“I am fearful the world will be able to see what happened by looking at me.”  This was part of a victim-impact statement read in court by a county attorney on behalf of her client earlier this week in Hennepin County, located Minnesota.  This quote was part of an article published in my local newspaper describing the court appearance of a man who attacked his girlfriend, and I think it does a good job of illustrating just how severe the psychological consequences of domestic abuse can be.

Many individuals, in response to my last entry, called Pat weak and passive.  In fact, most of the comments I received blame Pat for the abuse she endured and attack her character as well as her strength and will.  I find this very disheartening, but unfortunately not surprising, as these are exactly the type of names I expected Pat to be called by individuals who care more about their own personal freedoms and rights than the safety of their neighbors or friends.

DV Logo

Escaping an abusive partner is far more complex than simply making the decision to leave and leaving. To begin with, as illustrated above, many women are embarrassed to admit that they are the victim of an abusive relationship, in part due to the kind of comments left on my last entry. Victims of domestic abuse are viewed as weak by those who refuse to recognize the extreme mental hardships endured by those who suffer. The stereotypes placed on victims by individuals unable to grasp the severity of domestic abuse often times prevent many victims from seeking the help they need.

In addition, the greatest risk of danger to an individual being domestically abused is at and directly following the point of initial separation. Many women who try leaving an abusive relationship are stalked by their partners, and more often than not they have their lives threatened; perpetrators are unable to cope with losing control of their victims. I think it’s pretty easy to understand why this fact alone makes it so frightening for an abuse victim to leave.

There are other obstacles that prevent victims from leaving, one of which is the lack of financial independence. Women who are domestically abused often times are not allowed control of their own money, and in some cases are not even allowed to work outside of the home. This is a tactic many perpetrators use to keep their spouses from leaving. As a result, many women feel financially helpless, and stay in an abusive relationship based on financial dependence.

Another reason women stay in abusive relationships is because they are afraid to lose custody of their children. Although the court system has come a long way in regards to domestic violence and custody battles, perpetrators usually threaten to either fight for child custody in court and win (ensuring that they will create stories to make the victim look ‘crazy’), or they threaten to take the children with no court approval so that the victim will never see them again.

These are just a few of the many, many reasons victims of domestic abuse find it hard to leave a violent relationship. I could dedicate the rest of my blog entries to the psychological consequences of domestic abuse, but I think I’ve made my point.

I have had some people write me with unfortunate stories of crimes of which they have been the victims of, mostly involving muggings using a firearm. Clearly living through such an experience results in a dramatic psychological impact and induces fear. Imagine living with that same kind of fear each and every day of your life.

Before concluding this entry, I find it necessary to address the accusation made by many that I’ve made the story about Pat up. Fabricating a story of domestic abuse and being told that there are no double-decker bus tours in Montreal is outlandish; I am spending my summer in Canada to try and help prevent domestic violence, not to make up stories about it.

I was lucky enough to spend this past weekend in Montreal, which is just as amazing as people describe it to be. As I had never been before, I decided to do the touristy thing and take a guided tour of the city. On the double-decker bus that I paid much too much money to ride, I sat next to a woman named Pat. Having a daughter my age, Pat took it upon herself to make me her sidekick for the two hour long sightseeing extravaganza.

Montreal

Pat is a school teacher, full of energy and spunk. After she spent time telling me about where she’s from and describing the awesome new pair of shoes she had found the day before, it was my turn. I told her why I was in Canada for the summer and about my fellowship. During my explanation, Pat’s demeanor changed, and she grew silent. For a moment, I thought she was going to start lecturing me about how innocent citizens shouldn’t be held responsible by the government to help ensure the safety of others, or that she was going to ask me why she should have to waste two of her dollars per year to keep the registry up and running in order to help protect and save the lives of others.

Instead, she quietly said “People don’t get it. Unless it’s happened to you, you just don’t get it.” Obviously I had struck a chord with Pat, and not wanting to pry, I just nodded my head in agreement. After another moment of silence, Pat explained that many years ago she was the victim of domestic abuse, and that she had had a gun pointed at her head numerous times. I could tell she didn’t want to talk about it, so I didn’t ask any questions. She did add, however, that a law like the one Canada currently has in place would have helped to prevent her situation from ever having happened.

I’ve been called a lot of names over the past few weeks, which made me stop to wonder, what would those opposed to the registry call Pat? Would they tell her that she’s too stupid to be reasoned with, like I am? Would they call her a feminist and tell her that saving her life isn’t worth their two dollars? Or, would they explain to her that what matters most to them is their right to own a gun, thus making the hassle of filling out extra paperwork, and paying a couple of extra dollars per year in taxes to run the registry, simply too big of an impediment upon their personal freedoms to consider its benefits?

If you have read any of my recent blogs, you understand just how controversial Canada’s Firearms Act is, specifically the provision requiring that all unrestricted firearms be registered.  This is why, when I sat down with Barb MacQuarrie, Community Director of the Centre for Research and Education on Violence against Women & Children at the University of Western Ontario, I asked her to address those criticisms that are heard most often from opponents of the registry. 

At the Centre, Ms. MacQuarrie promotes collaboration between community-based professionals, advocates, and the academic world, pursuing research questions that help to better understand and prevent abuse against women and children.  She is an advocate for survivors of violence through her work at the Centre, as well as through her management of Ontario’s provincial Neighbours, Friends and Families public education campaign, which she helped to establish. Ms. MacQuarrie has spent many years in the field, working with individuals directly affected by violence, and alongside those whose mission it is to end and prevent it.  As a result, she gives a voice to victims, with the intention of determining how best to prevent and respond to violence against women and children.   

I had a chance to sit down with Maribel Gonzales, my counterpart at Project Ploughshares, to ask her about her work in small arms and peacebuilding.  In the interview, Maribel talks about the correlation between small arms and domestic violence and explains how Canada’s Firearms Act has effectively harmonized gun control and domestic violence laws in the country.  In addition, she talks about attempts to eliminate the registration of unrestricted rifles and shotguns, which would dismantle these harmonized laws.

Last week I wrote an entry entitled “The Conservative Attempt to Eliminate the Gun Registry.” In that entry, I asserted that the mandatory registration of non-restricted firearms under Canada’s Firearms Act should not be eliminated, as it has helped to protect the lives of many women throughout Canada.  Since writing that entry, I have received over fifty comments, and have posted many that are respectful and polite.  However, while engaging in debate with those whose opinion varies from mine is healthy, helpful, and appreciated, I made the decision to delete comments that are disrespectful and derogatory to me or to those who have written in defense of the registry.  Calling someone an idiot, Hitler, uneducated, childish, or a liberal self-righteous fascist is not the type of dialogue I like to engage in, and because of this I refuse to post such comments, no matter how many times the same individual submits a comment.

While domestic homicides occur with weapons besides firearms, such as knives or fists, guns are more deadly, and increase the risk of death by twelve times.  The risk of physical harm, threats, and intimidation to women and children increases when a gun is present in the home.  In Canada, one in three women killed by their husbands is shot, making it hard to imagine what that statistic would be without the registry in place.

The registry was passed into law in 1995, and contains measures targeted at keeping guns from those who are at risk to commit domestic violence.  These measures include screening risk factors for suicide and domestic violence, background checks, and notifying current and previous spouses of an individual’s intent to acquire a firearms license.

Between 1997 and 2006, Canada has seen the rate of firearm-related spousal homicide decrease by nearly fifty percent, according to the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics.  In addition, according to the same source, since 2008 police have seized 8,261 guns from owners who were either violent or had threatened violence; seventy-four percent of these guns were non-restricted firearms.

In Canada, everyone has the fundamental right to own a gun.  At the same time, the government has the fundamental responsibility of keeping its citizens safe.  Recognizing that the protective benefits outweighed the costs, the Canadian government implemented the registry, and its constitutionality was upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada in 2000.  Thus, while law-abiding gun owners may frown upon it as a burden and a waste of money, the Supreme Court, Parliament, and most importantly, women who have escaped death as a result of the registry, view it as a necessity and, in many instances, a lifesaver.  It has been close to fifteen years since its implementation; if the registry were as ineffective as those opposed to it claim it to be, enough support in Parliament would have by now been garnered to scrap the measure.

The Canadian Parliament adjourned on Friday until September 14th.  This means, until session resumes at least, that Canada’s Firearms Act will remain as it’s currently written, and that the gun registry will continue to be used by police as a preventative measure in protecting women and children from domestic violence.  During the final days of session, it was unclear whether an election might be called; under Canada’s Parliamentary system, a no confidence vote against a fiscal bill introduced by the minority party in charge, the Conservatives, would result in an election and all of the bills currently under consideration would in effect die.  

Confused by Canada’s political system?  Me too, but what I do know is that an election was averted, thereby maintaining the ability by Parliament to discuss those bills introduced to eliminate the gun registry (C-391 and S-5) come September.  C-301, another bill that had been introduced during session, was dropped from the House of Common’s calendar because on two separate occasions the author of the bill, MP Garry Breitkreuz, was a no show for scheduled floor debates.  C-301 was controversial even to some Conservatives, as it included a laundry list of changes to the Firearm’s Act, not just an elimination of the registry.  As a result, Breitkreuz refused to debate the bill and successfully eliminated any future possibility of discussion.  C-391, authored by MP Candice Hoeppner, was introduced as an alternative to Breitkreuz’s bill, but session ended before it could make its way to the floor for debate.  Hoeppner, following Friday’s summer adjournment, issued a press release claiming that opposition party members deliberately tried preventing debate and a vote on the bill.  Perhaps those who Hoeppner claims attempted to kill the bill in committee had read any of the most recent Canadian newspaper articles on the subject.  The following are two of the most recent:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/handguns+collected+city+since+fall/1640924/story.html

 http://telegraphjournal.canadaeast.com/search/article/703339

 It seems that although statistics illustrating the registry’s effectiveness are plentiful, with the help of MP Candice Hoeppner, discussion regarding the gun registry will continue into the summer, with the Conservatives, sportsmen, and the gun lobby united, fighting to eliminate the registry on account of what they claim to be a violation of their freedoms and a burden on tax payers.  As one of only four countries with harmonized gun control and domestic violence laws, Hoeppner and the Conservatives should focus on illustrating the importance of protecting women and children through gun registries rather then on eliminating Canada’s, which does nothing to prevent law-abiding citizens from owning firearms.

It’s 9:30am on Saturday, and Maribel and I are supposed to meet at the office at noon to finish up the exhibit we are taking with us to the Canadian Conference on the Prevention of Domestic Violence that begins tomorrow in London, Ontario.  The conference, organized by the Centre for Research and Education on Violence Against Women and Children, will have about 450 attendees.  We are the only organization allowed an exhibit at the conference and it will be used to launch the Disarming Domestic Violence campaign, so we need to make sure it’s good.  We have been so chaotically busy since my arrival, however, that we’re both already at our desks, catching up on all of the things we need to get done individually, before working on the exhibit.

On Monday and Tuesday, we were in Ottawa, as Maribel needed to attend Peacebuild’s Small Arms Working Group annual general meeting.  Peacebuild is a coalition of Canadian peacebuilding organizations, and because they are playing an active role in the Disarming Domestic Violence campaign, I attended part of the day-long meeting to meet Peacebuild stakeholders and staff.  I was able to touch base with their communication’s director, and I’m hoping he will begin including more information on the issue of gun control and domestic violence on the organization’s website.

In addition to the time I spent at Peacebuild, I also met with organizations in Ottawa that have a vested interest in women’s rights.  One of the individuals I met with was Erin Williams, Executive Director of the Ottawa Coalition to End Domestic Violence Against Women (OCTEVAW).  Although I was a bit uneasy about meeting with someone on my own so soon, by the end of the meeting Erin had agreed that her organization would endorse the campaign, post information about it on their website, help with compiling data on the efficiency of harmonic gun control and domestic violence laws, and reach out to constituents in order to involve them in letter writing and other forms of advocacy.

Luckily, Maribel allowed me a bit of time on Monday to tour Parliament.  Since my arrival, I have been asking an obnoxious amount of questions in an attempt to better understand Canada’s government, so the tour was a good way to get me to stop.  In addition, we went to dinner with Maribel’s friend, who also happens to be a government staffer, which provided me another good opportunity to get my questions answered.

Centre Block

The Centre Block building in Ottawa is where both the House of Commons and Senate chambers of Parliment would debate gun control legislation, if brought forth for debate.

Women are People Too!

“Women are People Too” is a monument found outside of the Centre Block building in Ottawa.  It was constructed in honor of the women who fought for the right to hold office in Parliment, and is a good reminder that women have equal rights and should be protected by the law.

On Tuesday, Maribel and I attended a general meeting of the Ad-Hoc Coalition for Women’s Equality and Human Rights at the suggestion of Aalya Ahmed, Co-Coordinator of the Coalition.  It was a great experience, sitting in on a meeting where so much enthusiasm exists for women’s rights.  All of the organizations at the meeting, including the national chapter of the Canadian Federation of University Women (CFUW) and the Canadian Feminist Alliance for International Action (FAFIA), seemed interested in learning more about the campaign, and Maribel and I will be following up with them after the conference in London.

Although the meetings I have had have been very productive and the support garnered thus far has been tremendous, what has been a bit disconcerting to me over the past two weeks is the general lack of knowledge surrounding Canada’s Firearms Act and the protections it includes for women and children.  With some of the groups I have been in contact with, I have had to spend time explaining where in the Firearms Act protections against domestic violence are included, and what they are.  Additionally, I have discovered that some organizations are unaware of the proposals currently before Parliament that would eliminate the registration requirements of unrestricted rifles and shotguns (C-391 in the House of Commons and S-5 in the Senate).  As a result, it has become clear that during the duration of my time in Ontario, I will need to focus some of my time illustrating the importance of following the actions of, and proposals before, Parliament.  In order to successfully protect women from domestic violence by firearms, those with a vested interest need to be aware of what laws are in place, and what proposals have been made to alter the legislation, in order to successfully lobby on behalf of those that they are trying to protect.

The first few days of my fellowship with Project Ploughshares have been a whirlwind of meeting new people, reading up on gun control legislation in Canada, and exploring my new surroundings.  The Ploughshares office is located in an old Seagram’s distillery and needless to say, it’s amazing.  The building used to be a museum, and much of the distillery is still intact.  Our organization is among good company, sharing the building with an international governance think tank and a non-profit economic development organization.  

Project Ploughshares

Project Ploughshares office location, housed in an old Seagram’s distillery.

Project Ploughshares has a staff of about ten people, and as an NGO their main area of focus is on peace, small arms, and disarmament.  The topic of domestic violence and its correlation with gun control is not one which Ploughshares has broached before, and therefore I will be spending a lot of my time turning to experts in the field of domestic violence throughout Canada in order to better understand the direct effect gun control policies have on domestic violence.   Canada is one of only a few countries that already has in place harmonic gun control and domestic violence laws.  In 1995, the Firearms Act was passed, requiring that owners of guns hold both a license and proof of registration for their firearms.   Before being granted a license, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) Firearms Program may choose to contact references, spouses, or ex-spouses ( required information on the application) in order to determine whether there are any safety concerns in granting a particular individual a license.   Opponents question why both a license and registration are needed, arguing that  a lack of statistical evidence exists illustrating that current policy reduces violence; many assert that the money used to cover administrative costs for the program should instead be used to increase the number of RCMP.  Proponents, on the other hand, explain that current legislation should be looked at in the same sense as owning a car; owners of automobiles must register their car after purchasing it, and they must carry a valid license to operate it.  If an individual has violations on their record, restrictions may be placed on their license and thus, their ability to drive.  The Firearms Act operates under the same concept in that if safety concerns surface through the application process, the individual under review will be looked at more closely by the RCMP and may be denied a license.  One of my tasks during my time here will be to meet with organizations with a vested interest in preventing domestic violence in order to get them involved in illustrating just how important this current piece of policy is.  There are a lot of Conservatives, farmers and hunters speaking out against this policy, and they have a lot of big support behind them.  Because of this, it is important for women’s and other social service organizations to work together to keep the legislation in place.

As a first step, on Sunday Maribel and I will travel to Ottawa so I can begin meeting with individuals representing women’s and other domestic violence organizations in order to rally their support for the IANSA Disarming Domestic campaign.  In the meantime, I will continue my new personal mission of driving down a street without getting lost, which has been rare since leaving Minneapolis.  At least as a consolation, Waterloo provides some pretty amazing scenery. 

Waterloo Sunset

Waterloo Sunset.