Legislating Sanity:
The Denis LePage Case

There is currently a hotly-debated issue before the Ontario Court of Appeal that strikes at the heart of Canada's criminal justice and mental health systems. Denis Lucien LePage, a criminally insane detainee at Penetanguishene's maximum-security Oak Ridge Mental Hospital has asked to be released under the "capping" provision of Canada's Criminal Code. The decision could affect 1100 similar criminally insane patients across Canada.

CAVEAT sought, and was granted, intervenor status at Denis LePage's first hearing in 1994/95, in which he was denied release. CAVEAT had intervenor status once again at LePage's appeal in February, 1997. It is rare for victims groups to be granted such status. CAVEAT believes that it is vital for Canadians to fight against the capping provision, which would allow potentially dangerous, criminally insane offenders, to go free in our communities.

The provision, which has not yet been proclaimed as law, says that a mentally ill offender should not be detained for a longer period of time for having committed a crime than a non-mentally ill criminal would be imprisoned for committing the same crime.

LePage is currently in Penetan-guishene (where Ontario's most dangerous offenders, who have been found not criminally responsible for their acts due to mental illness, are held) because he was found not guilty by reason of insanity on a weapons dangerous offence in 1978. He argues that, because he is mentally ill, he is still being held and his sentence is more severe than if he were considered sane. He alleges that, if he had been found sane, and if he had been convicted and sentenced to prison for that same offence, he would have served his time by now and would have been released. LePage says that there is a maximum period of time for sane criminals to be kept in custody and it is therefore against his rights to be kept in custody any longer.

LePage's case raises many issues. Do LePage's human rights under the Charter supercede the Canadian citizen's right to protection under the Criminal Code? Is our criminal justice system designed and expected to punish the criminal, or to rehabilitate them and therefore protect society? The Solicitor General of Canada states that the intent is both, that the existing system detains a person for both punitive and rehabilitative reasons. In this way, they believe, the public's best interests are served.

LePage argues that the sole reason for his increased severity in treatment is his mental disability. CAVEAT's lawyer, Tim Danson, counters that "the sole reason for the increased severity in treatment is because his mental disability is of such a nature that he poses a very severe threat to the public at large."

LePage's lawyer argues that it is an "affront to humanity to indefinitely detain a person found not guilty of an offence" without proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he is dangerous.

Danson contends that individuals are not detained in the mental health system indefinitely. Their cases are reviewed annually and when a person is found no longer dangerous, the Criminal Code Review Board sanctions their release. This gives the insane detainee "an opportunity to bring his or her detention to an end immediately, a luxury not afforded to those who are sane and convicted," says Danson. "Therefore," he claims, "a willingness on the part of the patient to acknowledge his or her mental disorder, seek treatment, and refrain from violent behaviour, can result in early release." Taking this argument even further, Danson notes that "people convicted of criminal offences would have a Charter argument under section 15 because insane people receive preferential treatment."

Tim Danson adds Mr. LePage entered the judicial system because of his actions, and it was only later that it was determined that he is mentally ill. Where a criminal sentence would have resulted in punishment, admittance into the mental health system provides treatment and protection, but only for the time a person demonstrates the need for help. When treatment is no longer needed, the annual reviews provide for the possibility of release from the institution.

If the capping provision becomes law, it would contradict the chief goal of the Solicitor General and the Criminal Code, which is to protect the public. Mr. LePage's rights are already being respected. He has the opportunity to be released as soon as he completes a rehabilitation program.

As STOPWATCH goes to press, we are still waiting for the judge's ruling.

The Provincial Mental Health and the Criminal Justice Journey of Denis LePage

• age 16: left a training school run by Roman Catholic Lay Brothers to which he had been sent.
• stole a gun from an employer. Was arrested and convicted of possessing a restricted weapon.
• moved in with his father by order of Juvenile Court.
• left his father's house to live with his aunt Gertrude.
• age 19: LePage killed Gertrude by hitting her over the head with a rolling pin.
• 1966: convicted of manslaughter in Gertrude's death. Sentenced to 12 years. Served 8 years and was then released in 1975.
• 1976: sentenced for indecently assaulting 3 males. Given 21 months.
• 1978: caught outside his therapist's house carrying a sawed-off shotgun, two pairs of handcuffs and a replica .357 snub-nosed Magnum. Pleaded not guilty due to insanity, and was committed to Penetanguishene's Mental Health Centre.
• diagnosed as having "Pseudopsychopathic schizophrenia"
• 1993: Pleaded guilty and was convicted of four counts of threatening staff in 1990 and 1991. At that same hearing the Crown dropped another charge of possessing a dangerous weapon--a steel shank hidden in his hospital-issue Hush Puppies.
• He remains in Penetanguishene on a Lieutenant-Governor's Warrant, which can be issued to detain unstable criminals. He consistently refuses to undergo treatment, as is his legal entitlement.

(Summarized from The Toronto Star, May 30, 1994)

Bridging the Gap Between the Mental Health and Criminal Justice Systems

Often, when we look for a concrete answer to explain the unexplainable, we hear the cliché, "It simply fell through the cracks." Almost as frequently, the crack is an impassable chasm. A similar void occurs when our systems attempt to provide the community with an acceptable level of safety from dangerous individuals with a high propensity to offend. Unfortunately, there is no simple solution to be found from the mental health system or from the justice system. And the chasm that exists between justice and mental health, which puts the public at risk, has people concerned.

Jonathan Yeo, a man with a long history of violence, apparently fell through the cracks. He was considered to be a violent time bomb waiting to explode, and explode he did. In his final days, while on bail having been charged with a violent sexual attack on a Hamilton women, he stalked and killed Nina de Villiers and Karen Marquis, before he shot and fatally wounded himself.

Denis LePage is also a dangerous man with a lengthy criminal record. In the late 1970s, he was found not criminally responsible for a weapons' offence and was sent to a secure facility where he has been housed for the past several years. During this time he has had the right to be reassessed regularly by a team of experts who have determined that LePage is still a danger to society, highly likely to re-offend and, therefore, unfit to be returned to life in the community. Presently, LePage is waging a battle for his release from the facility at Penetanguishene, suggesting to the courts that his state of mind is of no consequence. He is arguing that he has been housed in the mental hospital longer than he would have been if he had been found guilty and sent to jail. He maintains that this action is unconstitutional.

In Hamilton, Ontario, another highly dangerous man, Wayne Walker, was recently convicted of abducting a six-year-old girl from her church. This latest incident is one in a list of assaults that Walker has been convicted of, and instead of being sentenced to a determined prison term, Walker was declared a dangerous offender and sent to prison for an indefinite term. The judge sent Walker to prison with a cautionary note to prison authorities begging them to provide the utmost care and protection for him in the institution. His caution was indeed necessary for Walker is a mentally challenged man who had lived in an institution for most of his adult life and who has been severely abused during much of his lifetime. This caring and concern of the judge implies that he had to send Walker to prison to protect the public from a dangerous man, but that he, the judge, also realized that Walker did not really belong in prison and may be in danger of further victimization. Again, there is no alternative infrastructure in place to house such a man who is a danger to society, but who also should himself be protected.

At one time in Canada, physically and mentally challenged persons were cared for in provincial hospitals and institutions. Now, however, many of these same people have been released from their structured institutional life to live in communities. Supervision may be provided by a counsellor whose job it is to assist the individuals adjust to their new lives. While some people have fared well, there are others who have proven to be unable to function appropriately in the community. Wayne Walker seems to be a case in point.

Wayne Walker, as a victim of sexual abuse,was not afforded the privacy that most victims are guaranteed. The sexual abuse committed against him was publicized in vivid detail with no effort made to conceal his identity. And yet he is not only a victim; he is also mentally challenged. If this little detail was missed in the reporting of his case, can he be guaranteed care and protection in the prison system to prevent his further victimization; a system that is not there to treat his mental state, but to incarcerate him to protect the public? Perhaps the chasm between the mental health system and the justice system needs to be bridged by an infrastructure capable of dealing with the likes of Wayne Walker who must be held in a custodial setting to protect the public, but who also needs a place in which he can feel safe.

Provocation Defence:
A Legal Excuse for Men's Anger?

Ralph Klassen murdered his wife Susan in 1995. He pleaded not guilty to second degree murder but was convicted of the lesser crime of manslaughter because his wife provoked him and that is why he strangled her. In January 1997 he was sentenced to five years imprisonment for manslaughter. He will be eligible for day parole as early as next spring.

Brenda McDonald, Susan's sister, said that during the trial, the only element that the Crown had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt was Ralph Klassen's intent to kill or cause bodily harm. "What more could someone do to a person to show they meant for their victim to die?" Brenda asks.

The family and friends of Susan Klassen have set up a web site to tell Susan's story. It is a deeply moving story of a woman who died too young. Susan was born in Edmonton and had five sisters. She was a well-loved and successful occupational therapist who enjoyed storytelling in her spare time. In 1982 Susan married Ralph Klassen, a one-time pastor with a master's degree in theology. After working for seven months with the Christian Missionary Alliance Church he held a number of jobs in several different communities. The Klassens moved often because Ralph seemed unable to settle and find meaningful employment. In 1990 they moved to Whitehorse, Yukon.

Their marriage was difficult. Friends and family knew of Ralph's controlling behaviour, his jealousy and his angry nature. Ralph could not accept Susan's desire to settle down, to pursue her own interests and hobbies, and to enjoy friendships. Their marriage was broken by many separations. In 1995 Ralph tried to persuade Susan to reconcile the marriage. She declined and later that night she lost her life. Ralph strangled her. "Trial evidence suggested that Ralph first choked Susan with his bare hands, spraining both his thumbs under the force, until she lost consciousness. He then took a pillowcase off a pillow and tied it extremely tight around Susan's neck, permanently cutting off the oxygen to her brain. There were no signs of a struggle."

When the case got to court, the judge disallowed the statutory defence of provocation, but at the same time, he instructed the jurors that they should consider "provocation-type evidence".

Susan's friends and family are calling for the abolition of the provocation defence as it applies to domestic femicide. Researchers who specialize in domestic violence note that men must take full criminal responsibility for their violent actions against women. There should no longer be a legal excuse for men's anger. Murder must no longer be reduced to manslaughter. "We are the voice for the women who have died at the hands of male violence and for those who are kept silent in abusive relationships," they say. We must send a strong voice to the Canadian justice system.

The Crown has launched an appeal of Klassen's controversial five-year sentence. The Crown lawyers intend to argue that the judge's sentencing instructions to the jury were inadequate and did not take into consideration the aggravating factors of spousal violence and breach of trust.

Web site containing more information:

http://www.yukonweb.com/community/susan

Date the Crown appeals the case:

May 27, 1997 in Whitehorse

Petition calling for the abolition of the provocation defence:

Over 4000 signatures collected so far

Statistics:

(Source: speaking notes by The Honourable Lois Moorcroft, Minister of Justice, Government of the Yukon, based on information from Statistics Canada, 1993)

• one half of all Canadian women have experienced at least one incident of violence since the age of 16;
• one quarter of all women have experienced violence at the hands of current or past marital partner (including common-law partners)
• one in every six currently married women reported physical or sexual violation by their spouses; one half of women reported violence by a previous spouse;
• more than one in every ten women who reported violence at the hands of a current husband felt that at some point their lives were in danger.
• In 1995, six out of ten spousal homicides involved a history of domestic violence known to the police;
• women were the victims in 77% of spousal homicides in 1995;
• from 1985 to 1994, there was an average of 110 victims killed by a spouse each year, with women representing three quarters of these victims.

New Bill to Increase Customs
Officers' Powers, Public Safety

In August 1991, Jonathan Yeo, a crazed sexual predator, with an eleven-year history of violence against women, armed with a firearm, attempting to breach bail for sexual assault, tried to cross the border into the U.S. at the Whirlpool Bridge at Niagara Falls.

Neither Customs Canada nor Immigration Canada had the power to detain him or seize his weapon. Ninety minutes later Nina de Villiers disappeared while jogging. Her body was found ten days later in a marsh near Napanee, Ontario. She had been executed. Karen Marquis was assaulted and executed in her home in New Brunswick four days later. Their killer, Jonathan Yeo, shot himself in a police chase in Hamilton, Ontario.

The jury at an inquest into Yeo's death heard testimony about Yeo's border incident and recommended that, "There must be armed personnel at all border crossings for the protection of the public and safety of our country. We recommend a permanent police service or customs officers who are proficient in arms."

In 1994 CAVEAT hosted a multi-disciplinary, national conference called SafetyNet, in which recommendations were made to all levels of government. The Border Security Committee of SafetyNet made sixteen recommendations, one of which states, "Border protection officers be granted full peace officer status and that they be fully trained and fully armed where possible."

On March 13, 1997, National Revenue Minister Jane Stewart announced that the federal government had tabled legislation which would allow customs officers to detain or arrest individuals who are suspected of having committed offences under the Criminal Code.

Ms. Stewart stated, "Canada's customs officers are our first line of defence in keeping drugs, contraband, and illegal firearms out of Canada. Giving customs officers the capability to hold suspected drunk drivers, child abductors, and other potentially dangerous individuals until police arrive will increase their ability to provide Canadians with safe streets and safe communities."

The new legislation does not provide for the arming of custom officers. "Given that our officers already carry out arrests and that this proposal broadens the scope of current powers rather than granting new ones, custom officers will not be required to carry firearms," said Ms. Stewart.

Prior to the implementation of this bill, which could take six to nine months to complete after passing through the House and receiving Royal Assent, the only recourse left for Customs Inspectors who were concerned about a suspect was to contact local police and hope that the individual would be intercepted somewhere down the road. For example, customs officials could only ask intoxicated drivers to pull over and rest away the intoxication or permit another person to drive. They could not detain intoxicated drivers against their wishes. They could not apprehend Jonathan Yeo for similar reasons.

CAVEAT was pleased to participate in the Revenue Minister's news conference announcing this new legislation. The law forges one more link in the protection of Canadian society. Six years ago, Jonathan Yeo could not be detained at the U.S. border and three people died. If this legislation had been in place then, he could have been held.

CAVEAT on Bill C-55
(High-Risk Offenders)

On February 11, 1997, CAVEAT appeared before the Justice Committee to submit its views on Bill C-55 that was introduced by the government last year. The legislation, if passed, would amend the Dangerous Offender (DO) provisions of the Criminal Code and create a new long-term offender classification. We are in favour of measures taken to address the urgent need to protect society from predators clearly identified to pose a risk.

Dangerous offenders would be sentenced to indefinite terms of incarceration. They would be eligible for a parole hearing after seven years instead of the present three. The Crown would also have a period of six months after conviction in which to file the DO application.

CAVEAT had recommended that Dangerous Offender applications be allowed at any point in the period of incarceration as the dangerousness of some offenders is identified by authorities at a much later stage in their assessment and treatment. This Bill does not address the issue of the violent predator who is identified as being dangerous to society after the six-month period.

The long-term offender provisions of the Bill allow the courts to impose a period of supervision of up to 10 years on offenders who have been identified as being at high risk of re-offending and yet have to be released at the end of their sentence.

CAVEAT pointed out to the Justice Committee that "adding a 10-year period of parole supervision is a good start, but it will only be effective if existing supervision is enhanced." Priscilla de Villiers voiced "grave concerns about the ability and commitment of the Solicitor General's department and Correctional Services of Canada to create the infrastructure which will be essential to the effective administration of this legislation if it is to protect Canadian society. In the past three years, the Attorney General has reported grave concerns about the ability of Corrections to successfully re-integrate and monitor offenders out on parole."

CAVEAT recommended that a provision be added to the Bill which requires a review of the effectiveness of the legislation within five years after enactment. This review would give us a clear picture of whether or not offenders are re-offending while on long-term supervision.

Editor's note: The contentious provision of the Bill which would have allowed the electronic monitoring of people deemed to pose a serious danger even if they have never been previously convicted or charged has been removed by the justice committee. The provision had been condemned by civil libertarians who claim that the provision would violate the principle of the presumption of innocence.

CAVEAT's submission on Bill C-55 can be found on our web site (http://www.caveat.org)

"Let's Talk"

From my desk to you...

Johanne is CAVEAT's Victim Resources/Program Co-ordinator. Before joining CAVEAT, Johanne worked as a service co-ordinator for victims of childhood sexual abuse and as a group therapy co-ordinator.

Welcome to "Let's Talk"! This section is a regular feature of STOPWATCH which makes space available to you and me--the victims of crime.

Who are the victims of crime? We all are. Violent crime has devastated children, spouses, partners and parents, but the effect of violent crime reaches beyond the immediate family. It mushrooms. Cousins, aunts and uncles, grandparents, co-workers, friends, neighbours and the whole community are ultimately affected.

"Let's Talk" provides an opportunity to support each other by sharing views and experiences. For my part, I will share with you information that comes across my desk, such as:

• letters from you about your experiences, your feelings and the impact crime has had on your personal life and on those around you
• letters sharing your road to recovery or offering support and guidance to others
• coping skills
• letters venting/expressing your opinions
• safety tips
• suggested reading material
• information on community awareness/wellness programs
• questions/answers
• poems/pictures
• information on other topics suggested by you, the reader.

We at CAVEAT don't have all the answers but we are committed to helping you find them. Submissions should be made to:

Johanne
"Let's Talk",
CAVEAT STOPWATCH
Suite 3-164, 3350 Fairview St.
Burlington, Ontario L7N 3L5

Guidelines

Submissions must be 400 words or less and must be accompanied by your full name, address, and telephone number. CAVEAT will print your full name, city and province, unless you specify that you would like to remain anonymous. CAVEAT will not print telephone numbers or street addresses. CAVEAT reserves the right to edit all submissions.

"Let's Talk"

Grieving

Dear readers;

When our lives are interrupted by the taking away of a loved one we're involuntarily put into a state of despair and we attempt to understand the feelings associated with this unexpected loss, a journey familiar to many. There are times when the end brings relief to those suffering from illness and disease and we may cope with the loss by rationalizing that their pain and suffering have ceased but we don't really understand the mixed up feelings we have. Grief is painful regardless of the type of death survivors are faced with.

Accidental death challenges our coping mechanisms even further. The shock of a sudden death is overpowering. Therese A. Rando, Ph.D writes, " he or she is in shock emotionally and physiologically, and it persists for an extended time. This further interferes with the mourner's ability to grasp what has occurred..." She writes about how the shock effect overwhelms the ego and its resources which interferes with the mourning that is required (Living With Grief After Sudden Loss).

The violent act of taking a life marks the beginning of an overwhelming nightmare for those left behind. The emergence of many different feelings flood daily thoughts when coping with traumatic circumstances. This makes the bereavement process more difficult. Rando writes about the treatment of mourning being complicated by post-traumatic stress. "In such a situation, the caregiver must be skilled at intervening in the ensuing post-traumatic stress reactions to the event as well as in the bereavement over the loss itself, and must comprehend the interplay between both processes." (The Treatment of Complicated Mourning (Rando, 1993) and Living With Grief After Sudden Loss)

Feelings of 'anger' can set up barriers and block our logic. A great amount of time is spent dwelling on 'if only'. Feelings of guilt set in, creating thoughts that maybe the death could have been avoided...'if only.' The grieving process is not only challenged but the healing process is lengthier unless professional intervention and guidance are sought.

Anger is a healthy and normal emotion but different levels of anger on any given day affect your daily routine and if one person in the system is adversely affected by such a heinous crime, the entire system is affected. If you look at a continuum of this emotion it may look like this; anger = rage = violence. Aggressive anger (rage) is a non-productive by-product of our grief. When we suppress this anger it, too, can be just as damaging, if it's not dealt with appropriately. Suppressed angry feelings can be debilitating and often lead to severe depression. Misplaced anger puts extra strain on relationships. Anger (rage) out of control can destroy.

Support from family members and friends is critical during this time but not always available. Experience has shown that support and counseling groups provide a very productive and positive healing process for those dealing with trauma. The opportunity to share feelings with others who share a similar experience is very therapeutic. With the proper guidance from experienced facilitators, anger work accompanied with bereavement work can free the mourning survivor, allowing them to turn inward and utilize their own strengths to provide a focus for the healing process. This work can also be accomplished on a one-on-one basis.

The bereavement process is cyclical and coping mechanisms are different for everyone. I lost my brother tragically 25 years ago and when I look back I don't remember having any knowledge of community support to help me and my family through our healing nor were there any recommendations from others. I have no recollection of being approached by the funeral home for counselling. The funeral was over, everyone went home and on with their business and you think...OK, now what? My coping skills were such that I picked myself up (I believed it was expected of me) and went back to work. Feelings! What feelings? I put the feelings away...far away...so far away that 10 years later I suffered a volcanic explosion of swallowed emotions (to my surprise) and struggled through a serious breakdown. Not good! Unnecessary today.

We are more fortunate today. There is wonderful help available through bereavement programs and written material to assist you through your grieving. Yes, the journey is painful and the feelings are real but they don't really go away if you just keep swallowing them. Believe me, volcanoes are more painful! I do (personally) believe in 'anger' work, when the time is right. It may not be for everyone. However, with the proper support network at hand and a skilled professional facilitator (therapist) it can be such productive work.

But while I say this I continue to struggle and search for support services available for bereaved homicide survivors with an addendum focusing on 'anger management'. I am working on a referral program of services available for victims of homicide with skilled caregivers who have a combined knowledge of the processes of mourning and the treatment of mourning complicated by post-traumatic stress. It's all out there; skills in bereavement work, anger management work and post-traumatic stress. I believe there is a need for an umbrella of these skills to help victims of homicide. If you are aware of any such services in your area, please share your information with us.

Let's hear from you. Share your coping skills/experience with our readers. It helps to know you're not alone. One coping skill may not be right for you. That's OK. Try a different one. By letting someone know that 'yes' you can survive through these ugly overwhelming feelings you in fact are showing them that through this pain is relief.

How do (did) you, a victim of violence, a victim of homicide, cope with the heinous death of a loved one and then, how do (did) you help your children cope? Have you received bereavement counselling and did you deal with post-traumatic stress and/or anger management? You may be an immediate family member, an extended family member, a friend, a co-worker, etc.

Johanne

"Let's Talk"

Surviving Homicide

The following was submitted by Colette Mandin-Kossowan, Chair, CAVEAT Alberta

On August 6, 1991, my brother Maurice Mandin, his wife Susan and their two daughters, Islay (12) and Janelle (10) were murdered by my 15-year-old nephew, Gavin Mandin. Gavin was angry at his parents because "they bugged him" and they "made him do chores." He shot them all with a .22 rifle. He shot his sisters "because they were there."

The ensuing journey through the justice system was arduous, to say the least. It took 2 1/2 years to reach a conviction. Gavin was transferred to adult court and received a life sentence for 2nd degree murder, with parole eligibility at 10 years (2001).

My family suffered every symptom of victimization that exists. The impact of murder on a family is devastating and disrupts your whole life. The initial reactions are horror, shock, disbelief and grief. These reactions eventually are compounded with feelings of loss of control, helplessness, powerlessness, panic, fear and rage. These feelings can happen alone or overwhelm you all at once and they recur many, many times.

The ripple effect of murder sends shock waves that touch the next of kin, neighbours, acquaintances, schools, churches and co-workers. These shock waves affect the emotional, social, physical and financial well-being of the whole community.

So how do we recover? How do we rehabilitate ourselves and others so that we all become survivors, so that the symptoms and behaviours related to the murder do not last forever, or worse, get learned and passed down to the next generation? Is it possible?

I don't know the answers to all these questions but I would like to share some coping skills I have learned.

The shock of the violent death of a loved one is usually not immediately assimilated. You will only be able to absorb small bits of information at a time and you will forget a lot. Take notes when there is information, names, telephone numbers you want to remember. You can refer to them later, when you are rested or need the information.

There will be at least three complicated processes happening to you all at once, and to members of your family and friends:

1. The effects of acute stress or post-traumatic stress as a result of the violent loss of a loved one

2. The bereavement process and its roller coaster ride

3.The secondary victimization that occurs through the response of individuals and institutions to the victims, the most obvious being the justice system.

It is very important to seek out and access as much information about these three processes as possible in order to regain control of your life. Knowing some of the signs and symptoms of post-traumatic stress, the bereavement process, and secondary victimization will help you recognize a normal pattern of distress. When the symptoms happen, you can deal with them slowly, one at a time.

Assessing information is empowering. If you know what has happened, what will happen, who, what, when and where, you will be able to predict and prepare your future. The 'normal' life you knew is in the past. You must redefine, reconstruct a new 'normal' and plan your future, one step at a time.

This all sounds very complicated but taking some very practical steps can facilitate your healing, learning and coping.

1. Take care of your basic needs; eat foods that keep you well; avoid food abuse. Try to keep a restful sleeping pattern and if you can't, take 'mini' rest breaks often. Keep your 'nest' (your home) organized so that your life doesn't feel as scattered. Exercise regularly. Over and over you will feel the anxiety of acute stress. This triggers the 'fright & flight' response in your body. You feel restless, anxious, like you want to run or 'escape'. So do it! Walk, bike, run, swim, do whatever it takes to use up that energy. You will feel better and you will sleep better at night. Avoid using alcohol or drugs.

2. Tell your story to people who support you and whom you trust. If you would prefer an objective ear, contact a victim services provider or friends. It is important that you are allowed the repetitive process of telling your story. It is a way of putting the pieces of the puzzle together and integrating them into your life. As bits of memory come back, re-telling will reveal a more complete story over time.

3. When you are ready, tap into the network across Canada of victims advocacy groups. They may be able to provide you with the validation, the support, and the information you need.

4. Do not hesitate to speak to a support group or to seek out bereavement help. We all seem to hesitate to do this but it can accelerate your recovery process by providing information, a 'safe' place to talk without inhibition, and validation that what you are going through reflects a normal pattern of human distress.

5. Seek out humour. You might feel it is 'too early' or 'inappropriate' but humour staves off the bottom-out blues.

6. Be patient with yourself and your family. The recovery process is a roller coaster ride and it is bumpy. It has to be done in little steps.

The end result is worth the effort: your recovery and rehabilitation, and a return to hope for the future.

"Let's Talk"

Q&A

Dear Johanne:

I am a sexual abuse survivor. As a result of the stress when I took my offender (father) to court I have been unable to work. In addition, I am unable to pay my medical bills, rent and other accumulated expenses. Can you please advise me on whether or not I can be compensated for this and who should I contact.

J.
Scarborough, Ontario

Dear J: Since each case pertaining to criminal compensation is different I cannot give you a specific answer. You need to contact the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. I have known survivors of sexual abuse who have received compensation but their circumstances were all different. Good luck to you. Phone: 416-326-2900; Fax: 416-326-2883

Dear Johanne:

I have been stalked for 3 years. I have been unable to work and because of my stalker I have incurred many expenses. At the police's suggestion I spent money on a security system and a trained dog. Also, my doctor suggested that most of my health problems are stress-related and he sent me to a therapist. I have had to borrow money to pay for all of this and now am wondering if the Criminal Injuries Board can give me some help for these expenses.

Sue,
St. Catharines, Ontario

Dear Sue: At the moment we understand that unless there was a physical assault against you, there has been no successful claim for stalking victims at the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. We phoned their Toronto office for clarification and were told by a clerk that stalking is not a crime that is covered by Criminal Injuries Compensation.

However, if you have been physically assaulted by your stalker you will need copies of medical reports documenting your injuries, receipts showing your expenses, a statement from your employer showing your wages/benefits/income tax return and report to the compensation board a.s.a.p. If your claim is straightforward, it might be assessed from your documentation. If it is more complicated, you may be asked to attend an oral hearing and give further details. You can expect that the whole process will take at least a year.

"Let's Talk"

Information for Victims of Stalking

If you are being stalked

• document every action taken by the stalker. You must be able to provide detailed information on the dates/times you were contacted/followed or harassed.
  
• notify the police and file a report after each incident. Make a note of the names of the police officers with whom you spoke and the report numbers. You may need this information at a later date.
  
• tell everyone about your situation. Ask them to watch out for unusual occurrences around your home or place of work. Note the names and the phone numbers of witnesses.
• contact the Victim's Services branch of your local police station for information on securing your residence.
  
• document! document! document! You should expect that you will have to provide this evidence in order to successfully bring charges under the Criminal Code, s.264.
  
• alert yourself! Make yourself aware of personal safety issues. There is information available on the Internet, through your local police station or public library.

Suggested reading material

• Stalked: Breaking the Silence on the Crime of Stalking in America, by Melita Schaum & Karen Parrish
• To Have or To Harm: True stories of stalkers and their Victims, by Linden Gross

Web sites to visit

National Victim Center (U.S.): www.nvc.org; Stalking Victim's Sanctuary: www.ccon.com; Survivors of Stalking www.soshelp.org. Other valuable sources can be accessed on the Internet by using keywords such as: stalking, personal safety, domestic violence.

CAUTION: please always remember that everyone can surf the web for information on 'stalking'--EVERYONE! The web is a wonderful tool for accessing information, but remember to exercise caution when giving information about yourself.

"Let's Talk"

Convicting a Stalker Under Section 264

Section 264 of the Criminal Code of Canada (the Criminal Harassment [Anti-stalking] law) says:

264 (1) No person shall, without lawful authority and knowing that another person is harassed or recklessly as to whether the other person is harassed, engage in conduct referred to in subsection (2) that causes that other person reasonably, in all the circumstance, to fear for their safety or the safety of anyone known to them.

(2) The conduct mentioned in subsection (1) consist of

(a) repeatedly following from place to place the other person or anyone known to them;

(b) repeatedly communicating with, either directly or indirectly, the other person or anyone known to them

(c) besetting or watching the dwelling-house, or place where the other person, or anyone known to them, resides, works, carries on business or happens to be; or

(d) engaging in threatening conduct directed at the other person or any member of their family.

(3) Every person who contravenes this section is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

For you to successfully get a stalker convicted under s.264, you must prove:

(1) One or more of the types of conduct listed in s.264(2).

(2) The accused intended to harass the complainant, or was reckless as to whether she was harassed by this conduct. "Harass" has been defined in caselaw (and the dictionary) as 'vex, trouble, annoy, continually or chronically'.

(3) The complainant has 'reasonable fears, in all of the circumstances' for her 'safety' or the 'safety of anyone known' to her. Gender may play a role as a woman's 'size, strength, socialization and lack of training' may lead a woman to be fearful in a situation where a six-foot man might not be. The concept of 'safety' includes freedom from physical harm as well as psychological well-being. Women's groups have concerns regarding "the wording about the accused's 'intent' to create fear--the point is not the intent of his actions, but the result, ie. she was scared."

"Let's Talk" -- end of section

NJN UPDATE

Excerpts from: January/1997 Volume 3 Issue 1 & February/1997 Volume 3 Issue 2
CAVEAT is pleased to announce a new addition to STOPWATCH.
The National Justice Network (NJN) Update is provided courtesy of the
Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime (VRC), Ottawa.

NJN Update, by the Victims Resource Centre, Ottawa

BC PAROLE BOARD HEARS FROM VICTIMS

British Columbia Attorney General Ujjal Dosanjh recently announced that the BC Parole Board will hear from victims when making decisions. While all provincial and the federal parole boards allow victim impact statements, they must be in writing, and victims are permitted to only attend as observers.

This makes the BC Parole Board the first to actually allow oral victim impacts statements.

Many victims want the opportunity to speak at parole hearings about the harm done to them. The move has been applauded by several victims groups which are part of the NJN (National Justice Network).

BC Attorney General Ujjal Dosanjh said, "The personal testimonies of victims will be invaluable to the board in assessing the risks of granting parole and setting appropriate restrictions on parolees."

The BC Government should be commended for taking this step. The VRC (Victims Resource Centre) will ensure other parole boards are aware of this and we will encourage them to make the same changes.

NJN Update, by the Victims Resource Centre, Ottawa

VICTIMS TESTIFY ON BILL C-55

The Commons Justice Committee recently heard from three national victims groups as well as the parents of two children who were murdered by high risk offenders.

The Committee is hearing witnesses on Bill C-55 which deals with high risk offenders as well as Bill C-254, Val Meredith's Private Member's Bill. The VRC and Victims of Violence testified together. We support both bills, but had some suggestions for improvement for Bill C-55. We also made reference to the fact that Meredith's bill has been before the Committee for over two years and is only now being considered.

The second panel consisted of CAVEAT, Marilyn Cameron, whose daughter Pamela was murdered in 1994 by Robert Owens, and Jim and Anna Stephenson, whose son Christopher was murdered in 1988 by Joseph Fredericks. Both offenders had long histories of violent/sexual offences, yet the justice system was unable to keep them locked up despite their obvious dangerousness. Jim Stephenson spoke of a system that lets identified high risk offenders loose. Marilyn Cameron explained how one judge described Owens as a walking time bomb. And Anna Stephenson asked the members to remember that they too have families and that Christopher could have been their son.

All three urged the Committee to have the courage to pass both bills, especially Meredith's, which would permit the indefinite detention of an offender after serving his entire sentence.

CAVEAT Comment:
CAVEAT's submission on Bill C-55 can be found on our web site at http://www.caveat.org/

NJN Update, by the Victims Resource Centre, Ottawa

SUPREME COURT REAFFIRMS PREVIOUS DECISION REGARDING VICTIM'S PERSONAL RECORDS

The Supreme Court of Canada has seemingly reaffirmed a past decision with regards to the right of an accused person to have access to private records of sexual assault victims. In 1995, the Court ruled that accused have a right to obtain psychological/therapeutic records of their complainants because it could be relevant in assessing the accused's guilt, and may affect the accused's right to full answer and defence.

In R. v. Carosella, the court upheld a stay of proceedings against the accused. The complainant alleges that Carosella abused her between 1964-1966 when he was her teacher. In 1992, she visited a sexual assault Centre in Windsor for advice as to how to lay charges.

The person who spoke with her made notes about the meeting, but those notes were destroyed in 1994 after the Centre passed a policy of destroying all notes (that had not been subpoenaed) because they were being forced to turn their notes over in a growing number of court cases.

The trial judge stayed the proceedings since he did not think the accused could have a fair trial without the notes. The Ontario Court of Appeal disagreed and sent the matter to trail.

The majority of the SCC (5-4) found that the content of the notes may have been useful to the accused as it may have shown inconsistencies in the complainant's version of events. Mr. Justice Sopinka went on to criticize the Centre for their actions.

There was some logic in the Upper Chambers however, and as usual it came from Madam Justice L'Heureux-Dubé. She said that, "it is not proper to state that...a fair trial cannot be based on pure speculation."

She went on to argue that the Centre was a third party and had no obligation to disclose their records. The disclosure requirements rest solely with the Crown, who had no control over the notes. It would be illogical to ensure that every single piece of evidence that may be relevant be presented at trial. If that were the case, no trial would ever proceed. The Charter does not guarantee an accused a perfect trial, only a fair trial. She added that it is not for the SCC to judge the Centre's policies.

"The Charter does not entitle an accused to a perfect trial...An accused is entitled to a fair trial." Madam Justice L'Heureux-Dubé

The result of the Court's decision is the possibility of letting a sex offender go free, something the SCC judges can live with, but is less acceptable for the rest us.

In response to the 1995 decision, Justice Minister Rock introduced a bill to deal with the problem but it has not even gone to Committee yet.

NJN Update, by the Victims Resource Centre, Ottawa

UPCOMING PAROLE HEARINGS CAUSE FOR CONCERN

It is not uncommon for the VRC to receive calls from victims regarding upcoming parole hearings for the offenders who victimized them. In many cases, it involves convicted killers. In the last couple of months, a number of calls from justifiably concerned people were received. Here are just a few:

1. William COON (Ont.) - was 17 years old when he shot and killed two school mates, Frankie Battaglia and Rob O'Connor. He hid in the basement of the Battaglia home with a shotgun waiting for the two boys to come home from school.

Coon was transferred to adult court because the judge decided that public safety could not be guaranteed within the three years maximum under the YOA (at the time). Several psychiatrists testified that Coon was a psychopath and was probably untreatable.

He was convicted of first degree murder in 1990 and has a parole hearing scheduled for this May.

2. Jack EDGAR (Yukon) - murdered his estranged wife, Donna, and her sister, Ardis Conlon in 1985. He claimed that they had cheated him of some mining property.

He, along with another man, waited for the two women outside the mine road. He stopped their truck and when they tried to flee, shot at the truck which eventually drove off the road. He then shot both women at close range as they lay outside the truck.

The other man with him stated Edgar executed the two women as they wept. Edgar was convicted of second degree murder and sentenced to life without parole for 15 years. He is eligible for day parole this summer.

"...the VRC felt it necessary to advise the Board of our particular concerns about public safety and the potential release of these individuals."

3. Steven MACH (Ont.) - attempted to kill a police officer in 1991. The officer noticed two men sitting in a car in a suburban area. The officer turned his car around and asked the driver to come back to the cruiser. As he was searching the driver for weapons, he found a gun and a switchblade. The passenger, Mach, bolted from the car and began shooting at the officer. The officer ran across the street and was shot in the back. Fortunately, he was wearing a bullet proof vest.

Mach was convicted of attempted murder and sentenced to 14 years in 1992 and is eligible for parole this summer.

In each of these cases, the VRC felt it necessary to advise the Board of our particular concerns about public safety and the potential release of these individuals.

NJN Update, by the Victims Resource Centre, Ottawa

CHILD SEX ABUSE CASES COMING TO LIGHT

The recent highly publicized link between hockey and paedophiles has once again brought the issue of child sexual abuse to the public's attention. The case of Sheldon Kennedy, the NHL star who was abused by a former hockey coach, and the recent discovery of a child sexual abuse ring at Toronto's Maple Leaf Gardens, are two examples of cases that have reminded society that threats to children are not limited to strangers lurking behind bushes. Society should not be surprised that paedophiles flock to organizations that allow them unsupervised access to young children.

The problem that exists with these and other similar cases is not limited to how the justice system deals with paedophiles, but why victims do not come forward. There are many reasons why this kind of abuse is not discovered for many years. For example, victims are made to feel that they are to blame, there are threats, victims feel ashamed. Paedophiles tend to target those who are more vulnerable and not likely to tell anyway. Some organizations (i.e. churches, schools, etc.) who have experienced an abuser working for them have attempted to hide the problem instead of bringing it to light and facing any possible criticism.

The chances of a conviction are about 50/50 in child sexual abuses, so many victims do not see any benefit in going to the police. However, people like Sheldon Kennedy, especially with his celebrity status, make it easier for other victims to come forward. He and others should be applauded for their courage.

CAVEAT Comment:
For more on this topic, see "Letters to the Editor" on page 10

NJN Update, by the Victims Resource Centre, Ottawa

SPECIAL REPORT: VICTIMS OF CRIME LEGISLATION

This Report looks at legislation that affects how victims are treated by the justice system. The Centre has undertaken a comparison of Victims of Crime legislation from coast to coast, and we will highlight positive and negative aspects of this type of legislation.

One of the most common questions that those of us who work with victims of crime are asked by media, lawyers and others within the system is what do victims want and expect from the justice system. The answer can be summed up in two words - "not much." When we really get down to what victims expect from the system, it truly pales in comparison to what the offender is guaranteed.

Victims do not want to control the justice system. They do not expect to have the power to tell the Crown Attorney how to handle a case or to decide upon an appropriate sentence. What they do expect is that when those decisions are made, they have the right to explain their positions and to know that their opinions are given serious consideration. They also expect to be provided certain information concerning court dates, information about their role in the process, how a trial works, what services may be available, when an offender is coming up for conditional release, etc. As can be clearly seen, nothing that the victim needs from the system takes away from what the offender receives.

As good as some of the legislation governing victims rights is (and some of it is quite good), it must be noted that notion of "rights" for victims is not exactly accurate. While most provinces have some type of Victim of Crime legislation, a careful examination of the wording shows that very little is guaranteed. The language and terms used are very non-committal, such as "Victims should have access to..." or "Subject to limits imposed by the availability of resources..." This is not to say that this type of legislation is useless, only that it has serious limitations built into the legislation.

Manitoba's legislation (passed in 1986) is the probably worst example of this. It uses phrases like "It is recognized that victims should have access to...services..." Simply recognizing that victims should have access to services is not the same as guaranteeing that victims will have access to services. The difference may appear subtle at first, but it is important to note. The Northwest Territories' Act does not provide for any rights, and instead the Victims Assistance Committee is legislated to "promote" what other provinces grant as rights. Again, promoting rights and guaranteeing them are two different things.

Currently, every province and territory has some kind of victims of crime legislation (Quebec passed An Act Respecting Assistance for Victims of Crime in 1988 but repealed it in 1993 and replaced it with the Crime Victims Compensation Act; the Yukon repealed its victims legislation in 1993). While an in-depth analysis of each province's legislation is much too broad for the purposes of this Report, we will attempt to highlight some exceptionally good examples of legislation and others that are not quite up to par.

(NOTE: the VRC has prepared a summary of each provinces legislation which is currently available, and we will be preparing a more detailed comparison which will also be made available when completed.)

While the legislation and the rights afforded vary from province to province, there are some standard principles that are recognized throughout the country. Most legislation addresses the following issues:

1. victims be treated with respect, courtesy and compassion;

2. protection from harassment/intimidation;

3. Victims of Crime Fund (money from Victim Fine Surcharges used for things like services, fund projects, research, compensation programs, etc.);

4. no cause of action created (victims cannot sue the Government if rights under the Act are violated);

5. victims' views considered when appropriate (impact statements at time of sentencing, plea bargains, etc.);

6. should be informed of services;

7. victims have the right to be informed of court dates, role in the system, etc.;

In recent years, British Columbia has established itself as a leader in the area of victims' rights, including the recent decision to allow victims the right to give oral statements at BC Parole Board hearings. In 1995, BC passed the Victims of Crime Act. One very important aspect is BC's definition of victim in that it specifically includes families of homicide victims.

It is not surprising that the more serious the offence, the more interest many victims have in the justice system. Since murder is the most serious offence in the Criminal Code, families of murder victims need to be involved in the process. Therefore it is essential that any victims of crime legislation includes homicide survivors. The Northwest Territories' Victims of Crime Act (passed in 1988) also has a very broad definition of victim which specifically includes immediate family members. Ontario's An Act Respecting Victims of Crime (which came into effect late last year), appears to limit the definition of the family of homicide victims to children or spouses. This would seemingly exclude siblings for example. New Brunswick's Victim Services Act (passed in 1987) is unique in that it contains no definition of who a victim is, and empowers the Victim Services Committee to determine who is a victim for the purposes of the Act.

Another common element of legislation is a recognition of a victim's need for information. As already mentioned, most provinces provide for the basics (services, court dates, role in the system, etc.). Some provinces have gone further, such as BC and Ontario. BC and Ontario both provide that victims be informed of the Criminal Injury Compensation Act.

BC specifically includes a provision that the victim is to be informed of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and it sets out very specifically the kind of information that victims should have access to including status of the investigation/ prosecution and the offender's sentence/conditional release dates. Ontario's list of information that should be made available to victims is also exhaustive and Ontario is the only province to make specific reference to cases where offenders have gone through the mental health system.

BC is the only province that provides for legal representation for victims, albeit under strict circumstances pertaining to disclosure of personal information about the victim. In addition, the Ombudsman Act also applies to the BC legislation which allows victims to complain if they feel their rights under the Act have been violated.

Manitoba is one of the few provinces which encourages victims to participate in alternative resolutions in its victims legislation (Newfoundland does as well). One has to question the appropriateness of this section in legislation devoted to victims' rights. It makes sense that victims be informed of these programs so that they can become involved if they so wish, but the question remains if this is the place to do it.

Ontario is the only province to have a preamble which states that the people of Ontario support victims and that "the justice system should operate in a manner that does not increase the suffering of victims of crime..." The other unique aspect of Ontario's legislation is the focus on civil proceedings and the attempts to make it easier for victims to sue in civil court.

Since there is nothing in this kind of legislation which guarantees victims any rights, the question becomes one of enforcement. First of all, should victims of crime legislation be enforceable and if so, how? Perhaps victims should be given the right to stop or postpone criminal proceedings if their rights have been violated. For example, if victims have the right to be informed of a plea bargain before it goes to court and the Crown fails to tell them about it, a victim could have the ability to stop the plea from being accepted. However, the system is already overburdened, and this model would only add to the problem. Nova Scotia, for example, contains a specific provision that states that this cannot happen.

BC allows victims the opportunity to complain to an Ombudsman, but even then there is no real power of enforcement. Perhaps an ombudsman's powers should be strengthened to allow him/her to discipline a Crown who ignores his/her duties under the Act. Maybe the Ombudsman could be granted the power to delay criminal proceedings if he/she is satisfied that a victim's rights were violated, i.e. not told of their right to prepare a victim impact statement for the purposes of sentencing.

Another option is to place the onus on the Crown to follow the rights set out under the Act, and if they are not followed, a cause of action would be created. This means that victims could sue the Government if their rights were violated. Currently every provincial legislation specifically sets out that nothing in the act creates a cause of action. It would certainly act as a reminder to Crowns/police/others that these rights are to be respected.

Crown Attorneys, police and others in the system need to be aware that victims do have rights, and what those rights are. It is equally important to ensure that victims know that they do have some "rights," which means those within the system who interact with victims know they have a responsibility to inform the victims of their rights (just as they do with offenders). Getting rights for victims is only half the battle - ensuring they know about them is the other half.

NJN Update, by the Victims Resource Centre, Ottawa

MURDER SENTENCES/PLEA BARGAIN SPARK OUTRAGE

Three recent sentences, two given by judges, the other agreed to by a Crown, have sparked considerable outrage in their respective communities, and once again brought focus to the issue of violence against women.

The first case involves a Yukon man who strangled his wife (spraining his thumbs in the process) before putting a pillow case over her head and smothering her. Ralph Klassen was originally charged with second degree murder in the death of his wife, Susan, but a jury found him guilty of the lesser crime of manslaughter. Judge Ralph Hutchison sentenced him to five years. As part of his reasoning, the Judge referred to a case where a man took 15 minutes to kill his wife and received a twelve year sentence. Since it took Klassen less than five minutes to kill his wife, he reasoned the sentence should be shorter.

The victim's family, as well as the VRC, have written to the Attorney General asking for an appeal of the sentence.

The second case, which occurred in Saskatoon, involves two university students who raped and murdered a native woman. Pamela George was raped and beaten to death in April/1995. Steven Kummerfield and Alex Ternowetsky were originally charged with first degree murder, but a jury found them guilty of manslaughter. The judge sentenced the two men to 6 1/2 years in prison.

The final case involves a man who stabbed his ex-fiance with a pair of scissors 18 times. He was originally charged with attempted murder but Crown Attorney Allan Root accepted his plea to aggravated assault and a sentence of five years. "If the man had intended to kill her, surely he wouldn't have taken a pair of scissors to do the job," stated Root.

NJN Update, by the Victims Resource Centre, Ottawa

KILLERS ELIGIBLE TO APPLY FOR
JUDICIAL REVIEW HEARING IN 1997

Nova Scotia / Nouvelle-Écosse

1. Zane Weatherbee 18-02-1997

New Brunswick / Nouveau-Brunswick

1. John MacKenzie 03-02-1997

Quebec / Québec

1. Daniel Poulin 02-01-1997
2. Serge Damien 03-02-1997
3. Yves Valade 18-05-1997
4. Pierre Brun 08-06-1997
5. Raoul Benson 08-06-1997
6. Daniel Benson 08-06-1997
7. Carol Gauthier 02-07-1997
8. Marc Paré 15-07-1997
9. Maurice Michel 18-09-1997
10. Jacques Mineau 25-09-1997
11. André Tremblay 05-10-1997
12. Jean Bouchard 13-10-1997
13. Christian Gagnon 23-12-1997

Ontario

1. Hugh Garlow 16-02-1997
2. Jeffrey Breese 09-05-1997
3. David Dobson 12-05-1997
4. Daniel Wood 12-07-1997
5. Fernand Robinson 10-08-1997
6. Terrence Cook 15-09-1997
7. Stuart Kirkby 25-09-1997
8. Lawrence Stocking 17-10-1997

Manitoba

1. Calvin Godfrey 21-05-1997

Saskatchewan

1. Rob Wapuchakoos 07-07-1997
2. Gordon Matthew 15-09-1997

Alberta

1. James Peters 15-02-1997
2. Claude Breton 28-07-1997
3. Patrick Heemskerk 10-08-1997
4. Terry Barrette 06-10-1997
5. Wilbert Thompson 10-11-1997
6. Wade Clark 17-11-1997

British Columbia / Colombie-Britannique

1. Paul Morning 04-05-1997
2. John Dixon 19-08-1997
3. Gene Graul 28-08-1997
4. Jason Gallant 15-09-1997
5. Kelly Toop 14-11-1997
6. Theodore Speicher 27-11-1997
7. Merrill Carson 28-11-1997
8. Lawrence Corbett 04-12-1997
9. Clifford Olson 11-03-1997

NJN Update, by the Victims Resource Centre, Ottawa

TRACKING BILLS

Bill C-17 (omnibus bill) - Committee report stage;

Bill C-27 (child prostitution/stalking/etc.) - Committee report stage;

Bill C-46 (victim's medical records) - before Justice Committee;

Bill C-53 (Provincial Temporary Absence Laws) - came into force on February 19, 1997;

Bill C-55 (High Risk Offenders) - before Justice Committee;

Bill C-205 (Wappel - criminals profiting) - before Justice Committee;

Bill C 237 (Peric - immigration) - passed second reading;

Bill C-254 (Meredith - high risk offenders) - before Justice Committee

NJN Update, by the Victims Resource Centre, Ottawa

SUPREME COURT REAFFIRMS "DO" STATUS

The first Dangerous Offender (DO) to ever have a court declare his punishment unjust has been returned to prison. Robert Currie was declared a DO in 1988, but the Ontario Court of Appeal released him last November. The Court did not have the authority to quash the designation.

Recently, the Supreme Court of Canada overturned the Court of Appeal's ruling, and once again imprisoned him. Currie is a convicted sex offender awaiting trial on 1987 charges of attempted murder and aggravated assault on an 18 year old girl.

An update on another Dangerous Offender - Robert Noyes. Noyes is the former BC school principal who sexually abused a number of students. He has taken virtually every form of treatment available. He is currently receiving escorted temporary absences and will receive unescorted temporary absences upon successful completion of the ETAs. He was denied day parole last year.

The Parole Board should take special cautions when releasing Dangerous Offenders since they clearly represent the highest risk. That was evident last year when a DO on parole was arrested for sexually assaulting young boys.

The VRC has requested a copy of the NPB/CSC Investigation Report into the case of George Harvey Milne and why he was released on parole.

NJN Update, by the Victims Resource Centre, Ottawa

POLICE SHOOTING HIGHLIGHTS
IMMIGRATION/DEPORTATION PROBLEM

A recent Ottawa police shooting has once again highlighted the problem with the deportation of criminals from Canada. Constable Sandra Buckley was forced to shoot Jamal Khouri after he attacked her partner with a meat cleaver. Khouri died as a result of the shooting.

Khouri was no stranger to the police. In fact, he was days away from being deported. In 1993, he came to Canada and admitted that he had a criminal record for armed robbery and theft in the U.S. but claimed refugee status. He was held in custody until April, 1994 and denied refugee status. He was then released while Immigration officials attempted to obtain travel documents. Last September, he was charged with threatening an Immigration employee. Immigration officials reportedly claim that, although he was a known criminal in the U.S., once he came to Canada, he became our problem.

The result of this case is the death of a man, public money spent on years of legal wrangling, etc. Constable Buckley was cleared of any wrongdoing by the Special Investigation Unit which examines police shootings. She also has to deal with the fact that she took the life of another human being. We sometimes forget how much we ask of the police officers that serve to protect us. Constable Buckley has only been on the job for 18 months. That is the real tragedy here - and it is all because of a few missing documents. Something is seriously wrong with our system when we accept a known criminal into our country and then cannot get him out again.

The National Justice Network is part of the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime located at 141 Catherine Street, Ottawa, Ontario, K2P 1C3 (613-233-7614 Fax 613-231-3254) e-mail address is cpa@igs.net.

Scott Newark is the President of the Centre and Steve Sullivan is the Executive Director as well as the author of the NJN Update.

NJN Update, by the Victims Resource Centre, Ottawa -- end of section

NEWSWATCH

Convict records to be shared by Ontario, Ottawa

The Ontario and federal governments have a new agreement to share information regarding criminals, acting on a recommendation made three times in the past 10 years at coroners' inquests.

The agreement applies to information regarding all offenders within the federal and provincial correctional systems, including young offenders.

It expands and formalizes current information-sharing arrangements.

"This agreement is long overdue," Ontario Attorney General Charles Harnick said in a release [February 28].

A 1993 inquest examining the murder of 11-year-old Christopher Stephenson, by Joseph Fredericks, a National Parole Board parolee, recommended that federal and Ontario authorities fully share information relevant to the risk assessment an individual poses to the community.

Inquests were also held in 1987 and 1988 into two murders committed by former federal inmates who were paroled by the board.

In 1988, an inquest was held after Melvin Stanton, on the first night of a 48-hour pass from Kingston Penitentiary, killed Toronto store manager Tema Conter.

In 1987, an inquest was held two years after Celia Ruygrok, a 21-year-old worker at a John Howard Society halfway house in Ottawa, was raped and killed by resident Allan Sweeney, a convicted killer.

Both inquests indicated the national board and Correctional Services Canada did not receive data from Ontario authorities that could have resulted in a denial of parole in both cases.

The Spectator (Canadian Press), March 1, 1997

Gravy train about to end for Ontario cons

The province agreed yesterday [March 31] to take steps to curb the number of inmates who illegally receive welfare payments while behind bars.

A deal signed at a special cabinet meeting will require corrections officials to tell the Social Services Ministry when someone is sentenced to jail, a government source said.

Corrections officials had previously refused to hand over such information to welfare authorities, citing privacy legislation.

The Spectator (Canadian Press). April 1, 1997

---

The Power Is Within You

My name is Sandy Atkin and I am a survivor of attempted murder. I survived a savage attack that began when my ex-husband fired a .22 rifle at point-blank range into my face, while I slept. The bullet travelled through my right arm, on into my face shattering my cheekbones, smashing teeth and jawbone, sending bone and metal fragments into my sinus cavities, destroying my left eye, and finally coming to rest 1 cm from my brain. The attack ended after he plunged a butcher knife into my body with such force that part of the blade broke off in my intestines. My stomach was ripped open, my spleen was torn, and my left lung had collapsed. I sustained 37 separate internal injuries.

I have lost my senses of taste and smell and suffer minimal brain damage, which has affected my memory. It has been 10 years since the attack, yet I still live with constant pain. Post- traumatic stress has left me with a legacy of horrific nightmares, a sleep disorder, and terrifying memories.

However, I refuse to let these companions from hell smother my hunger for life. I use my sense of humour to set others at ease about my experience and my obvious calling card, my eyepatch. I had to do something about my anger because to be filled with anger and rage would only paralyze me. During the past ten years, I have come to believe that there is nothing more rewarding in life then realizing that I have unlimited potential, that I am creative and that my life is filled with purpose. It makes no difference who you are, what you do or what your life situation is; You CAN achieve anything you set your mind to accomplish.

Trust me. I did not wake up one morning and say "Wow Sandy, it's time to take control of your life, so find the POWER WITHIN YOU and get going." This has been a process for me. In the beginning, there was no planning or consideration for the future. I was on "Automatic Pilot" doing what needed to be done and doing it to the best of my ability and all the while trying to come to grips with the horror of what happened. I just stumbled along and did. My kids used to call me THE LITTLE ENGINE THAT DID! and I did what my anger propelled me to do.

It soon became apparent to me that my anger was becoming a destructive force in my life. I had to make some changes in my life and I began to look at the choices I was making. I started making different choices for myself, choices that were based on opportunities. I saw an opportunity to transform my anger into constructive advocacy for victim's rights. Because there was a void in the community for support for crime victims, I saw an opportunity to establish a self-help group. I began to ask for the opportunity to speak at victim and justice conferences. I was asked to do a documentary for CBC Morningside on domestic violence that was nominated for an ACTRA Award. It was an opportunity to break the silence on these issues and bring domestic violence out of the darkness and into light for the Canadian public. I began to speak at halfway houses to parolees. This was an opportunity to tell how victims are affected by crime. I went to Kingston Penitentiary to speak to a group of men who had committed murder. It was an opportunity to tell them how their release into the community where the murder took place would affect the families of the murder victim and the community itself.

I went on to get an Honours Degree in Criminology from the University of Windsor and was honoured with the President's Medal for my A average and for my contributions to my community and my campus. I am also a Certified Life Skills Coach, having graduated from Columbia College. Currently, I am at Mount Royal College in the Addictions Study Certificate Program.

I want to pass on three things that I think are important for everyone.

THE PAST

Don't live in it. The past is gone. It is over, and you can't change it. I know many people who live in the past and they are miserable. I often speak about a circle of victimization and how I stepped out of it to become a survivor. Had I remained stuck in the past I would not be where I am today. The past will devour you and destroy you. Focus on how you can change. Ask yourself, "What things can I put in place for myself so my life can be better?"

THE FUTURE

The future is promised to no one. None of us knows what the future holds for us. I almost lost my life--I had no idea what the future held for me. Today, I make plans for the future and I hope there are a million more tomorrows, but I don't live in the future because it can devour you too.

THE PRESENT

I live in the present. I make the NOW important. I try and make every moment count and I try to be the best person I can be. If I make mistakes, I don't beat myself up over them. In fact, when I make mistakes, I welcome them because they are my teachers. I can learn from mistakes and from failure, but only if I want to change. Live in the here and now and you will be amazed at how much your life will improve.

THE POWER IS WITHIN ME AND THE POWER IS WITHIN YOU TOO!

Alberta's Safe and Caring Schools Initiative

Alberta Education recently held a provincial student conference called, "Get Real--Let's Talk", as part of the Safe and Caring Schools Initiative. Edmonton, Calgary, and Grande Prairie school boards were involved in this first of a series of three conferences. One thousand, five hundred delegates from grades 7 to 11 were involved. It was great that Alberta Education had the foresight to undertake this venture and the challenge is out to other provincial boards of education.

Letters to the Editor

Sex offenders

When the public realized that its most traditional sport (hockey) had been fouled by a horrible man, we saw and heard a cry of outrage.

In our own community, a family we know has felt the horror and pain of having their children defiled by a similar person who they felt was in a position of trust. It got little media attention. This man was found guilty of numerous sex crimes involving children, was given a jail sentence of 7-1/2 years, and then released less than three months later on an application for appeal. Other sex charges are pending as well. He is in our community, walking our streets, shopping in our malls.

The father of three of the victims is incredibly angry and there doesn't seem to be a fair way for him to deal with the situation. The offender has rights! I hope that the public will not be too surprised when our justice system releases this sex offender back into our community, with no requirement for counselling.

This happens far too often and it is time for all to speak up and let our lawmakers know how we feel. Our children MUST be protected, our streets must be safe.

Remember though, if I'm your uncle and I molest you, I am not a threat to the public. If I'm your hockey coach and I molest you, it gets all the headlines.

Talk to your children and listen. Believe them and then do what it takes to stop the violence. Speak up! Victims do not choose to become victims.

Terry Ferguson
Edmonton, Alberta

Victims' rights not yet empty rhetoric

I read with interest your article entitled "Are Victims' Bills of Rights Merely Empty Rhetoric?" [STOPWATCH Vol. 5, No. 1, Feb. 97] As the author of the Victims' Bill of Rights I was hoping that this question would not surface so quickly by CAVEAT in particular.

Those few politicians like myself, who are fighting the uphill battle with traditional old line parties are making headway. Granted the first run at this type of legislation will see its difficulties but we must acknowledge that we are going in the right direction.

It is with the guidance of victims, victims rights groups and others who want to help (that are not victims) that Bills of Rights will become an effective reality soon. I am sure your organization and many like it in Canada will continue to advise, critique and encourage those who want to help.

On the other hand I hope you continue to push and push hard for changes and for assurances that laws are properly applied. The case of Linda Even is a blemish on victims rights legislation but I have no reason to believe we are yet dealing with empty rhetoric.

Sincerely
Randy White, MP, Langley-Abbotsford

No s.745 for murderers of police officers

Thank you for the February 1997 edition of "Stopwatch."

I am enclosing, for your information, a copy of Bill C-344, a Private Members' Bill which I recently introduced in the House of Commons.

The Bill would end early parole for anyone convicted of first degree murder of a peace officer. I believe that this legislation supports our police, and helps raise awareness to section 745. I remain opposed to the use of section 745 in all cases.

I hope that you will find this helpful.

Yours sincerely
Brenda Chamberlain, MP, Guelph-Wellington

Bill C-344 Summary: Section 745.6 of the Criminal Code allows those serving a life sentence with 25 years before parole eligibility to apply for a reduction in the eligibility period after 15 years.

This enactment will disqualify those who have been convicted of the first degree murder of a peace officer from that opportunity and require them to serve the full 25 years before a parole application.

The definition "peace officer" in the Criminal Code includes police officers, certain corrections and prison officers, customs officers, mayors, reeves, sheriffs, justices of the peace, fishery guardians, fishery officers, pilots of aircraft in flight and certain members of the Canadian Forces appointed to duties equivalent to peace officers.

CAVEAT Alberta Lends its
Support to Danielle Larsen

In 1991, Danielle Larsen was shot by her former boyfriend and left for dead following the break up of their relationship. Danielle survives as a C1 level incomplete quadriplegic (see Danielle's story in STOPWATCH 1996, Vol. IV).

She spent much of the past few years in an understaffed facility which failed to meet her basic needs on a regular basis. She has had great difficulty getting the rehabilitative therapy she requires.

Annually, Danielle must make a presentation to the Crimes Compensation Board so that they can "reassess" her needs. Pictured are volunteers from CAVEAT Alberta who joined Danielle and her advocate from the Canadian Paraplegic Association.

"Friends of the Fish"

A Fundraiser for Danielle Larsen and CAVEAT Alberta

We call ourselves "Friends of the Fish". Most of us were patrons of a terrific seafood restaurant called "Somethin' Fishy", which was located on Saskatchewan Drive in Edmonton from the years 1986 to 1993. It was an excellent place to enjoy fine seafood and spend time with friends.

Wayne Larsen was the proprietor of "Somethin' Fishy" during the years that the restaurant was open. Most of us got to know Wayne and his family very well. We watched his children grow up during this time.

Tragedy struck the Larsen family and friends on May 2, 1991 when Danielle, the oldest of his three children, became the victim of a heartless and violent crime. Many people know how Danielle has survived after being shot and paralyzed. Her efforts to gain independence and dignity are truly remarkable.

Through the years since that time, it has been a long and arduous struggle for Danielle, but she has come very far in achieving her goals. Danielle also has the desire and motivation to help other survivors. Through her involvement with CAVEAT she is working to attain this goal.

On July 21, 1991, just 79 days after Danielle was shot, The Friends of the Fish, and all of Edmonton, were able to raise $14,000 by holding the First Volunteer Jam, and after costs, were able to present Danielle with a cheque for almost $10,000.

So, here we are and it is now 1997, and the Friends of the Fish are organizing a Volunteer Jam II in support of Danielle. This exciting benefit is being held to raise funds to assist Danielle in purchasing a wheelchair-accessible van so that she can continue with her goal of helping other survivors of violence. This will also further awareness throughout Canada of people in similar situations. A portion of the proceeds will go to CAVEAT, at Danielle's request.

The benefit will be held at Cook County Saloon (8010 - 103 Street, Edmonton) on Sunday, May 18, 1997. Tickets to this exciting event are $15 per person, a portion of which will cover entertainment costs. Cocktails begin at 5 p.m., and dinner is from 6-9 p.m; live entertainment is to follow. The Cook County Saloon holds 650 people and we are hoping to pack the place.

The theme for the dinner will be "A Taste of Somethin' Fishy". The dinner is being catered by Wayne Larsen, Dave Klavino, and Dan Hayes. Wayne and Dave are former chefs at Somethin' Fishy. Coupons will be sold for $1 each and will be used to purchase any of the delicious seafood dishes that the Somethin' Fishy Restaurant was so famous for, along with a few menu surprises.

There will be terrific live entertainment hosted by Canadian Country and Western recording artist Wendell Donovan & the Eastcoast Riders, with Special Guests starting at 9:00 p.m. We will also have fabulous door prizes, an auction and other exciting events throughout the evening.

The people presenting this letter to you are all volunteers who know Danielle and want to assist her in obtaining her goals. We need your support and help. For tickets, or to donate prizes or your time, please call Kris Norman at (403) 478-6404 or Louise Kay at (403) 422-1964. If you are unable to attend the Jam, we would be pleased to accept a donation.

WE LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING YOU THERE!!

Squash Tournament Gives Boost to CAVEAT

CAVEAT was the big winner again at this year's invitational squash tournament held February 21-23 at the Burlington Racquets Club.

The 3rd annual tournament, organized by Bob Mundy, raised over $10, 000 for CAVEAT's work. This 3-day event featured over 100 competitors as well as a silent auction.

We thank Bob Mundy, the Burlington Racquets Club, the participants and the sponsors for their very generous support.

A special thank you to the following sponsors:

Bell Canada * Burlington Racquets Club
Commcorp Financial Services * Hitachi * London Telecom
Midrange Information Solutions * Molson * Unilever

Upcoming Events

6th Annual Great Human Race, April 27, 1997, Edmonton, Alberta
The Volunteer Centre of Edmonton presents the 6th annual Great Human Race, an 8 km run and a 3 km fun walk. Participate in a morning of fun, fitness, entertainment and prizes! Join the excitement. Help raise funds for CAVEAT Alberta and celebrate Volunteer Week. For more information, contact CAVEAT Alberta at (403) 464-9935.

CAVEAT Awareness Days, London Drugs,
May 3 & May 17, 1997, British Columbia
London Drugs is generously providing space for CAVEAT BC to set up information tables at a number of its stores throughout 1997. We will be in White Rock (100-15355-24 Ave.) on May 3rd and in Surrey (10348 King George Hwy.) on May 17th. If you are in the area, drop by and say hello!

"Friends of the Fish" fundraiser, May 18, 1997, Edmonton, Alberta
(see preeceding article )

A golf tournament fundraiser, May 31, 1997, British Columbia
For information, please contact the CAVEAT BC office at (604) 530-5829.

Annual Evening with CAVEAT Dinner, June 17, 1997, British Columbia
CAVEAT BC will once again be hosting its successful dinner/fundraiser, "An Evening with CAVEAT". Join us for an evening of fine dining and live entertainment! For tickets or more information, please contact CAVEAT BC at (604) 530-5829.

CAVEAT relies upon the generosity of individuals, organizations and community groups for funding. Without such financial support, we could not continue our valuable work.

We kindly thank all of our members and donors.

Web Hosting by