GBV as key to understanding the mass casualty
Sue Bookchin - July 14, 2022
We appreciate the coverage by the Chronicle Herald and other media of the Mass Casualty Commission’s work as a way to keep the public informed in the unfolding understanding about the elements of the horrific events 2 years ago.
Finally, after several months of proceedings, the Commission is turning to a fulsome examination of the different types of violence committed by the perpetrator over many years, including intimate partner violence (IPV) toward his long-time partner, Lisa Banfield. Even though the Commission has separated out the IPV as if it is a distinct and secondary issue, this week began a fulsome exploration that makes clear the IPV is integral and inextricable to understanding this mass casualty, and many others, as the research reveals. We learned this as far back as 1989 when Mark Lepine gunned down 14 fellow female students at École Polytechnique. Misogyny and resentment and blame toward women was his main motivation, although there was resistance to acknowledging that at the time.
I write because misconceptions and outdated ways of thinking about IPV or DV (domestic violence) persist in our culture and all forms of mass media. Most people who use violence and abuse in relationships will not commit a mass casualty. But unless we begin to take IPV more seriously and pay close attention to the clear clues and red flags, along with the underlying socially constructed gender socialization and toxic masculinity, we may have little hope of preventing such mass attacks in the future. DV is not “private” violence- it is a public safety and serious public health threat for millions of people. We heard yesterday from researcher, Dr. Maher, that more women are killed by intimate partners or family members than all victims of terrorist attacks. Patterns of abuse, especially those involving frightening levels of coercive control, can be like the proverbial canary in the coal mine, with disastrous results.
Yesterday, hearing the foundational documents presented about Ms. Banfield’s ordeal, some as audio recordings in her own words, and a video’d reenactment of that night, was very moving and emotional. We appreciate the Commissions reiteration that this is not a trial, and that they won’t be asking Ms. Banfield to tell her story yet again when she testifies in person on July 15th.
We know from IPV survivors that the retelling of their story over and over to multiple people and reliving the details is extremely re-traumatizing. If ever there were accommodations needed in this inquiry it would be for the person who suffered many years of ongoing harm at the perpetrator’s hands.
Survivors’ experiences in courtrooms when they report IPV can be brutal. In fact, some have said it was worse than the violence at the hands of an intimate partner. As a witness for the Crown, lawyering that must test the evidence, can feel like badgering and twisting of ones words. At worst, it is “whacking” and intimidating for survivors. While this seems to be an essential process in our current legal system, it often ignores the impact of trauma and how it affects memory, chronology and details, risking the witness being deemed not credible.
We saw that at play this week in the testimony of Portapique neighbor Brenda Forbes, who because of the perpetrator’s stalking, guns, illegal and threatening behavior, moved across the country to get away from him. When asked if she remembered speaking with media or doing media interviews in the weeks following the casualty, she said no, contrary to evidence from media articles. But when she revealed she’d been diagnosed with severe PTSD, it made total sense that she didn’t remember. Unless one understands the neurobiology of trauma, the hyperfocus on details relevant to survival as other details irretrievably recede and the segmenting of memory in different parts of the brain, one would think she was simply lying or that her entire testimony should be rendered unreliable. Unfortunately, police, lawyers, judges, legal personnel are rarely well-trained in all the reasons why a traumatized victim of DV would be unable to recall some details at all or in the chronological and consistent order needed to prove a case in a courtroom. It is also why complex trauma and PTSD is so difficult to treat and to overcome. In Brian Valle’s research for his book, The War on Women, referencing the cases of Jane Hurshman and Elly Armour, women who killed their long abusive husbands, he found that women subjected to ongoing abuse experience PTSD to the same degree as soldiers in war zones. And without the benefit of training, comrades, mental health services and weapons of self-defense.
The Commission must have understood something about the trauma Ms. Banfield may carry when they decided not to ask her to re-tell her story publicly, yet again.
If you have not experienced such abuse it is hard to understand how torturous a court process can be, or how belittling it is to be asked why you didn’t leave or call the police as if there are simple answers to those questions. This is extremely complex territory. People who suffer the kind of abuse by a coercive controlling person like the perpetrator, may walk on egg shells all the time. They become hypervigilant, constantly assessing the abusers whereabouts, moods and triggers. They strategize everyday about how to keep themselves and their family members safe, including weighing whether that can best be achieved by staying and knowing his whereabouts, since the most dangerous time for a woman in this situation is in the weeks and months after escaping. This all takes a tremendous toll on one’s health and mental health, confidence, agency and dignity. Lisa Banfield, like many people around the perpetrator were clearly terrified of what he would do if they crossed him in any way. And their fears, tragically were founded.
There are common patterns in this story. A charming, intelligent, but highly narcissistic man with status, privilege and community standing, in the comfort of his home, controls, threatens, emotionally and financially abuses his partner, uses extreme possessiveness, surveils her every movement and interaction with others, monitors her whereabouts, her spending, her interactions and isolates her from supports of friends and family, and by shaming and blaming her for his violence, strip her of the agency to act in her own behalf. The woman, in turn may minimize the abuse, cling to the idea that even after he beats her, his recurring apologies are real and heartfelt, and that through her persistent and unconditional love she can change him. She may Indeed, Lisa Banfield originally testified that there may have been about 10 episodes of physical violence in the 19 years of their relationship. But when she looked back at her journals, she recognized it was much more frequent than she recollected. When friends and family, for whom the red flags are way more visible, start to urge a woman to leave, she may stop talking to them about what’s going on in the relationship. The abusive person tells her if she calls the police they won’t believe her or take it seriously, which is unfortunately, often true. She knows, even if they do believe her, the police cannot protect her, and it will often make matters worse, engaging an array of systems with which she will be forced to engage. And there are so many more barriers to reporting, especially for Black, Indigenous, newcomer women, women with disabilities and 2SLGBTQ folks who face so much more judgement, stereotypes and much harsher treatment by the systems that are ostensibly supposed to help.
Many people know someone who is in such a nightmare of a relationship, and most have no idea what to do. Rather than heaping judgement and shame on the victims of relationship abuse, we need to understand their choices as complex survival mechanisms, keep channels of communication open, affirm support and care, and offer resources and expert help through women’s resource centres, transition houses, family resource centres and the like.
The NS Advisory Council on the Status of Women just released an updated version of Neighbours, Friends and Families. This body of work, designed to help people understand DV and what they can do to help was developed by The Centre for Research and Education on Violence Against Women and Children at Western University in London, Ontario. It has been packaged as a free series of invaluable information- pamphlets and videos that can be found at https://women.novascotia.ca/womens-safety/offering-support/neighbours-friends-and-families. To talk to a person who can offer guidance, the provincial 24/7 number is 1-855-225-0220.