New federal Justice Minister Arif Virani recently reiterated Ottawa’s openness to criminalizing coercive measures, which often occur in the context of domestic and family violence. Can the inclusion of this type of crime in the Criminal Code actually have an impact on the prevention of femicide and filicide? Is the approach even realistic given the current state of the justice system and the overload of Canada’s courts?
The issue of criminalizing coercive control has resurfaced in Quebec in recent days following a new family tragedy near Joliette in Lanaudière. Ianik Lamontagne did not accept separation from his partner and killed their three-year-old twins before taking his own life. He had been arrested by police two days earlier and then released on the promise of appearing in court. His wife filed a complaint against him after discovering a microphone in the house and a GPS system under his vehicle.
According to Stéphane Pouliot, family law lawyer, this type of gesture aimed at controlling and monitoring another person is very common, especially in separations and divorces.
This is everyday life in family law, with people trying to follow their ex-spouse, or even during their life together. The extreme happened in this case. But it is very present and society and the government must do something to protect these people, he said in an interview on the Facts First program.
Coercive control combines various behaviors that are often associated with physical, psychological and sexual violence within a family or couple.
These are gestures and behaviors that contribute to locking victims in the so-called glass cage, explained Rachel Chagnon, dean of the Faculty of Political Science and Law at the University of Quebec in Montreal, in an interview with Alain Gravel.
The victim feels at the mercy of his tormentor and has the feeling that there is no way out. We think of economic control, increased surveillance, clothing control, denigration, contempt… These are more insidious, less obvious attitudes that can lead to violent events.
Difficulties lie ahead
However, introducing coercive control into the criminal code poses a number of challenges. As Me Pouliot points out, the concept must first be clearly defined.
Definitions that we see elsewhere in the world [pour le contrôle coercitif]It is a behavior that repeats itself over time. But this behavior needs to be very well defined, he said.
For her part, Rachel Chagnon points to a similar concept that was introduced into the justice system around twenty years ago at the request of groups defending victims of violence: criminal harassment.
Criminal harassment operates in some ways on the same principle as coercive control: It is a crime designed to demonstrate a state of mind and the repetition of behavior over time, she explained.
What we see is that it is extremely difficult to bring charges of criminal harassment because it is difficult to create a chain of events significant enough to meet the burden of proof that lies at the heart of the matter. Beyond any reasonable doubt.
Prosecutors avoid this offense because the demonstration is inconvenient. It is necessary to prove the existence of several events, the persistence of these events over time and the will of the person taking these actions to commit a crime.
Rachel Chagnon points out that the criminalization of coercive control must be accompanied by resources and, more broadly, investment in various areas of the justice system. It takes police officers who have the time to conduct these types of investigations, it takes resources in the justice system, for the prosecutor and for everyone who supports the system and the victims. It is not clear whether we currently have these resources.
The courts are overloaded. I think we need to move forward, but at the same time the government needs to provide funding to train stakeholders. I believe in prevention rather than after-the-fact intervention, but we can’t just wait for the next incident.
Other tools
However, Me Pouliot and Professor Chagnon believe that other tools are currently available to help victims.
“There are civil protection orders that we can apply to our courts and coercive control is already provided for in the divorce law,” argued Stéphane Pouliot.
But beyond repression, the two experts firmly believe in the power of prevention and education.
We have been working on repression for about twenty years, we have improved the tools, we have introduced criminal harassment… but it is not enough. “If repression were enough, if fear of prison stopped violent men from doing so, I think we would already know,” Rachel Chagnon said.
I think we need to think more broadly, train lawyers, train people in family law and give the population a better understanding of what violence means.