Legislation as a Result of Survivor Advocacy
Survivors have the power to create legal change – but should we have to?
As September unfolds, and many of us and/or our children have returned to school, we want to remind judges that they, too, need to continue their education.
Judicial education is often thought of in tandem with Keira’s Law. Next week, we will explore mandatory vs. voluntary training as we take a closer look at Keira’s Law and what it means. First, we want to reflect on the journey that led us here and the significance of such powerful and essential legislation.
Law reform happens through different approaches, with this particular law standing as a powerful testament to the impact of survivor advocacy. This legislation, which exists at both the federal and provincial levels, came into effect following the preventable murder of 6-year-old Keira Kagan by her father. Her mother, Jennifer Kagan-Viater, was the driving force behind this law. Her tireless advocacy brought about a significant and much-needed change in our legal system.
Keira’s law passed incredibly quickly both federally and provincially. This is uncommon, as legal changes such as amendments to the Divorce Act took far longer to achieve through many years of persistent organizational advocacy. The survivor-led efforts leading to Keira’s Law were more successful than decades of systemic advocacy by VAW organizations for judicial education.Jennifer Kagan-Viater’s tireless advocacy for this,and Keira’s legacy has the power to save lives. Her work illustrates the immense power that survivors hold to create meaningful changes.
While it’s important to acknowledge the power and potential for change that survivors possess, it is equally crucial to recognize that legislation should be proactive, not merely reactive. Law reform should not hinge on the loss of lives, the sharing of deeply personal and traumatic experiences, or the exhaustive efforts of survivors.
Furthermore, we must consider the barriers that exist when survivors interact with the legal system and engage in legal advocacy. Such efforts may not always be feasible for all survivors, particularly those who are low-income, disabled, BIPOC, or trans, as they often face discrimination within the judicial system.
While Keira’s law is an incredible example of successful survivor-led advocacy, Bill 173, named the Intimate Partner Violence Epidemic Act, is an example of survivor-led legal change that may be overburdening survivors and their advocates. The Act is intended to declare IPV an epidemic, something survivors and their advocates have been advocating for since 2022 when the jury in the CKW inquest included it as the first recommendation in their verdict. Many municipalities across Ontario have already made this declaration. Despite this, survivors and their advocates are being asked once again to provide further “proof” that IPV is a serious issue that requires immediate attention through the Committee hearing process. We need survivor voices to change our legal systems; however, in many cases survivors have used their voices already, and the government and legal systems aren’t hearing them. There is a clear distinction between meaningful consultation and the tokenization or burdening of survivors with retraumatizing labour.
Survivors should be recognized as experts in their experiences and needs. Survivors have the power to make legislative change, we just need the government to listen and the judiciary to ensure meaningful implementation of the legislation. A key starting point is judicial education – the more judges and influential legal professionals understand about intimate partner violence (IPV), the more they will appreciate that survivors are the true experts of their own experiences and understand what is necessary for their safety and that of their children. It is time for the entire legal system to go back to school, and survivors have the power to ensure that happens.
