Here’s to the Women

Posted on by Pete Cross

There was a small parade and ceremony in St. John’s Newfoundland the other day. An auspicious occasion as it was to mark the fiftieth anniversary of women entering the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. It was back in May 1974 when Commissioner Nadon had opened up the recruitment and application process to the women of Canada. By September 18th of that same year, Troop 17 was born, graduating on March 3rd 1975, and thus shoved themselves through the door and entered into the looming chasm which was the male policing world.

In training there were 32 of them, surrounded by 800 men recruits. The female recruits were all 19-29 years old, embarking on a novel career, but not likely thinking of any “glass ceiling”; in most cases seeing it as an adventure. In fact the term “glass ceiling” wasn’t even coined until 1978. As one of the officers said in a recent interview “they weren’t ready for us” and it is just as likely these female recruits were not ready for what they were about to encounter– both on the street, and just as importantly amongst the ranks of the male officers. They went in blind, but I am sure it did not take long for their eyes to be quickly opened.

Nowadays, the RCMP sees themselves as enlightened in these matters of discrimination and the power of women; however, in 1974 the move by the RCMP came about after having being pushed to do so by the Royal Commission on the Status of Women. They did not relent willingly. The Commission had been formed in 1967, but it still took the government a number of years to be pulled and cajoled into the age of women empowerment. They weren’t the first, the Vancouver and Toronto Police Departments had already brought women into the fold by the time Ottawa and the RCMP moved into the late 20th century.

In 1975 Captain and Tenille were singing about love keeping us together, and Jaws and One Flew Over the Cuckoo Nest were storming the box office. Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau was leading the Liberals, and Joe Clark was about to succeed Robert Stanfied for the Conservatives. Some would say it was a much simpler time, more black and white than grey. And to be totally accurate, there were female “employees” in the RCMP long before this, as they had employed “matrons” in the 1890’s for the processing of prisoners. The woman first believed to be the “first female member” of the RCMP was Dr. Francis McGill, who headed and help to establish the Forensic medicine department in Saskatchewan in 1946.

However, this group in 1975 after graduation were the front line officers and they were about to be dispersed throughout the country. It was not going to be an easy task and one could easily make the argument that the roughest part of their journey and their eventual indoctrination did not come from the street– but from their fellow officers. I was around in those early years, in 1978 I was a recruit assigned to the Newcastle New Brunswick Detachment (an area now called Miramichi City) and shortly after I arrived, the first female the detachment had ever seen, arrived as well. Newcastle was the epitome of the term rough and tumble; high unemployment and rampant poverty. It was a conservative blue collar place where a police officer could easily in the normal course of their daily duties be involved in a knock you down drag it out fight. The people who lived there were either miners, loggers or fishermen and they lived hard and played hard. It was a 23 person RCMP detachment, relatively small, but deemed large in terms of this “have-not” New Brunswick Province. The Mountie administration were initially reluctant even to send female officers to this area because of the constant environment of simmering violence. A few years later, the area would become infamous for being the home of serial killer Alan Legere .

I often have maintained and have stated categorically many times, that the toughest job in policing is to simply be a female officer. And it was in Newcastle in 1978 that I worked with “Sheila”, the first female Mountie ever to be stationed in this robust village; an above average height, slim, a quick to smile 25 year old, who immediately found herself now working with big strapping Mounties, who with little doubt, were to the right of centre socially and politically. The male officers there were quick to jump into a fight and quick to say what they meant loudly and in a clear voice. There were no niceties and they all became my friends. However, in terms of personal viewpoints, if they had done a survey in those times– almost all would have felt that women had no place in policing– and some would profess that between women being “let in” and the arriving of the Charter of Rights in 1982 it was the end of the golden age of policing. “Sheila” was from the start under an intense microscope, the subject of continual stares, in public, and even at social police functions, most pointedly by the female spouses of the other officers. She was seen as an obvious threat to domestic bliss, and she had the added burden of being attractive. Some of the spouses demanded that their husbands not be seen riding in the same patrol car with Sheila or meeting up for a work coffee break. She was assigned to the Traffic Section, because it was seen as being “safer” there. I never saw her show weakness or express exasperation; she never complained, she just kept doing her job and hoped for eventual acceptance.

When I try to analyze the root cause of the growing pains for females in those early years, it probably comes down to two simple elements. First and foremost, at that age and time, there was a clear delineation between what was the role of the male and what was the role of the female. Simply put it was a boy’s club and their treehouse and they were girls trying to climb the shaky wooden ladder to become a member of the group. In their dress Red Serge uniform, the females wore red blazers and black knee length skirts and in 1983 they gave them purses to carry their guns and handcuffs. They wore form fitting polyester blouses, with no pockets to avoid any unnecessary protuberances. They were being seen as female first, police officers second.

The second element, that flows from the first, is that policing was seen as a laborious lower level middle class job; a physical occupation, where size and weight were the primary measurements in your ability to do the job. The job back then was often simply defined as chasing “bad guys” and physically tossing them into jail. This is not to say that there isn’t a physical element to this job, there was then and there is still now. Women then and now are expected to be just as tough and willing to wander into a scrap, against someone usually bigger and stronger than them on a regular basis. But in those early years one should be reminded that there were no alternate weapons such as pepper spray, or batons, or tasers, or which came about specifically as a way to level the playing field. In those days the female officers were told to be tougher; they were punched, kicked and spit upon, and they were expected to go down fighting. They were continually being watched for signs of acquiescence or for showing female qualities. That was unfair but there are still some elements of this scrutiny even today.

There is also a female proscribed role in terms of familial and personal relationships which lingers to this day. Starting and maintaining families and households is still very much predominantly the role of the female, this while balancing a policing career in particular is a significant challenge. Throw in the sometimes still present misogynist male and night time shift work and you get some idea of how tricky it can be. Sometimes for some it has proven to be overwhelming. Female officers traditionally have not stayed in policing as long as their male counterparts, but there are few studies as to why this is happening, but clearly there are reasons for it.

For those that did manage to walk the fine line and especially to those that endured in those early years one can only show respect. Since those early days, I personally have worked with some extraordinary female officers through three decades of policing. They were hard working intuitive good investigators long before they were seen as female. Their gender was inconsequential. Many of them displayed different insights that being who they were provided them. I can’t explain it, I just saw it working.

All of this is a common saw. Since the early 20th century, women have been fighting to define their role in a male dominated society. Policing was one of the last of the true male vestiges of this 20th century. It was difficult to run at and break through those traditions. It was often an individual fight on an individual level. Those that put up that fight in those early years started that final pendulum. Today, females possibly enjoy an even greater chance of promotion and have the benefits and support networks to confront the duality of their roles. It is still hard, but all the female officers of today should be bowing in respect to the many that came before them, a time before many of the current officers were born.

I watched it from the sidelines, but I am also tipping my cap to “Sheila”.

I am sure she will smile back.

Picture courtesy of Flickr commons from the Vancouver Archives – Some Rights Reserved

Mixing Gender Politics with Sexual Assault

Posted on by Pete Cross

It was 1970 when Kate Millett wrote the book “Sexual Politics”, a book that would go on to become one of the bibles of the still burgeoning feminist movement. Suffice to say, it has been awhile since the process of recognizing women and their equal contributions to society began in earnest and now is still leading us into the 2020’s decade. All efforts have called for a dynamic reckoning; a need to recognize the goals of “equal pay for equal work”; greater representation in the boardrooms, courtrooms, and political offices of the country. It has reached into the very core of society, demanding fundamental change in the family structure, where sharing of responsibility is absolutely necessary in forming an equal partnership.

Many argue that the “glass ceiling” is still alive and well, despite notable progress and female politicians still wear the term “feminist” as a badge of honour. In this decades long continuum of proposed and achieved change, we have reached a point in this country, where it is now political suicide to suggest or propose anything that could, even in some obscure reference, be termed to be “anti-female”.

One must applaud the majority of changes which are enabling women to assume their rightful place in society –where nothing should be allowed to block them from reaching to the highest levels in whatever chosen endeavour.

The sexual politics of this country, historically, has been multi-layered and arriving in sporadic waves, sometimes taking a step back, only to go forward again. It seems that in all generational movements, not just the women’s movement, all change is pushed, at least at the outset, by the radical fringe which then draw in the reluctant middle majority. The fringe then becomes part of the new centre.

The Gloria Steinem‘s and the Ellen Willis’ of the world are needed to pull, prod, and chastise the non-conformers. Those who cling to past practises and policies are portrayed as “dated” — out of step with the basic tenet that everyone is created equal. The right to vote was an inalienable right, but just a single step to righting centuries of illogical, often inhumane and constricted female lives.

The #MeToo Movement is the latest incarnation or wave in this pantheon of women’s rights and it has in fact served a very real purpose. Reading Ronan Farrow’s recent book, “Catch and Kill” one can not help but be moved and angered by the still prevailing winds of male domination and entitlement that blow through, in this case, the news and entertainment industry. All males should and need to be embarrassed.

The likes of Bill Cosby, Matt Lauer and Harvey Weinstein, are the more notable recent American examples, all of whom needed to be pursued, outed and prosecuted. That process has begun in the United States and to a lesser less obvious degree in Canada. One wishes that the RCMP had taken such a hardened and exposing approach to cleaning out the male locker room of the RCMP.

The fact that the RCMP was often a cesspool of male domination was difficult enough to publicly absorb, but the real stain on the RCMP may be the decision to settle the class action suit(s). Thus effectively forever silencing the various allegations; which with little doubt reached the very top of the organization. The circumstances demanded radical surgery on the organization, a cut into the heart of the organization. It would have meant lengthy and costly investigations, but in the end it would have gone a long way in exposing and cleaning up the disease.

Justice was not served by payments of hundreds of millions of dollars, justice was in fact denied or at the very least diverted.

Women were paid to keep quiet about their allegations and all men, innocent or otherwise in this once proud organization were sloppily painted with the same brush. How this determinative action was going to change the “culture” remains undefined— in fact it may be the greatest cover-up ever pulled in Canadian history.

That all being said and despite the many wrongs, one must always be vigilant to the need for fairness, always seek the truth with the goal of ultimate justice. It needs to be recognized that change, or at least legitimate and broad change, takes time. One can not rush cultural change and any change which is patently unfair only sets the movement backwards.

All of which leads to a relatively recent troubling development in the area of sexual offences. To understand the problem you need to understand the current political environment.

The #MeToo Movement has an outer fringe who often take the view that if “she” said it, it is true. They are effectively ignoring that there is a tricky balance. On the one hand one is hearing from brave women talking about the wrongs from past years and only now are women, no doubt emboldened by this movement, have had the confidence to come forward.

The other darker side of the argument is that a wrongful allegation once made, especially in this 21st rush to judgement society could condemn an innocent person to jail. The accused ostracized to the point of being unable to function– their entire lives up-ended. The truism that holds that two wrongs don’t make a right should always be firmly in sight and one must always remember that the fundamental building block of our justice system is the “presumption of innocence”.

The current Liberal government has made over reaction into an art form. No trending cause is too small –if it polls with the right audience, then it needs to be enshrined in policy, regardless of the ultimate damage or outcome. No need for informed study, if it twitters favourably it must be good.

Hence, we now have a discombobulated piece of marihuana legislation and the idea has been born that individual cities should govern the banning of firearms, according to their own city views. These ideas and subsequent legislation gain favour and the head bobbing politicians standing behind the podiums go right along, seemingly undeterred by common sense or any thoughtful opposition. Millennial appeals to voters are good, outcomes the future and someone else’s problem.

The feminist movement, even in radical form, is just one of those causes which according to all the “progressives” can not be questioned. There are other examples like the indigenous, or climate change. No need for study, no need to question, no need for expertise.

In promoting the feminist cause, in their zeal, this government has brought us such things as: a new government department formed around the previous “Status of Women” counsel; “gender-based analysis” for the Federal budget, which among its mentions is that they codified the need for “more women in senior management positions”; Bill C-65 which governed the Federal government workplace, amending the Canada Labour Code focussing on the need to remove harassment and violence from the workplace.

All of this can or may be grudgingly accepted, as it is often difficult to argue against some of the intent of these enactments, however flawed in their application some of it may be.

But where the government overstepped was in the passage of Bill C-51. This was a piece of legislation also introduced by Jody Wilson-Raybould, often a martyr of the fringe, one who had no quibble with interfering with the justice system if it involved her pet causes.

Bill C-51 is an example of the fringe demanding and finding a receptive audience among the Liberals and those #MeToo members who believe that no woman can be deceptive, or less than forthright, about anything that purports to be some form of sexual assault or harassment.

For those who have not followed this Bill (which, it should be added, passed Parliament with All Party support) deals with future conduct for the trial of those accused of sexual offences and was designed primarily to further protect the victim or the accuser.

And if you are in the group of believers in the women’s right to allege and be always believed, than you need to consider the case of Jan Gomeshi. This bill, C-51 was, many have argued, in response to the subsequent total acquittal of Mr. Gomeshi and the fringe feminist public backlash at the results.

During the trial the two primary witnesses had their credibility totally destroyed by the uncovering of emails and text messages which they sent before and after the alleged assaults and rapes. They were confronted with this direct, difficult to deny evidence, by the more than capable lawyer, Marie Heinen. She personally took a great deal of heat from the “I believe accusers” group which included politicians such as Tom Mulcair. Paradoxically, she in her role, should have been heralded as one of the true examples of someone carrying the torch for feminism.

Bill C-51 came on the heals of the Gomeshi trial which pitted the arguments for a fair trial against the argument for the protection of the accuser victim. Bill C-51 passed in December of 2018. Jody Wilson-Raybould heralded it as the “first major update in 20 years”, while others quietly called it quite simply “unconstitutional”. As the bill now begins to be applied throughout the country it seems that the courts are now recognizing it as in fact being “unconstitutional”.

The bill in effect sets up a screening feature which necessitates that all defence records; things such as texts, Facebook entries and other social media, get to be scrutinized ahead of the accuser’s testimony in admissibility hearings. This has the effect of giving an alleged victim a sneak peak at the defence evidence which could have the obvious effect of allowing the Crown, and the accuser, to tailor their evidence in anticipation of that evidence. Effectively warning them in advance of something countering their evidence. It is “reverse disclosure”.

The Saskatchewan and Alberta Superior Courts now have stated that this Act violates Section 7 of the Charter of Rights which deals with the right to make full answer and defence, and it also contravenes Section 11 (d), which assures the right to a fair trial.

The Crown, obliging its masters argues that the Act is fair and Section 1 of the Charter allows for reasonable limits that can be justified in a free society.

The defence argues that this is going to lead to “wrongful convictions”.

In Parliamentary hearings groups such as the Womens Legal Education and Action Fund argued that this was “necessary”. Were they arguing the possibility of wrongfully convicting someone was “necessary”?

There is little doubt that this Act and its provisions will wind its way to the Supreme Court of Canada. Hopefully, even those Liberal leaning Justices may find that clearly weighting a case in favour of one side over the other, is a little too much bending in this era of professed enlightenment.

After the Ghomesi case, Peter Mansbridge interviewed Marie Heinen, in an interview which Mansbridge entered clearly in support of the leftist fringe on his cue cards. An interview intended to lament and repeat the fringe feminist maxim that all women accusers are right and truthful.

Heinen was forceful and deliberate in her counter-argument. She succintley pointed out that most evidence is circumstantial and thus often goes to credibility. The credibility of all involved; the Crown, the defence, the accused, the accusers, and the police. The central point being that all evidence needs to be tested.

Everyone needs to “get a fair shake”. She points out it is what separates our justice system from that of others and it is indeed what makes this country worth defending.

As to the feminist fringe who rage about the outcomes of any acquittal, she simply states “guaranteed results is not justice”. This is one defence counsel lawyer that every police officer should listen to, along with all of those in the feminist corner. We as a society must always be aware that legitimate progress requires full and honest examination. The price is too high otherwise.

Photo courtesy of gt8073c via Flickr Commons – Some rights Reserved