The report assumes universal “standard care” exists, but feminist methods challenge this by emphasizing that care must be situated, responsive to culture, trauma history, and lived experience. From my personal experience, affects everyone differently. That being why feminist methods reject “universal” standards, since standpoint theory by Harding, states that real care must be rooted in culture, identity, and lived experience (Harding 1987).

Who is “we”? Is it referring to institutions, survivors, or the public? Feminist methods interrogate whose knowledge and whose voices get centered. The report as well do not acknowledge that institutions themselves contribute to under-reporting because survivors don’t trust them.

The document ended with control, institutional, and systemic procedures instead of centering the suvrivors voices and experiences.

Sexual assault is happening no matter when or where. Deflecting responsibility due to COVID-19 seems justifiable, but minimizes the urgency for current survivors and the ongoing sexual violence regardless of the barriers.

Change is reflected through quality not quantity. Relying for change on institutional numbers such as number of cases solved or reviewed, is not a show of progress. Survivors needs safety, and trust within the system itself. More money doesn’t immediately build trust.

Systemic harm can't be resolved through individual accountability, but instead requires structural change for misogyny, racism and victim blaming. Systemic harm needs systemic change, not just statements of commitment. (Smith 2005) WHO IS SMITH?

Terminology matters. Calling individuals as "victim" rather than "survivor" constructs survivors to feel less than empowered and strong for coming forward. Language shapes power, therefore, by using “survivor” it recognizes agency. (Lamb 1999) WHO IS LAMB?

The review shows accountability in a way that reinforces the RCMP’s own legitimacy rather than centering survivor safety. Institutions can act accountable to reinforce their own legitimacy, but not necessarily centering survivor safety or autonomy.

Whose knowledge is used to shape the review? Survivors, educated individuals, or was only institutional actors dominate? Are survivors part of this review, or is the system reviewing itself?

Intersecting identities such as race, gender identity, sexuality, etc. can shape an individuals choice/ability to report. identity shapes who feels safe engaging with the police. For Indigenous, people of colour, or queer survivors, reporting is shaped by power, history, and fear of mistrust. (Crenshaw 1991)

How? They claim to be doing a lot, but don’t show how survivors are being supported by explaining how, when, etc. This feels vague. Trust and safety needs more than statements but actual action.

Does "established" mean in practice? However, they don’t explain what functioning actually looks like in practice. “Established” might only mean legally. but not clear if survivors are being helped or if the system just created a committee and called it progress. (RCMP 2021)

Intersecting identities such as race, gender identity, sexuality, etc. can shape an individuals choice/ability to report.

Who is “we”? Is it referring to institutions, survivors, or the public?