#WiTOpoli

April 29, 2013 Toronto Police Service Board Public Consultation City Hall, Council Chambers My name is Steph Guthrie and Im speaking on behalf of Women in Toronto Politics. Im here today to share some concerns and ideas regarding the way the Toronto Police Service currently deals with harassment. Section 264 of the Canadian Criminal Code, which deals with criminal harassment, was introduced in the early 1990s after several women were murdered by their stalkers. Section 264 prohibits repeated and unwanted communication or any kind of threatening conduct that induces the target to fear for their safety. However, it is not being treated as such by all Toronto Police officers. In the last week I have been connected with three different women who took a case of harassment to the police here in Toronto and were told that the police were hamstrung unless the harasser did something (i.e. assaulted them), which is simply not true. Section 264 does not require the harasser to have laid a hand on the victim in fact, late last year the Ontario Court of Appeal reinforced this by upholding a 5 year sentence for convicted harasser Patrick James Doherty. Justice Margaret Woolcott, who initially convicted Doherty, wrote in her judgment, the primary impact of harassment is very often psychological there is no requirement that there be physical harm to make out a very serious case of criminal harassment. Telling complainants that in order to lay charges they must wait until the person assaults them is evidence of clear misunderstanding of section 264. So my first suggestion is that you re-educate your frontline officers on the threshold required to lay harassment charges. No officer of this force should tell a complainant that assault is a necessary precondition for harassment charges. Section 264 was introduced specifically so that assault need not precede criminal charges. In two of the three instances I learned about where Toronto Police turned away a complainant, the harassment was happening in the womans workplace. In the third case, the harassment took place on the womans public transit route to work. You must go to work, so how do you escape? Imagine how much less safe you would feel if you were trapped with little control over whether or not you experienced the harassment. Now, consider one of the key litmus tests for section 264: the behaviour would make a reasonable person fear for their safety. The reasonable person qualifier is where things get tricky, because people have different thresholds for feeling safe or unsafe. A
WiTOpoli.com | womentopolitics@gmail.com | @WiTOpoli

#WiTOpoli

police officers understanding of what might make a reasonable person fear for their safety may be skewed, since police officers have completed robust training to protect themselves and others. Thus, my second recommendation is that, when considering whether a reasonable person would feel unsafe in the complainants position, officers should consider whether the complainant can escape the harasser. Finally, I want to talk about online harassment. In my experience, there is a tendency for officers to conclude that theres no reason to feel unsafe in response to an online threat or harassment. There is a perception that it is harmless, not real, or just a joke. Unless the officer perceives physical harm to be imminent, Toronto Police throw up their hands. Even if the harasser never touches the victim, online harassment has consequences including loss of reputation and economic opportunities, impacts on mental health including anxiety and depression, impacts on physical health such as exhaustion or chronic illness, or, as in the recent case of Rehtaeh Parsons, suicide. So, can we really argue that theres no danger inherent in online harassment, that its just a joke? And yet, I have been told exactly this by officers of the Toronto Police Service. However, Ive also had positive experiences that may be the way forward. I currently have a criminal harassment case before the courts where the harassment took place online. My work requires an active online presence, so in addition to creating a constant state of fear, the harassment jeopardized my access to economic opportunity. I was fortunate to find an officer in my division who specializes in social media and took my case seriously. Not all victims would have the time or personal connections to access an internet-savvy officer, and in my experience on two prior occasions, many beat cops lack even a rudimentary understanding of the internet. This lack of understanding, coupled with the common perception among non-internet users that what happens online is not real, is likely to lead many officers to dismiss complaints of online harassment. This is not only sad because the victims do not get the recourse their cases deserve, but also because in many ways online harassment is easier to investigate and prosecute than cases that take place offline. There are often witnesses, and victims can archive or take pictures of the messages they receive. As such, my third recommendation is that you ensure all officers receive in-depth training on the internet and social media, and are actively encouraged through policy and leadership to use it to gather evidence, learn from their peers, and connect with the communities they serve. Thank you.

WiTOpoli.com

womentopolitics@gmail.com

@WiTOpoli