Over the last several years, we’ve all witnessed the escalation of hate and intolerance to which elected officials and journalists, especially if they are women, gender- and/or sexually-diverse people, racially-marginalized people, or disabled people, have been subjected. At a July meeting of the Region’s Corporate Services Committee, I ended up speaking about some of what I’ve experienced over the last five years. Councillor Redekop offered to work with me to write a motion to try to address some of what I and elected officials across the province and country have been having to deal with.
This morning, this motion passed at Corporate Services Committee (not unanimously). See below for the motion, how the votes turned out, and my comments.
Moved by Councillor Redekop
Seconded by Councillor Heit
WHEREAS respect for the views and opinions of others is a hallmark of civil discourse in our society;
WHEREAS freedom of expression is a fundamental value of a free and democratic society;
WHEREAS speech that threatens violence, intimidates, abuses or bullies is not and should not be protected as free expression;
WHEREAS there have been many recent instances of violence, threats of violence, intimidation, abuse, and bullying by some individuals in the Niagara region against others for a variety of reasons other than legitimate differences of political views or opinions;
WHEREAS some elected officials in Niagara have been the subject of violent attacks, online harassment, and physical intimidation over the past several months;
WHEREAS Regional Council approved on February 17, 2022, a Resolution at the Corporate Services Committee that condemned those acts of violence, harassment, and intimidation against members of Regional Council and local area municipal councils, all public servants, and all health care providers;
WHEREAS elected officials are obligated to adhere to the provisions of codes of conduct that regulate their behaviour when serving the public; and
WHEREAS there is no excuse for bad behaviour by any individual against another.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
1. That Regional Council AFFIRMS that equity, diversity, and inclusion are core values that it supports and will continue to promote;
2. That the Niagara Regional Police Service BE REQUESTED to take a more assertive approach to responding to complaints of threats of violence, intimidation, and bullying of elected officials and members of local appointed committees in Niagara;
3. That staff BE DIRECTED to investigate the following and provide a report to the Corporate Services Committee as soon as reasonably practical:
a) Creation of a program to educate the public on the benefits of equity, diversity and inclusion and conversely the damaging impacts of hate and intolerance;
b) Whether Council should consider the creation of a residents or citizens code of conduct to guide individuals engaging elected officials or attending meetings of Regional Council and its Committees and various advisory committees;
c) Any further information, data or recommendations that Council should consider to alleviate incidents of hate and intolerance in Niagara;
4. That the Provincial Government BE REQUESTED to develop legislation and/or policies to protect elected officials and members of local appointed committees from violence, threats of violence, intimidation, abuse, and bullying by other individuals; and
5. That a copy of this Resolution BE SENT to the Premier of Ontario, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, all municipalities in Niagara, all Niagara MPPs and MPs, and the Chief of the Niagara Regional Police Service for consideration and support.
How the vote went:
Item 2 in motion (voted on separately from the rest of the motion at the request of Councillor Diodati):
2. That the Niagara Regional Police Service BE REQUESTED to take a more assertive approach to responding to complaints of threats of violence, intimidation, and bullying of elected officials and members of local appointed committees in Niagara;
Bateman – yes
Bradley – yes
Campion – absent
Davies – yes
Diodati – no
Foster – yes
Gale – no
Ganann – yes
Grant – no
Heit – yes
Ip – yes
Redekop – yes
Secord – yes
Siscoe – yes
Sorrento – absent
Whalen – yes
Zalepa – absent
Balance of motion:
Bateman – yes
Bradley – yes
Campion – absent
Davies – yes
Diodati – yes
Foster – yes
Gale – no
Ganann – yes
Grant – no
Heit – yes
Ip – yes
Redekop – yes
Secord – yes
Siscoe – yes
Sorrento – absent
Whalen – yes
Zalepa – absent
My comments to the motion:
Thank you. Through you, Chair.
Originally, I wasn’t going to speak to this motion. I didn’t want to move it and I didn’t want to second it, because I know it will result in more backlash for me. I think this motion speaks for itself and for what I and other elected officials across the province and country have been subjected to by a very loud and also very small number of people.
This morning, we’ve provided a platform for the communication of incorrect and, in fact, dangerous information, so we have a responsibility to ensure that we communicate what is actually the correct information, which means I do have to speak to this motion.
As someone who is considered a subject-matter expert about gender-based and intimate partner violence and who works for Gillian’s Place, where I’ve spent the last two years developing an 11-hour training program about gender-based violence and gendered issues, which launches next week, I will state plainly that the Power and Control Wheel or Duluth Model is a proven model, used worldwide for nearly half a century. It has been updated and adapted over time to address the abuse, harassment, intimidation, violence – and, yes, coercive control – to which specific groups are subjected.
The Power and Control Wheel or Duluth Model is used to show the common themes and experiences of survivors who have lived in an abusive relationship. It includes examples of the range of tactics within categories of behaviour used by abusers and shows that abuse can be physical, emotional, psychological, or financial. The Power and Control Wheel is not used to hurt the feelings of perpetrators of violence. It is used as an education tool to help survivors name and understand the types of abuse to which they have been subjected.
It’s really something to have someone who is neither an expert in nor an advocate against gender-based and intimate partner violence tell us that it is concerning to have the perpetrators of intimate partner violence framed negatively, like the negative framing of perpetrators of violence should be our concern while we continue to be in the midst of an epidemic of intimate partner violence and femicide.
Furthermore, the notion that intimate partner violence is or can be mutual is ludicrous and has been thoroughly debunked by dozens of experts. There is a phenomenon called situational couple violence that can be mutual, and it is very different from intimate partner violence and coercive control. Intimate partner violence and coercive control are not mutual, not by any stretch of the imagination. Coercive control cannot be mutual, because then, in fact, no one has control.
And the work done by the Alberta Council of Women’s Shelters that resulted in an adaption of the Power and Control Wheel to capture what women politicians are subjected to and how it compares to intimate partner violence holds true. It is well-researched, well-communicated, and absolutely accurate.
When I ran for Regional Council, I did not sign up for abuse, harassment, intimidation, violence or threats of violence, including:
⁃ a few months of daily voicemails in which the caller tells me what he’d like to do to me sexually;
⁃ letters wishing me a lonely and painful death;
⁃ e-mails and social media posts that threaten me, including plenty of messages and comments telling me I *should* feel unsafe;
⁃ commentary on my appearance or clothing;
⁃ social media posts that dehumanize me by calling me an ‘animal’;
⁃ cartoons about me that are sexually suggestive or that reduce me to female genitalia;
⁃ videos that discuss – at length – who I may or may not be involved in a relationship with;
⁃ remarks about my late sister;
⁃ orchestrated and completely frivolous and vexatious complaints that are devoid of merit to the Compliance Audit Committee, the Integrity Commissioner, and various other bodies;
⁃ racist remarks about my children;
⁃ being called a pervert, a pedophile, a groomer, and being told that my children need protection from me;
⁃ having my image and words used and twisted – from these very meetings and from material I’ve shared for the non-profit boxing club I run – that provoke others to direct abuse toward me. One of these videos was recently sent to Council; and
⁃ e-mails from people who harass me and then tell me that I “don’t have anything to worry about” because no one knows where I live, spends any time outside of my house, or has pictures of my children.
Somehow, that’s not even all of it. There is no ‘both sides’ to this kind of behaviour. And I cannot imagine any difference of political views or opinions that makes any of what I’ve just listed acceptable. This is coercive control.
A few times, I’ve had to report behaviour to NRPS. In my discussions with them, officers have advised me – more than once – to keep screenshots of tweets, posts, and e-mails from the most problematic individuals whenever they contact me or post something about me. I keep screenshots from 43 people or accounts. Most of those are generally pretty quiet. There are a few, though, that are obsessive and much more concerning.
To give you a sense of how obsessive some of these people are, I will give three examples. For *just one* individual, I have 1,076 screenshots…in 1,085 days. For another, it’s 297 screenshots. And, for a third person, in the last 254 days, it’s 207 screenshots of posts, comments, and messages. It is worth noting that none of these particular three men are eligible to vote in St. Catharines. They are not my constituents.
So, why do they do this? Why am I a target? Some of you have asked me that whenever some of the behaviour has gotten media attention. They do it because I’m a woman. They do it because I speak up. They do it because I champion social justice and diversity, equity, and inclusion. They do it because they want me to sit down and shut up. In their ideal world, I will not only not run again, I will resign…and they call for my resignation often. This is coercive control.
This behaviour is intended to drive women out of politics and put a chilling effect on other women getting into politics.
Misogyny is not considered to be a “deep hatred in the heart, harboured by men toward women and girls, but as social systems or environments where women face hostility and hatred, because they’re women in a man’s world.”
Misogyny can afford to be selective, because its fundamental goal is enforcement. Women who know their place do not need to be put in it.
While most of what gets posted to social media gets very little traction – so little traction, in fact, that the individuals often have to retweet their own material in a desperate attempt to get views – some of it does still result in threats and other abusive behaviour toward me. And those who post material that results in someone engaging in any of the behaviour I’ve described needs to take responsibility for their own behaviour; for what they’ve done to instigate other abusive behaviour.
We have people who come into these Council Chambers who engage in the behaviour I’ve listed and pretend it’s all perfectly reasonable, normal behaviour. We have people who come into these Council Chambers who engage in the behaviour I’ve listed who go to great lengths to get us to not address their behaviour…while not admitting they engage in that very behaviour or – if they are willing to admit it – not take responsibility for that behaviour and its consequences.
While I am fully aware of the backlash that my remarks today will garner; that there will be videos, social media posts and comments, probably more threats and intimidation, and – of course – as always happens, my experience will be minimized and justified while I am also blamed for it, I am grateful to Councillor Redekop for drafting this very thorough and comprehensive motion. I am grateful for the conversations and e-mail exchanges that we’ve had in the last couple of months in which we discussed that while this behaviour impacts elected officials of all genders to various degrees, there is absolutely a gendered element to it.
This is not about me alone. It never has been. Two women on the Council of one of our local area municipalities reached out to me about the need for this motion. A woman who sits on a local advisory committee reached out to all of us about the need for this motion. Women on Councils across the province have talked about the behaviour they’ve been made to endure…and just because it often does not meet the threshold of what can be considered criminal behaviour, doesn’t mean it’s not wrong; doesn’t mean it’s not intimidating or abusive; doesn’t mean it’s not threatening; doesn’t mean that it won’t continue to escalate, as we’ve been seeing; doesn’t mean we shouldn’t call it out and attempt to put better protections in place for those who are subjected to it.
Anyone who wants to prevent a motion from passing that will only serve to protect, clearly has the desire to continue the behaviour or see the behaviour continue, which makes the need for protection necessary.
Thank you, Councillor Redekop, for hearing me and other women who have been subjected to this kind of behaviour.
Thank you, Chair. When the time comes, I’d like for the vote to be recorded.
Laura Ip - Regional Councillor 