The RCMP and myself are committed to ensuring that victims are treated fairly by the justice system
Systemic harm can't be resolved through individual accountability, but instead requires structural change for misogyny, racism and victim blaming. Systemic harm needs structural change, not just statements (Combahee River Collective 1983).
To date, Sexual Assault Investigations Review Committees (SAIRCs) have been established in six (6) RCMP divisions
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.
With the goal to strengthen public trust in policing, survivors are encouraged to report these serious crimes through whatever mechanism they are most comfortable with.
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).
Working collaboratively with victim advocates and other experts will strengthen the RCMP's response to sexual assault crimes
Terminology matters. Calling individuals as "victim" rather than "survivor" constructs survivors to feel less than empowered and strong for coming forward. Sara Ahmed states how words can shape feelings and shapes power, therefore, by using “survivor” it recognizes agency (Ahmed 2014).
receive the same standard of care regardless of jurisdiction;
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).
For years, we have known that sexual assaults are among the most under-reported crimes in Canada.
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.
Once physical distancing measures are relaxed, the SAIRC training and implementation will resume.
The document ended with control, institutional, and systemic procedures instead of centering the suvrivors voices and experiences.
Most of the remaining divisions were well on their way to have their respective SAIRCs established by spring/summer 2020;
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.
Budget 2018 included $10 million over five years, and $2 million per year ongoing, for the RCMP to establish the Sexual Assault Review Team
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.
The creation of an Advisory Committee for Sexual Assault Investigations also serves as an open forum to share information on good practices
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.
The RCMP established the National Sexual Assault Review Team (SART) to conduct reviews of sexual assault investigations
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?
The RCMP is working hard to ensure that all sexual assault survivors feel comfortable bringing their allegations forward;
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.
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?