Last week marked the entry into force of the amendment to the Personal Information Protection Act, which now allows victims of sexual violence who have filed a complaint within their institution of higher education to find out about the sanction given to the person targeted by it. This significant province-wide gain is entirely attributable to the initiative of a small group of students, of which we are a part.
While this marks a legal gain that prioritizes the rights of victims (above those of perpetrators), several challenges remain. Currently, directors of higher education establishments are forcing the signing of a confidentiality agreement on victims who wish to assert their rights through official channels, even before filing their complaint. And unfortunately, the interpretation of the Act to prevent and combat sexual violence in higher education establishments does not contain anything against this practice.
Other establishments even oblige the signature of a confidentiality agreement to the persons sitting on the internal policy committee of the establishment, whereas these persons do not have access to the details concerning the cases, since their mission is “to developing, reviewing and monitoring the policy”. Some institutions have decided to interpret the law in such a way that they have created hybrid criminal and civil justice processes that overemphasize the privacy and confidentiality of the “accused”, but also where the complaints process is in its very essence revictimizing.
Freedom of expression or even the right to security of people who could be victims of these abuses are neglected, and the disclosure process remains riddled with obstacles in establishments that have adopted this posture.
“Rebuilding Trust”
The opacity shown by these establishments is questionable; what reasons justify such a draconian silencing of all those who are directly or indirectly concerned by the law aimed at preventing and combating sexual violence in higher education establishments? Why propagate this culture of silence, a culture which has so long wreaked havoc and which has above all benefited those people who have violently abused their position of power?
From a perspective of “rebuilding trust”, is it not necessary to question how higher education establishments will interpret this legislative change? We believe it is essential that the amendment to the law also paves the way for primary and secondary schools, which do not have the same type of protection as higher education establishments. And, above all, we want this legislative change to mark the beginning of a collective awareness of the rights to security and protection against sexual violence as well as the need for innovation to provide more spaces where victims are received and adequately supported in their disclosure process.
The first step towards a demonstration of an adequate and responsible treatment of situations of sexual violence by these establishments would be to disclose retroactively the sanctions given, like what is done in other spheres. professionals. It would also be to stop this practice of requiring the signing of confidentiality agreements to protect themselves from their rights. If such measures were put in place, there would not currently be at least two complaints to the Human Rights Commission for discrimination and harassment against a higher education institution that required the signing of a confidentiality agreement for the opening of a complaint for sexual violence.
If we really want to stem the problem of sexual violence in higher education and more broadly in society, aiming for a culture of transparency is the first step. It is time to act now.