Would the same have happened to a white woman? Probably not. Would the same have happened to a rich woman? Probably not. Has the justice system treated this woman any differently than the man who allegedly abused her? Not much. Does the government who controls the justice system support her in any way? No.

I think that the quote from the YWCA person really sums this up. It's hard enough to confront violence as a woman living in poverty without having to worry that the brutalizing cops will put you in jail for filing a complaint.

I loved how the dude from the AGO says this too:

quote:

---

Sheamus Murphy, spokesperson for Ontario's Attorney General Chris Bentley, said that he can't comment on the case because it is before the courts, but he did say the facts in this matter have been reviewed by two independent judicial officers – the judge who issued the warrant and the justice of the peace who denied Mowatt bail.

Murphy added that even though it is the job of police to collect evidence, and protecting the victim is always a first priority, "they can't always avoid having the complainant testify."

---

quote:

---

what the two women have in common is their poverty

---

quote:

---

What the two women have in common is being women in a patriarchy that treats women as evil and dangerous but routinely turns out wife and child batterers as doing what comes naturally.

---

Give me a break. If the system was acting in the depraved manner which you describe, then on March 20th, the date of Mr Harbin's trial, to which Ms. Mowatt did not attend to give evidence, the Crown would have simply called no evidence, withdrawn the charges, and caused Harbin to step out of custody with absolutely no restrictions on his freedom. Instead the Crown, in an effort to fully prosecute the alleged batterer, asked for and received an adjournment of the trial. Part of that adjournment process requires the Crown to convince the Court that it will be in a position to call evidence at some later date, therefore requiring the material witness warrant.

[ 09 April 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

quote:

---

There was no reason for jailing Ms,. Mowatt other than a long-standing judicial tradition of treating women as troublemakers who need to be taught a lesson about their obligations to a system that would much rather not bother with their rights.

---

quote:

---

Ah yes, the "day to day reality" as disproving a specific case where a woman is being treated horrendously. Coincidence, exception... Move along, folks, nothing to see...

---

Nowhere in my post did I make any comment on the reasonableness of the decision to detain Ms Mowatt until she testifies. For what it's worth, it seems to me to be a drastic measure. But the underlying facts, the vast majority of which have not been detailed in the Star article, may have required drastic measures.

quote:

---

It has long been known to astute observers of the court system - as you struttingly present yourself to be - that prosecutors can and do proceed without putting thumbscrews on the victim in situations where they are compromising her safety and revictimizing her with no regard for justice. A case can be and is relatively often built on the strength of the arresting officers' report or on other evidence that doesn't demand that the most at-risk person stand in for the State and make its case. Small-town bank managers, for instance, are not blackmailed under threat of jail to testify against local biker types who held up their institution. (But then, they rarely are Black immigrant women and they don't buck a long-standing male privilege.)

---

It is true that the Crown in some instances can proceed without testimony from the complainant. There is nothing that indicates that this is one of those cases. Unless you have some more detailed information surrounding the circumstances of the case you can point me to (other witnesses, forensic evidence, video surveillance, suitable KGB statements, etc), why assume that the Crown was in position to proceed in this case without Ms Mowatt's testimony and chose not to?

quote:

---

No, as everybody understands except dyed-in-the-wool why-doesn't-she-leave-she's-really-asking-for-it types, there was no reason for jailing Ms. Mowatt other than an equally long-standing judicial tradition of treating women who call for help as fickle troublemakers, who need to be taught a lesson about their obligations to a system that would much rather not bother with their rights if they maintain the privilege not to be compliant Crown witnesses, regardless of a powerful attorney's professional interests.

---

I am not even sure I understand what you are saying here. I am pretty sure you are accusing me of some quite troubling beliefs and opinions, simply because I refuse to take your understanding of the system and this case on faith. No person has the "right" or the "privilege" of not answering to a subpeona. Ms Mowatt does not have to be a compliant Crown witness -- and, given her comments at the end of the article, she likely will be a very non-compliant Crown witness -- but she does need to show up.

This issue is a crucial long-standing one in the battered women's movement, and advocates have by and large chosen to advovate that victims' assessment of their options be respected, that we be accountable tio her choice and to her possible change of heart, even when this allows the perp to go free.
You really should look at what front-line organizations with decades of experience, such as OAITH and METRAC in Ontario, are saying about such cases and the inhumanity of the system's response to Ms. Mowatt's plight.
OAITH has on its website a flyer that reads Stop Blaming Women. One of their points is that "In Ontario, charges against woman abuse survivors have been rising in incidents of 'domestic violence"." They point out that women of colour are dispropotionately being detained and their immigration status challenged. Shouldn't you take this into account before implicitly supporting a policy that abuses Ms. Mowatt, holds her hostage in jail days before she is to give birth, and turns against her a justice process she now blames herself for having trusted?
From the CBC web page about this story:

quote:

---

(...) Pamela Cross, a legal consultant in the domestic violence field, said even when women come forward, many times they're too scared to testify. Cross said the women know that after they testify there's really nothing to keep them safe.

"All you have to do is look at the reports from the coroner's Domestic Violence-Death Review Committee [report] to see that most of the time, something like 85 per cent of the time, when women are killed by partners or former partners, it happens after there's been court involvement — after he's been told to stay away from her," said Cross.

Vivienne Greene, who worked in the field of domestic violence for 16 years, said a decade ago the courts changed the rules in order to minimize reliance on the alleged victims by having police gather evidence from other sources.

"So you have neighbours. You have medical reports. You have other ways that corroborate the crime so you don't have to use her."

---

[ 09 April 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

quote:

---

advocates have by and large chosen to advovate that victims' assessment of their options be respected, even when this allows the perp to go free.

---

[ 09 April 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

quote:

---

Limits on victim compulsion.

Victims should not be penalized for their reluctance to participate in prosecution. Policies should be developed in each prosecutor's office that limit the use of compulsion in achieving victim participation. Victims of domestic violence should not be incarcerated for refusal to serve as victim-witnesses. Battered women should not be prosecuted for filing false police reports because they seek to terminate prosecution, except in those unusual circumstances where there is independent evidence of false swearing or perjury. While it is appropriate to routinely issue subpoenas to compel victim appearance at trial, bench warrants should not be issued routinely when victims fail to appear. Rather, continuances should be sought and investigation should be undertaken to ascertain the whereabouts of the battered woman and the reasons for her failure to appear. If reluctance is based on fear or intimidation, strategies should be employed to protect her from the dangers anticipated. Battered women should not be threatened with refusal to prosecute perpetrators for future violence if they fail or refuse to participate in the current prosecution.

Prosecutors should be cognizant of the potential adverse ramifications of coercive process with victims of domestic violence. The repercussions of coercive process may be as far-ranging as the loss of custody, the loss of employment, the loss of reputation, eviction from leaseholds, and abandonment by significant support persons. All efforts should be made to gain the cooperation of domestic violence victims rather than to compel participation.

The interests of justice must seriously consider the interests of victims. Their interests in safety and their reputations as law-abiding citizens should not be compromised in pursuit of prosecution unless there are overriding reasons for subordinating victim interests.

On the other hand, it may be helpful for victims that the public posture of a prosecutor's office is that the Commonwealth controls prosecution. Many in the criminal justice system believe that at least the appearance of no victim discretion on the question of whether the prosecution will proceed reduces batterer intimidation directed at getting charges dropped. This public posture may even enhance victim safety because the perpetrator understands that further violence will not affect a dismissal of the charges but will both result in incarceration during the pendency of the initial prosecution and in additional prosecution for the retaliatory violence. It is important to recognize that prosecution solely controlled by the district attorney will not universally buttress victim investment or protect victims from retaliatory violence. In those instances where termination of the prosecution is critical to protect victims, the public posture should not preclude such prosecutorial discretion.

---

[ 09 April 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

The issue of the protection of women is a fundamental problem faced by the justice system, and not one for which there are easy answers. Likewise the issue of the how best to empower women once charges have been laid. I can't imagine anyone is advocating that all charges be dropped if the only evidence that can be provided is that of the complainant alone. Simply allowing the perp to go free offers very little protection to women: it seems unlikely that, after having been accused, arrested, and charged, the accused will be much less upset at his accuser simply because she doesn't at the end of the day testify. This would be particularly so if, as is likely in the most serious of cases, the accused has spent some significant time in custody awaiting trial.

Edited to clarify that this post is a response to the following post by martin (I am a painfully slow poster):

quote:

---

I fear you are taking a formal, legalist position, and refusing to assess it based on its outcome. Because no one is entitled to resist a subpoena, Ms. Mowatt is in the wrong and the system in the right.
I suggest to you that this is legally true but morally and politically wrong and that the system is simply applying muscle to the weakest party in the situation, Ms. Mowatt, in effect punishing her for the system's failure - if this is indeed the case - to have her assaulter sentenced on other evidence than the testimony of the only person who is risking both her security and her future by siding with a racist system against her assaulter by providing the evidence that would convict him.

This issue is a crucial long-standing one in the battered women's movement, and advocates have by and large chosen to advovate that victims' assessment of their options be respected, even when this allows the perp to go free. It is interesting to look at what front-line organizations with decades of experience, such as OAITH and METRAC in Ontario, are saying about such cases and the inhumanity of the system's response to Ms. Mowatt's hesitation at taking upon her shoulders the resposibility of her partner's conviction.

---

[ 09 April 2008: Message edited by: Section 49 ]

quote:

---

Section 49" wrote: You are again assuming that there is some other evidence the Crown could use in this case besides the testimony of Ms Mowatt.

---

No, I don't. I actually wrote, above:

quote:

---

the system is simply applying muscle to the weakest party in the situation, Ms. Mowatt, in effect punishing her for the system's failure - if this is indeed the case (emphasis added) - to have her assaulter sentenced on other evidence than her testimony.

---

quote:

---

Training Opportunity Announcement:

The Cutler Institute of the Muskie School of Public Services of the University of Southern Maine in partnership with the Battered Women’s Justice Project is pleased to announce a series of researcher/practitioner audioconferences.

This series offers a vehicle for researchers and practitioners to discuss the implications of the findings, emerging theories, policy recommendations and "best practice" guides that are flowing out of the burgeoning research industry on violence against women. (See the attached schedule.)

Prominent researchers and practitioner activists have agreed to think and dialogue together to enable the field to have informed and vibrant conversations about the "evidence" that is emerging and the practices that best apply that knowledge for the benefit/safety of survivors and the resistance and law compliance of perpetrators.

Registration will be open starting tomorrow for session one of the series: Batterers and Intervention Strategies with David Mandel and Juan Carlos Areán.

This training is open to OVW grantees and the general public. If you are interested in participating, please register at your earliest possible convenience on Weds, March 26. You may register at_
www.bwjp.org/conferences/conferences.aspx_ (http://www.bwjp.org/conferences/conferences.aspx). A detailed schedule of the whole series can be found on the conference detail page.

OVW grantees should register with their OVW-issued grant number. All others MUST register with the following code: 2007-WEAX-1801.

Please only register one person per organization, but feel free to listen with colleagues via speaker phone. We’d like to have a wide and varied audience for this event.

If you have questions regarding audioconference content please call Barbara Hart, Audioconference Coordinator for the Muskie school, at the address below or write to_ [email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected]) . If you have questions or problems ith the registration, please contact Vicky
([email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected]) ) or Marijka ([email protected]_(mailto:[email protected]) ) with the Battered Women’s Justice Project.

---

[ 10 April 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

quote:

---

Pregnant inmate didn't receive subpoena: lawyer
Thu. Apr. 10 2008 9:25 AM ET
CTV website

The lawyer for a jailed pregnant teenager said Thursday that her client did not receive a subpoena before she was detained by police.

"There are provisions in the Criminal Code which allow for warrants to be issued when there's evidence that someone is evading a subpoena or that they might not respond to a subpoena that is issued," Lydia Riva told CTV's Canada AM.

"So we can presume that the warrant was issued under those two provisions."
(...)

A judge issued a warrant for her arrest over concerns that she would not testify against Harbin at his trial on April 11. Harbin is facing eight charges, including four counts of assault, one of forcible confinement and assault with a weapon.

Mowatt is due to give birth any day, but should be released on Friday in order to attend court.

Riva said that she questions the logic of putting her client in jail when she offered to follow strict bail conditions.

"Ms. Mowatt should have had bail," Riva said. "We offered a very strict bail, with house arrest. Ms. Mowatt said that she would report daily to the police division. She also said that she would attend (court) on April 11. All of those conditions were offered and yet rejected and ultimately she was detained."

Riva added: "Ms. Mowatt is very pregnant and she's now in a jail, a place where we house people who have committed serious criminal offences."
(...)

Premier Dalton McGuinty also told CP on Wednesday that the case is troubling.

"On the face of it, it creates a little bit of discomfort. There are some concerns about this particular individual and her age and her pregnancy and all those kinds of things,'' said McGuinty. "On the other hand, that judge has made a call and I'm not going to second guess that decision.''

---

According to the story.

quote:

---

A pregnant young woman jailed in Toronto earlier this month to ensure her testimony against her boyfriend says she accused him of abuse to "teach him a lesson."

Noellee Mowatt says she didn't call police after an argument on Dec. 28, 2007, because she had been abused by Christopher Harbin, but because she was mad at him.

Mowatt, 20, also says Toronto police forced her to make a videotaped statement that Harbin hit her.

Mowatt says Det.-Const. Mandy Morris threatened to "lock her up" if she didn't corroborate statements made during a 911 call earlier that day.

---

the star

Now in no way shape or form should Noelle have been jailed.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
the question should be why she was subpoenaed in the first place if the victim is not willing to testify.

---

In the bad old days their partners would threaten them in various ways if they did not "drop the charges."

Often the partners had reconciled on his promise to reform, and his wife would be more than happy to have his promise backed up by a probation order so that, if he hits her again, he will be locked up both on the new assault and on the breach, and will not be released by the police on a promise to appear but will face a bail hearing where he will have serious difficulties. But of course he doesn't want that, so he tells her to trust him and drop the charge. This is no longer her choice. The charge will proceed, as it should.

Every women's shelter tells women not to worry about being bullied into dropping the charge. It's not her responsibility to decide if it should be dropped, and not within her power to drop it.

[ 22 April 2008: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]