The Drawbacks of Bill 23

Sexual Violence and Misconduct Policy Act’s negative aspects

With the passing of the BC Legislature’s Sexual Violence and Misconduct Policy Act—Bill 23—comes several comparisons between it and Ontario’s anti-sexual violence policy. The province’s “action plan to stop sexual violence and harassment” is admirably comprehensive, designed with consultation between government and students over a long period of time and with great attention to detail.

Though while British Columbia’s swiftly-passed bill has sparked mass celebration on university campuses, criticisms have also been put forward in reference to its flaws.

As mentioned by BC MLA Kathy Corrigan in a debate about Bill 23 with The Honourable Andrew Wilkinson, there has been very little dialogue between students, organizations, and government during its drafting and passing. Therefore, meaningful and educated perspectives have been lost, and several solutions designed to target the root of the program rather than solely the aftermath of sexual violence went with them.

“Many of the student groups and others talked about the process that happened in Ontario, whereby a sexual violence plan with funding of around $41-million was put in place prior to the piece of legislation requiring sexual violence policies in post-secondary institutions,” says Corrigan, in the debate.

Kathleen Simpson, the vice-president of external affairs for the AMS, the student society at UBC, lists three key issues with Bill 23 that deserve attention: the terminology used in it, the exclusivity of non-students that experience sexual violence, and a lack of supplementary resources.

To begin with, “The bill is called ‘Sexual Violence and Misconduct’ but the word ‘violence’ only appears in the title. The rest of the time it is only referred to as sexual misconduct,” she explains. “I think that when you think of misconduct, the first thing that you think of is academic misconduct, like plagiarizing, and in some ways, that doesn’t lend itself to the gravity of sexual assault.” Because of that, she recommends getting rid of the word “misconduct” altogether.

Simpson also suggests that the policy “includes the larger university community,” instead of just students, while addressing sexual violence on campuses. Faculty, staff, visitors, and contractors also have a right to support and resources.

Her final point is one she shares with Kwantlen Student Association president Alex McGowan—that “combatting sexual violence on-campus is larger than just policy.” Some examples of additional resources that UBC has recently implemented include a sexual support centre, bystander training, and awareness campaigns, all of which “could be considered the first draft of a province-wide policy that would reflect best practices,” as said by Wilkinson, in his debate with Corrigan.

KSA women’s representative and vice-president of student life Natasha Lopes’ only concern and issue with the bill “is the fact that it only talks about post-secondary institutions,” instead of high school or elementary school. In her opinion, “the way that you really nip rape culture in the bud is by teaching kids and high schoolers about what it is,” a tactic that is already in use with Ontario’s policy.

“I think it’s a really important step in combatting rape culture and especially combatting the amount of rapes that do happen on campuses. If you tell a child that tickling is okay but when they say no you stop, and that child stops, that’s fine. That’s consent,” says Lopes. “So it needs to start with younger kids.”

Lopes also believes that the lack of specificity in the bill for who will make up the committees that handle sexual violence cases could be potentially problematic.

“If you look at the rape cases that go through UBC and the fact that a lot of those cases get turned down, you need to make sure that there are safe people who actually understand the process and actually understand what it’s like [to experience sexual violence] on those committees.”

She concludes, summarizing the points of many criticizing Bill 23, “The policy itself is quite vague. Vagueness can be good and it can also be bad.”