Ottawa Police Chief Uses Propaganda as a Weapon to Extract Money
Evita
approach inflicts on families see "Commentary: Killing Her Softly:
Intimate Abuse and the Violence of State Intervention," by Linda G.
Mills in v. 113 of the Harv. L. Rev. 550 (1999).
For many battered women's advocates and state officials, mandatory
arrest, mandatory prosecution, and mandatory reporting policies
represent significant political progress in forcing the state to take
domestic violence crimes seriously. After years of indifference to
intimate abuse, many state actors now respond uniformly to crimes
between domestic partners, an approach that eliminates both the state
actor's discretion and the victim's desires from the state's decision
making equation.
Police Chief Uses Propaganda as a Weapon to Extract Money.
On Tue, September 28, 2004, JOHN STEINBACHS wrote in the Ottawa Sun an
article called “Hot under the collar. Police chief says 'consequences
would be dire' if budget slashed”:
POLICE CHIEF Vince Bevan says his service needs an extra $12.9 million
to pay for increased wages, new officers and rising fuel prices. But as
talk of budget cuts swirl though City Hall, Bevan said the city should
look elsewhere when it looks for cost savings
Though I do not want to belittle real abuse, no matter who is the
perpetrator, I, an Ottawa taxpayer, propose that it is time that we,
the taxpayers of Ottawa, finally get hot under the collar. I have no
doubt that our taxes could be reduced while services would be improved
and real victims protected if the city would get rid of the social
workers who staff the city’s “family centres” which are nothing
more than shop fronts to family destruction advocacy. Chief Bevan would
find that he has plenty of cash if he scrapped the “partner assault
unit” which the women, who are duly mentored by the social workers,
use to get men out of their own homes.
All that a woman needs to say is that he “threatened me”, or that
“I was afraid …”, in order to have a restraining order against
her male partner. She is not allowed to recant after she has made her
first allegation. We only need to have one or two cases where a judge
is brave enough to issue a “guilty of perjury” verdict against the
perjurer and her mentors in order to see false allegations become a
thing of the past. However, that would not feed the ever hungry divorce
industry workers, including the “Partner Assault Unit” of the
Ottawa police.
Often these women end up on welfare after the men who have supported
them end in jail, based on nothing more than the woman’s desire to
get the exclusive possession of the matrimonial home and, if there are
children, sole power and control over them. Thus, we can add the cost
of welfare, imprisonment (which may be short but often means that the
man will not be able to find any employment in the future) and an
increase in the numbers of social workers, police and jail guards, to
the already stretched budget. Who is paying for all of this? You and
I.
Let’s look at the available data on Ottawa Police Services:
Number of staff in 2004: total: 1,645; Sexual Assault/Child Abuse : 13;
partner assault: 21. Note how “sexual assault and child abuse” are
grouped together in order to create the perception that they are
interconnected.
The City of Ottawa Chief of Police, Vince Bevan, in his paper called
“ The Partner Assault Program : a risk management approach by the
Ottawa Police Service to reduce domestic violence ” (presented at the
Canadian Police College Symposium on investigative excellence and
innovation, October 2002. The Canadian Police College is described as
being “a centre for professional education for members of the
Canadian and international policing community”) claimed that the
“partner assault unit” handled 4,152 calls to alleged incidents and
laid 2,407 charges (each incident may have more than one charge and
calls can either be repeat reports by the same complainer or a first
complaint, thus it is highly doubtful that even one half of the
original complaints were credible, nor can we equate the number of
complaints to be indicative of the number of potential perpetrators and
victims) of intimate partner violence in 2001. Thus, in spite of the
stringent “zero tolerance” directives, the majority of the reports
were so unbelievable that the police, who have to justify in writing
why they failed to lay a charge and make an arrest, were not able to
justify even one charge. Yet, Stats Can. counts the number of reports
as findings of fact.
Now, let’s look at the Ottawa Police Services' “ Annual Statistics,
Violent Offences ” for that year. These data, which one assumes to be
reliable, indicate that there were a total of 4,485 calls to all
alleged assault related incidents (again, let’s stress not
individuals who were the alleged perpetrators or victims) in Ottawa and
three homicides, no mention how many of the victims were male or
female. If we go by the chief’s statistics, practically all assault
related calls in the city of Ottawa were by females who claimed that
they had been victimized by their intimate male partners. Yet, data
from across the world, including Canada, show that most true assault
victims are male.
I went through all the monthly activity reports by the Ottawa Police
for the 12 month period between Sept. 2003 and Aug. 2004, precinct by
precinct. There were 1,696 “Partner Violence” calls; 246 harassment
calls and 23 sexual assault calls, a total of 1,965 calls. How many of
the calls were repeats by the same individuals, and how many were
dismissed outright is not known. There are 365 days a year, that would
make it 5.38 calls a day. There were 0.74 (rounded) calls a day that
were related to harassment and sexual assaults. These two offences are
usually interpreted to be "violence against women" though the
statistics do not specify how many were made by men and how many by
women. Once again, it is prudent to remember that these numbers do not
refer to individuals. For example, Cathie Fordham alone was responsible
for contacting police at least 50 times, alleging sexual assault at
least against seven different men. Jamie Nelson spent more than three
years in jail because of these allegations which later were proven to
be false.
The force has 34 staff assigned to these specialized areas. The
activity report listed only one or two calls related to child abuse,
though, admittedly, that seems like an understatement. It boggles the
mind that we would need 34 highly paid specialized staff to deal with
fewer than one case a day. That clearly is a flagrant misuse of
taxpayers money.
In it’s brochure called “Crime Prevention for Women ” The Ottawa
Police Services claim that:
Fact: One in every four women in Ontario has been a victim of rape or
attempted rape.
They then give a hint how to claim sexual abuse:
Fact: Any type of unwanted sexual contact - from touching to
intercourse - is sexual assault, and it's against the law. The Ottawa
Police and its partners are there to help.
Nowhere in the world are there any proven statistics on the number of
women who have been raped or “sexually assaulted”. Thus the first
claim cannot be a “fact”. If we look at last years data which show
that in Ottawa there were no more than 23 calls (not findings of fact)
relating to “sexual assault”, it is hardly likely that “one in
every four women has been a victim of rape or attempted rape”.
That brochure is yet another example of the fear mongering advocacy
that is financed by our tax money though the police themselves have
real facts like those relating to Cathie Fordham in their hands. In the
final analysis, the police will have to admit that no matter which
“fact” they choose to accept, the other “fact” that they are
telling is a lie. For more on this subject see my: “Campus Rape and
Sexual Assault”.
Toronto Police Services report 2002:
Sexual assault: reports received: 2,226; cleared: 1,728 (rate
77.6%); persons charged: 880.
“Other” assault: reports received 27,477; cleared 22,484 (rate
81.8%); persons charged: 13,459.
Note: As the Toronto police do not give separate data on intimate
partner violence we can only assume that these data are hidden in the
category “other” assaults. Though I do not want to appear too
cynical, I would wager that this is done in order to obscure the real
numbers so that the advocacy can go on unchallenged. It is interesting
to note that whenever it is possible to present the hypothesis, no
matter how shaky, that women are victims of male violence, we are given
gender specific data, when that is not possible the data are given in
gender neutral form, as instructed by Justice Canada. However, all data
from across the world, including Toronto and Ottawa, show that men are
the main victims of violence.
Yet, Stats Can. will disseminate the above as: “there were 2,226
sexual assault victims ...” That, of course is not true, as shown by
the actual police data above, especially considering that they do not
tell us how many of the calls were repeat calls by the same person,
etc. Furthermore, we are not told how many, in actual numbers, of the
charges laid were thrown out by the prosecution, and how many “not
guilty” verdicts of the remaining cases were issued by the courts. In
the rare instance that we are given statistics of the final outcome the
data are usually given in percentages, and the percentages refer to the
number of cases (without giving us the number) that were eventually
heard by a judge. Let us also keep in mind that several separate
charges may be laid in each alleged incident in order to achieve at
least one conviction.
Though the police theoretically are independent of political influence
their independence has been gradually eroded since the adoption of
pro-charging policies in the nineteen eighties. In British Columbia
and Quebec, the decision to charge is made by the Crown. In New
Brunswick, the decision to lay charges is made by police after
receiving advice from the Crown. The directives by the Ontario Ministry
of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services “Policing
Standards Manual” Section 0217.01, 0217.04 (1994) read:
Mandatory Arrest/Charging policy refers to guidelines that require
police officers to lay criminal charges against the abusive partner in
all cases of wife assault where there are reasonable grounds.
Note the term “abusive partner” though there may be no other proof
that abuse had occurred save the woman’s word. It is of further
interest that charges and convictions no longer need to be based on
“reasonable and probable grounds”, “reasonable”, or alternately
“probable”, is enough.
Though the above section has now been made more gender neutral, the
effect is unchanged.
In R. v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner, ex parte Blackburn, Lord
Denning said:
I hold it to be the duty of the Commissioner of Police, as it is of
every chief constable, to enforce the law of the land. He must take
steps so to post his men that crimes may be detected; and that honest
citizens may go about their affairs in peace. He must decide whether or
not suspected persons are to be prosecuted; and, if need be, bring the
prosecution or see that it is brought; but in all these things he is
not the servant of anyone, save of the law itself. No Minister of the
Crown can tell him that he must, or must not, keep observation on this
place or that; or that he must, or must not, prosecute this man or that
one. Nor can any police authority tell him so. The responsibility for
law enforcement lies on him. He is answerable to the law and to the law
alone. (In: The Federal Prosecution Service Deskbook 11.2 Role of the
Police: Authority to Investigate and Lay Charges)
Though the directives to the Crown counsel say:
Where Crown counsel is satisfied that the recantation is true (that is,
that no spousal violence offence in fact occurred), then proceedings
against the accused should be terminated at once and the matter
referred to the police for consideration of criminal action against the
complainant with respect to the initial complaint. Such a step may only
be taken after consultation with the Senior Regional Director. (In: The
Federal Prosecution Service Deskbook 28.8.4
The same report tells us that though the other favourite Stats Can.
“finding” is that “Violence against Women” costs the Canadian
taxpayers more than $4 billion a year it is actually the creation and
distribution of the myth that costs us that much:
In 1995, a study of selected economic costs of three forms of
violence—sexual assault, woman abuse in intimate partnerships and
incest or child sexual abuse—estimated the partial annual costs of
violence against women in four policy areas as follows:
Social services/education $2,368,924,297
Criminal Justice $871,908,583
Labour/employment $576,764,400
Health/medical $408,357,042
TOTAL: $4,225,954,322
Note how “incest and child sexual abuse” are clumped together with
“violence against women”. If we add the criminal justice costs,
such as courts, judges, incarcerations, etc. that are incurred because
of false allegations we can see how easily we would save billions if
false allegations were treated as the crime that they are. Social
Services and Education include such programs as the "Black Eyed Susan"
that is presented to children from kindergarten to senior years.
According to Health Canada ’s Population and Public Health Branch
(PPHB) Facts on Injury
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/pphb-dgspsp/injury-bles/facts_e.html
the economic burden of unintentional and intentional injuries combined
is estimated to be greater than $12.7 billion per year or 8% of the
total direct and indirect costs of illness, ranking 4th after
cardiovascular disease, musculo-skeletal conditions and cancer. (The
economic burden of illness in Canada, 1998. Health Canada, 2002)
Another economic study estimated that unintentional injuries alone cost
Canada more than $8.7 billion annually. (Angus D et al. The economic
burden of unintentional injury in Canada, SMARTRISK, 1998)
Thus, the cost for all intentional injuries would be the cost that the
advocates, including all law enforcement agencies, judiciary (including
the National Judicial Institute that trains judges), schools and health
care providers, tell us is the cost of the hypothetical “Violence
against Women” though their own data show that men are the main
victims of intentional as well as unintentional injuries.
A restraining order gives yet another chance for a woman to lay further
allegations, this time the charge will be what is known as an 810
criminal offence and, unless the accused is extremely lucky and finds a
reliable witness who will testify that he was set up by the claimant
(who immediately is called the “victim”), the accused (who
immediately is called the “offender”) will end behind the bars for
many years to come, just like Jamie Nelson and scores of others. If the
man has enough money and stamina he can go to court to defend himself.
If the allegation is found to be false the case will be either
adjourned or stayed with no repercussions to the accuser.
Judge Lyn Ratushny, in the “Self-Defence Review” that she was
commissioned to conduct by the Department of Justice Canada, claims
that a woman’s allegation is to be accepted as long as it “has an
air of reality" and/or “is supported by evidence reasonably capable
of belief”. She herself admitted that these standards are
questionable. Her definition of “reasonable” is anything but
reasonable. [source: Department of Justice. The Backgrounder, September
1997. The Self-Defence Review: Overview and Next Steps] Once more, we
need not look any further than to the example of Cathie Fordham.
Why would women file false allegations? Simply, because they can and it
is a venture that produces the highest return with the minimum of risk
and effort. It also elevates the woman to the exalted status of a
victim. Who would not want to defend a victim? For some strange reason
the mentors do not bother telling women that once the man is behind the
bars he is in no position to pay support. However, most women figure
that having sole possession of his property is good enough, especially
if she has a new lover who will move in and take care of the mortgage
or rent while the former partner pays child support which is nothing
short of spousal support in disguise. Often the man is ordered to pay
separate spousal support in addition.
MARK BONOKOSKI, in his article called “It's round 2 in battle over
kids” (Toronto Sun, June 10, 2002) wrote: “When Trevor called from
Jasper three months later to tell his wife that he had their airline
tickets in hand, she told him that she had since fallen in love with
someone else and that she and the children were staying put. In fact,
the new man in her life had already moved in. "As I was talking to my
wife on the telephone, he was sitting in my living room, on my couch,
watching my TV with my remote," Trevor said. "And I never saw it
coming. The restraining order that came shortly thereafter prohibited
Trevor from any communication with his ex-wife. And this is where the
she-said/he-said scenario comes into play."
A Justice Canada document called A REVIEW OF SECTION 264 (CRIMINAL
HARASSMENT) OF THE CRIMINAL CODE ... is an excellent example of the
above baffle gap (note how “80%” turns out to be eight of ten cases
in Halifax . Hardly an epidemic). The authors do not specify how many
individuals were in the sample (each individual may have more than one
charge laid against him). We do not know how many individulas were
involved, nor are we given the final number of the individuals who were
found guilty. Though we are told that there were a total of ten cases
in Halifax we do not know if these cases were repeats by the same
individuals.
• Crown counsel withdrew or stayed 58 percent of the 474
criminal harassment charges in our sample. Twenty-five percent of the
accused pleaded guilty, 10 percent were found guilty, and seven percent
were found not guilty. Looking at the outcomes of cases including all
charges (more meaningful, since this is the way that the Crown, defence
and the courts generally plan strategies and make decisions), we see
that in 29 percent of cases all charges were dropped in exchange for a
peace bond, and in an additional 20 percent of cases all charges were
dropped or stayed unconditionally (Table 9). A conviction on at least
one charge was obtained in 46 percent of the cases. Fifteen percent of
accused pleaded guilty to all charges, and eight percent were found
guilty of all charges. In nine percent of cases the accused was
convicted of criminal harassment, and all other charges were withdrawn
or stayed.
• Looking at criminal harassment charges only, Vancouver ,
Toronto and Montreal withdrew or stayed charges with considerable
frequency (68 percent, 61 percent and 56 percent respectively).
Winnipeg withdrew or stayed 49 percent, Edmonton 47 percent and Halifax
20 percent (2 cases). Peace bond resolutions where criminal harassment
was the only charge were most frequent in Montreal (35 percent), less
frequent in Vancouver and Toronto (26 percent and 20 percent), and
least frequent in Edmonton (13 percent), Winnipeg (10 percent) and
Halifax (no cases). The criminal harassment conviction rate in Halifax
was 80 percent (8 cases). In Winnipeg it was 45 percent, in Edmonton 42
percent, in Toronto 36 percent, in Montreal 31 percent and in Vancouver
22 percent.
• [I]n about 20 percent of the cases in which charges were
dropped or stayed, the file indicated that the victim wanted the
charges to be dropped, or that the victim did not cooperate with the
prosecution of the case in some way. The files in no cases indicated
that these were determining factors in the Crown's decision, but it is
clear from our interviews that most Crown see no point in taking a case
to trial without the victim being willing to testify in keeping with
the original statements taken by the police.
Let us not take the “pleaded guilty” too seriously. After they have
been arrested, handcuffed and fingerprinted, and have spent the night
or the weekend locked up, then herded into the court room in handcuffs
and legirons, shackled to hard core criminals, men are told that they
will be released and will not have a permanent criminal record if they
only plead guilty to any of the charges that are laid against them,
there are few men who have the presence of mind to see that the goal is
to get a conviction and thus inflate the statistics.
According to the latest Statistics Canada annual "Family Violence in
Canada " there were 1.2 million Adult Criminal Court Convictions from
1997/98 to 2001/02; out of these 257,000 were "crimes against the
person" convictions. There were 727,000 [reports of] violent crimes
which were cleared by charge from 1997 to 2001 and a total of 3.5
million of reported incidents. In other words, the vast majority of the
reports were dismiised outright by the police. [note how Stats Can., in
order to create more confusion, routinely compares different time spans
against each other]
Below is some sage advice from the law firm Birenbaum, Steinberg,
Landau, Savin & Colraine, LLP <http://www.familylawtoronto.ca/>:
Findings of abuse can have a number of consequences in a family law
case.
A court will make a non-harassment order directing the abusive spouse
not to contact the victim, and may provide particular restrictions
regarding the type of activity that is forbidden. If the abuser
breaches that order, he or she may be found guilty of contempt. Also,
the Ontario Provincial Police can arrest without warrant, anyone whom
they reasonably believe is breaching such an order.
A finding of abuse will almost certainly entitle the victim to
exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.
A finding of abuse will also certainly result in the victim being
awarded custody.
A finding of abuse may result in the other parent having his or her
access suspended, reduced or supervised.
A finding of abuse may result in a divorce being granted on the grounds
of cruelty.
A finding of abuse may result in additional damages for personal injury
or intentional infliction of mental suffering, and may be a factor in
the calculation of the amount of spousal support ordered to be paid
Just the allegation of abuse opens the door to the possibility of such
consequences at least on a temporary basis. Judges will often err on
the side of caution and even though abuse has not been proven, will not
want to run any risks. Consequently, people accused of abuse may be
ordered out of the house on the basis of allegations or a temporary
restraining order may be made on the basis of allegations alone.
The potential impact of abuse or allegations of abuse can, therefore,
be quite significant to the party who is accused. The consequences to a
spouse who has falsely alleged abuse are not so dramatically or
frequently applied.
The police will often attempt to trick a suspect into speaking to them.
Common tricks are for a police officer to say something like, "Look, if
nothing happened, just tell us and you’ll be okay," or, "It’s your
right not to say anything, but I know if I was accused of beating my
child and I hadn’t done it, I’d sure want my version on the
record," or, "Let’s go outside for a walk in the hall, just the two
of us, no notebooks," or, "If you talk to us now, things will be a lot
easier on you later."
Do not agree to any plea without asking to speak to duty counsel. The
police or even Crown Attorneys may tell you that all you have to do to
get out of this situation is agree to a several month long anger
management course and it will be over. What they do not tell you is
that you have to plead guilty before you can take the course
If men who have been falsely accused refuse to plead guilty they will
face prolonged litigations and often will end up waiting for a long
time to have their cases heard. By that we can deduce that there are an
awful number of men sitting in jails while waiting to be found
innocent. At an awful cost to the accused, their families and the
society. Not to mention the numbers to be added to the false data which
are churned out from Stats Can. In spite of the evidence, Stats Can.
refuses to do a survey on false allegations.
We need to demand that honesty be reintroduced into our police forces
and politics