A measure in federal Bill C-21 on firearms, aimed at protecting women at risk of violence, is raising fears among… groups of women.
Bill C-21 has received a lot of attention for its national handgun freeze. But it also contains a plethora of other measures, not yet adopted, including one that was widely discussed during interventions made this month at the Parliamentary Committee on Public Safety in Ottawa.
This is the measure that many call the “red flag”, which allows people who feel threatened, in particular women who are victims of domestic violence, to appear before a judge so that the harassing or violent person is prohibited from possess weapons.
The process takes place ex parte, that is, in the absence of the other party. The hearing may be held behind closed doors and anonymously for added protection. A judge can impose an “emergency restraining order” for up to 30 days.
“It risks harming more women than it will help,” Louise Riendeau, from the Regroupement des centers pour femmes victims de violence conjugale, immediately argued before the parliamentary committee.
An undue burden
Such a procedure imposes an undue burden on already vulnerable people, in addition to being risky for them, argued women’s groups who traveled to Ottawa to share their fears with federal MPs – and ask them to delete this provision from C-21.
The police already have the power to request a warrant to seize firearms, particularly when they deem that a person represents a danger to themselves or to others. If there is an emergency, they can also act without a warrant.
Why put this burden on women’s shoulders? They already have so much to do when they leave an abusive partner without having to take care of their own safety as well, said Angela Marie MacDougall, of Battered Women’s Support Services.
Victims have neither the energy nor the moral strength to go to court, argued Ms.me Riendeau: they must first and foremost place themselves in safety, sometimes with their children, to ensure that they can go to school and meet their needs.
Sometimes they don’t know which door to knock on in court or how to write procedures.
Liberal MP Pam Damoff pointed out that some see it as an “additional” measure, adding to police powers — not taking them away.
Tighten the current system
Mme Riendeau does not see it that way. “We fear that the police, instead of taking the steps, will ask the victims to do them themselves,” she said, describing the process before the judge as much “heavier” and more complex for them than to surrender. at the police station or contact the chief firearms officer.
This was the case, she said, with section 810 of the Criminal Code, which allows a person who fears for his safety to ask a judge to order another person to “keep the peace”. We have seen “multiple cases” where police told a woman to take care of it herself.
It is feared that the police, instead of taking the steps, will ask the victims to do it themselves.
Instead, work should be done to tighten the current system to make it more efficient, argues Ms.me Riendeau.
She’s not the only one to think that. “There is no support from recognized feminist organizations fighting intimate violence for the ‘red flag’ measure proposed by C-21,” reads PolySeSouvient’s brief presented to the Committee on public safety.
“This option goes against the hard-fought principle of removing responsibility from the victim for the decision to bring charges against an abuser, as this may further endanger the victim. »
Generally, women’s groups see C-21 as a step in the right direction, but they want improvements. Clause-by-clause consideration of the bill is to begin shortly.