Sexual assault allegations from CSIS BC surveillance staffers

[The Bread Guy]

Ouch ...

Usual reminder: presumption of innocence until proof of guilt via due process

Canadian Security Intelligence Service staff allege rape, bullying in ‘toxic’ B.C. office | Globalnews.ca

Two covert officers said they were sexually assaulted by a senior colleague while on duty with the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.

globalnews.ca

CSIS whistleblower hopes they âlit a matchâ with allegations of rape and harassment

One officer says she hopes others who were victimized will now "feel like they can come forward."

vancouversun.com

Claims of toxic workplace at CSIS absolutely 'devastating': Trudeau says

Allegations of a toxic workplace culture involving harassment and sexual assault at Canada's spy agency are “devastating” and “absolutely unacceptable,” Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said on Thursday.

www.cp24.com

 

[OldSolduer]

It also should remind us no profession or workplace is immune to this.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I am left with questions about this.

Why couldn’t the complainant go to the police and just say she had been raped? The whole “covert status” doesn’t even need to be brought up, because it is not germane to the situation. Or have I completely missed something?

 

[brihard]

I am left with questions about this.

Why couldn’t the complainant go to the police and just say she had been raped? The whole “covert status” doesn’t even need to be brought up, because it is not germane to the situation. Or have I completely missed something?

Speaking from the standpoint of my very modest experience interviewing sexual assault victims: To start with, for the same reason many sexual assault victims don't go police. Even in the absolute best case, it's awful. Best case you're in a room with a stranger, who you don't know if they'll take you seriously, and you have to tell them about probably the worst experience of your life. And then they'll ask a lot of probing questions that they have to ask to decide if there's enough to move forward with it. And they'll ask you a whole bunch of "Why didn't you..?" "Did you..?" "Is it possible he..?" You also have to deal with the internal workplace stuff to at least some extent.

And then, if that all goes well, and police are satisfied they have reasonable grounds to lay charges, and in BC if the crown is satisfied there'
s reasonable grounds, public interest, and a reasonable prospect of conviction, THEN you have to go forward with the whole court process including telling your story as a victim/witness in open court.

And you do all this knowing that rates for conviction in sexual assault are quite low and that it's a he said/she said where your credibility and integrity will be attacked. And that this will be a process that will hang over you like a black cloud for a couple of years.

Specific to this case, a complainant in this circumstance could not avoid the fact that they were on the job with CSIS. So they would also probably be fearing the ramifications of section 18(1) of the CSIS Act, which makes it a criminal offense to disclose the identity of someone engaged in covert work for CSIS, and for which there's no express carve out for reporting a criminal offense. Even navigating that at the start of the entire process would likely involve disclosing the matter to in-house legal counsel at CSIS, which would suck in its own right.

So I can see why the victim wouldn't necessarily go to police. As police myself, that doesn't surprise me or cause me any raised eyebrows.

 

[Booter]

Speaking from the standpoint of my very modest experience interviewing sexual assault victims: To start with, for the same reason many sexual assault victims don't go police. Even in the absolute best case, it's awful. Best case you're in a room with a stranger, who you don't know if they'll take you seriously, and you have to tell them about probably the worst experience of your life. And then they'll ask a lot of probing questions that they have to ask to decide if there's enough to move forward with it. And they'll ask you a whole bunch of "Why didn't you..?" "Did you..?" "Is it possible he..?" You also have to deal with the internal workplace stuff to at least some extent.

And then, if that all goes well, and police are satisfied they have reasonable grounds to lay charges, and in BC if the crown is satisfied there'
s reasonable grounds, public interest, and a reasonable prospect of conviction, THEN you have to go forward with the whole court process including telling your story as a victim/witness in open court.

And you do all this knowing that rates for conviction in sexual assault are quite low and that it's a he said/she said where your credibility and integrity will be attacked. And that this will be a process that will hang over you like a black cloud for a couple of years.

Specific to this case, a complainant in this circumstance could not avoid the fact that they were on the job with CSIS. So they would also probably be fearing the ramifications of section 18(1) of the CSIS Act, which makes it a criminal offense to disclose the identity of someone engaged in covert work for CSIS, and for which there's no express carve out for reporting a criminal offense. Even navigating that at the start of the entire process would likely involve disclosing the matter to in-house legal counsel at CSIS, which would suck in its own right.

So I can see why the victim wouldn't necessarily go to police. As police myself, that doesn't surprise me or cause me any raised eyebrows.

And then in most cases even if your sexual assault winds up in a conviction, the sentence is always insulting to the victim.

“All of that…for this” I know from assisting RCMP members with allegations against fellow officers that they don’t want to bother with the criminal system at all. It’s not worth the effort- and some of the cases are pretty bad. But they know the system well enough to know it’s not “worth it” (for those individuals)

 

[OldSolduer]

So from what I can gather from the LEOs on here the courts and the "justice" system do not take sexual assaults seriously. I know for the most part police do.

 

[brihard]

So from what I can gather from the LEOs on here the courts and the "justice" system do not take sexual assaults seriously. I know for the most part police do.

The vast majority of what I described isn’t the justice system failing to take the offence seriously, but rather the pretty much inevitable consequence of a presumption of innocence and a right to make a full defense against charges laid.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Speaking from the standpoint of my very modest experience interviewing sexual assault victims: To start with, for the same reason many sexual assault victims don't go police. Even in the absolute best case, it's awful. Best case you're in a room with a stranger, who you don't know if they'll take you seriously, and you have to tell them about probably the worst experience of your life. And then they'll ask a lot of probing questions that they have to ask to decide if there's enough to move forward with it. And they'll ask you a whole bunch of "Why didn't you..?" "Did you..?" "Is it possible he..?" You also have to deal with the internal workplace stuff to at least some extent.

And then, if that all goes well, and police are satisfied they have reasonable grounds to lay charges, and in BC if the crown is satisfied there'
s reasonable grounds, public interest, and a reasonable prospect of conviction, THEN you have to go forward with the whole court process including telling your story as a victim/witness in open court.

And you do all this knowing that rates for conviction in sexual assault are quite low and that it's a he said/she said where your credibility and integrity will be attacked. And that this will be a process that will hang over you like a black cloud for a couple of years.

Specific to this case, a complainant in this circumstance could not avoid the fact that they were on the job with CSIS. So they would also probably be fearing the ramifications of section 18(1) of the CSIS Act, which makes it a criminal offense to disclose the identity of someone engaged in covert work for CSIS, and for which there's no express carve out for reporting a criminal offense. Even navigating that at the start of the entire process would likely involve disclosing the matter to in-house legal counsel at CSIS, which would suck in its own right.

So I can see why the victim wouldn't necessarily go to police. As police myself, that doesn't surprise me or cause me any raised eyebrows.

Thanks for taking the time to answer this in a thoughtful manner.

 

[brihard]

Thanks for taking the time to answer this in a thoughtful manner.

No problem, glad I could offer insight. I wish more Canadians had a better understanding of our police, courts, and criminal prosecution process, so I’m happy to answer when I’m able to.

 

[Eaglelord17]

Speaking from the standpoint of my very modest experience interviewing sexual assault victims: To start with, for the same reason many sexual assault victims don't go police. Even in the absolute best case, it's awful. Best case you're in a room with a stranger, who you don't know if they'll take you seriously, and you have to tell them about probably the worst experience of your life. And then they'll ask a lot of probing questions that they have to ask to decide if there's enough to move forward with it. And they'll ask you a whole bunch of "Why didn't you..?" "Did you..?" "Is it possible he..?" You also have to deal with the internal workplace stuff to at least some extent.

And then, if that all goes well, and police are satisfied they have reasonable grounds to lay charges, and in BC if the crown is satisfied there'
s reasonable grounds, public interest, and a reasonable prospect of conviction, THEN you have to go forward with the whole court process including telling your story as a victim/witness in open court.

And you do all this knowing that rates for conviction in sexual assault are quite low and that it's a he said/she said where your credibility and integrity will be attacked. And that this will be a process that will hang over you like a black cloud for a couple of years.

Specific to this case, a complainant in this circumstance could not avoid the fact that they were on the job with CSIS. So they would also probably be fearing the ramifications of section 18(1) of the CSIS Act, which makes it a criminal offense to disclose the identity of someone engaged in covert work for CSIS, and for which there's no express carve out for reporting a criminal offense. Even navigating that at the start of the entire process would likely involve disclosing the matter to in-house legal counsel at CSIS, which would suck in its own right.

So I can see why the victim wouldn't necessarily go to police. As police myself, that doesn't surprise me or cause me any raised eyebrows.

Not to mention the other factors in there such as loyalty to coworkers/management, the power structure, personal embarrassment/blame, fear of reprisals/judgement from coworkers/family/friends/etc., fear of not being taken seriously. The list just keeps going on.

It isn’t as simple as many who have never dealt with it believe it is.

 

[CBH99]

Years ago when I was a young pup, I was working at a nearby work station to an officer speaking to a young woman and her father.

The young woman was trying to have her boyfriend charged with assault, and had the presence of mind to document her injuries after he had best her up the night before. (She brought in plenty of pictures, as well as other proof to verify the date of the occurrence, etc)

The officer was sympathetic to the young lady, and obviously wanted to help - but like Bri said, there were some screening questions that had to be asked before deciding to proceed with a formal investigation/charge/crown consult/crown decision, etc


I understood the need to screen, and it was clear the officer was asking the very questions the accused's defence counsel surely would, such as...

"I can see the bruises on your legs, but how do I know they came from him?"

"You said he threw you down the stairs, and you took a picture of the damage to the wall at the bottom of the stairs you ended up getting thrown into...but how do we know that damage didn't exist before last night? How do we know that he threw you down the stairs and you didn't just fall, and are now blaming him?"

The officer was explaining why those questions were being asked, and tried to make it clear they weren't making excuses for the boyfriend. She understood and understood what she thought was solid evidence actually wasn't in terms of what an objective court would need...

But talk about a punch to the gut. A young lady, who brings her dad for support, goes to the police after taking a beating, and has what she thought would be enough evidence to get the guy charged...only to have to walk out of the police station in the same boat she came in, albeit possibly maybe even a bit worse.

I too wish Canadians understood how our system works, and why things are done the way they are done from the policing side of things.

The police do take these situations seriously, but I can understand why some people just don't want to go through the criminal justice system.

Knowing how it works & why it works the way it does I think would benefit a lot of people.

 

[lenaitch]

Years ago when I was a young pup, I was working at a nearby work station to an officer speaking to a young woman and her father.

The young woman was trying to have her boyfriend charged with assault, and had the presence of mind to document her injuries after he had best her up the night before. (She brought in plenty of pictures, as well as other proof to verify the date of the occurrence, etc)

The officer was sympathetic to the young lady, and obviously wanted to help - but like Bri said, there were some screening questions that had to be asked before deciding to proceed with a formal investigation/charge/crown consult/crown decision, etc


I understood the need to screen, and it was clear the officer was asking the very questions the accused's defence counsel surely would, such as...

"I can see the bruises on your legs, but how do I know they came from him?"

"You said he threw you down the stairs, and you took a picture of the damage to the wall at the bottom of the stairs you ended up getting thrown into...but how do we know that damage didn't exist before last night? How do we know that he threw you down the stairs and you didn't just fall, and are now blaming him?"

The officer was explaining why those questions were being asked, and tried to make it clear they weren't making excuses for the boyfriend. She understood and understood what she thought was solid evidence actually wasn't in terms of what an objective court would need...

But talk about a punch to the gut. A young lady, who brings her dad for support, goes to the police after taking a beating, and has what she thought would be enough evidence to get the guy charged...only to have to walk out of the police station in the same boat she came in, albeit possibly maybe even a bit worse.

I too wish Canadians understood how our system works, and why things are done the way they are done from the policing side of things.

The police do take these situations seriously, but I can understand why some people just don't want to go through the criminal justice system.

Knowing how it works & why it works the way it does I think would benefit a lot of people.

Perhaps the member should have explained that better to them. Nowdays, hopefully that discussion wouldn't take place in a place where it could be overheard by others. Many police facilities now have 'soft rooms' that look more like a residential living room rather than an office for interviews of vulnerable victims.

 

[Booter]

it is a tricky balance. I’ve dealt with blatant made up allegations and I’ve dealt with them where after court the victim was so traumatized that she immediately went home and hung herself,

Neither of those is the norm. But they are extreme possible outcomes. Part of the issue is the “size” of sexual assault- the incidents classified as it run an extreme range from incredibly minor (comparatively and not the victims experience) to life changing traumatic physical and psychological damage.

 

[CBH99]

..

 

[KeLouJoH]

I understood the need to screen, and it was clear the officer was asking the very questions the accused's defence counsel surely would, such as...

"I can see the bruises on your legs, but how do I know they came from him?"

"You said he threw you down the stairs, and you took a picture of the damage to the wall at the bottom of the stairs you ended up getting thrown into...but how do we know that damage didn't exist before last night? How do we know that he threw you down the stairs and you didn't just fall, and are now blaming him?"

The officer was explaining why those questions were being asked, and tried to make it clear they weren't making excuses for the boyfriend. She understood and understood what she thought was solid evidence actually wasn't in terms of what an objective court would need...

These sorts of questions make it sound like anything less than video evidence will not work.

 

[CBH99]

These sorts of questions make it sound like anything less than video evidence will not work.

That's the super shitty part about assault/sexual assault from a prosecution perspective.

How do we know the injuries sustained by a victim came from the accused? Were there witnesses? Video evidence? Physical/biological evidence obtained shortly afterwards?

None of those things? How do we know the accused caused the injuries at all, and the victim is actually a victim?




Obviously there are techniques used while taking a statement or interviewing someone that helps officers establish the credibility of the complainant, and officers can look into any potential history that either the complainant/abuser have had with law enforcement to see if there's been previous similar complaints. There are a few police members on this forum that have a ton more experience than I do (re, all of them)

But when looking at it from a prosecutor's perspective, having someone with a few bruises on their arm walk in off the street and say "So & so beat me up..." isnt much evidence in and of itself.


(A few years ago we had a girl complain about an abusive boyfriend, to the point his name was in the paper once he'd been charged. Turns out, he was a decent guy who made the mistake of dating a crazy b**ch for a few months...who later admitted to a friend that she'd made the whole thing up for some reason. It's because of people like her that genuine complaints are more difficult than they sometimes should be.)

 

[KeLouJoH]

But when looking at it from a prosecutor's perspective, having someone with a few bruises on their arm walk in off the street and say "So & so beat me up..." isnt much evidence in and of itself.

Doesn't this apply to all assault cases, not just sexual ones?

For example, someone got beat up by someone else. Assuming that this took place in a private setting where there were no eye witnesses, the victim cannot produce any damning evidence.

 

[CBH99]

Doesn't this apply to all assault cases, not just sexual ones?

For example, someone got beat up by someone else. Assuming that this took place in a private setting where there were no eye witnesses, the victim cannot produce any damning evidence.

I did say assault/sexual assault at the beginning of my reply. I meant many of the challenges are similar when trying to prosecute the party that's doing the assaulting.

(Having a victim able to provide biological evidence or video evidence is incredibly helpful)


I know it sucks. Sucks big time. Who has their camera rolling and hidden away when the one person who should be protecting someone is instead physically abusing them? Especially if it's a first time...hardly anybody...




That being said there are readily available and immediate options available to those who are experiencing domestic violence, assaults, sexual assaults, etc etc

Going to the police & reporting what happened is the smart thing to do - there are tools and options available to them even if a victim can't provide damning evidence at the time.



(There's a few police officers on this forum who are much, MUCH better versed & have loads more experience in these matters than I do. I was just stating that there are more challenges to successfully prosecuting these files than the public sometimes realizes.)

 

[KeLouJoH]

I did say assault/sexual assault at the beginning of my reply. I meant many of the challenges are similar when trying to prosecute the party that's doing the assaulting.

(Having a victim able to provide biological evidence or video evidence is incredibly helpful)


I know it sucks. Sucks big time. Who has their camera rolling and hidden away when the one person who should be protecting someone is instead physically abusing them? Especially if it's a first time...hardly anybody...




That being said there are readily available and immediate options available to those who are experiencing domestic violence, assaults, sexual assaults, etc etc

Going to the police & reporting what happened is the smart thing to do - there are tools and options available to them even if a victim can't provide damning evidence at the time.



(There's a few police officers on this forum who are much, MUCH better versed & have loads more experience in these matters than I do. I was just stating that there are more challenges to successfully prosecuting these files than the public sometimes realizes.)

Makes sense.