 |
| Anita Szigeti |
Sadly, while Canadians have become accustomed to news headlines of mass school shootings south of the border, we tend to believe we are largely immune from such events, although we have seen it before, if ever so rarely. In the wake of something this crushing, ordinary citizens almost immediately try to make sense of what happened. The instinct is to find something or someone to blame.
Online targeting of the transgender community predictably began almost immediately once the public learned that the shooter was a trans teenager who identified as female. And the affected community instantly understood what this meant. Because what we have certainly seen before is the knee-jerk reaction to tragic events of this nature, blaming communities that are already vulnerable and already living with stigma that is baseless and discriminatory.
Where we have seen this scapegoating and hate-mongering most routinely is respecting individuals with serious mental health issues. Whenever there is an instance of violence involving someone who has a known mental health condition, the chorus of voices associating that violence with mental health diagnoses generally is inevitably heard — louder each time it seems.
We all remember Vincent Lee who was involved in the incident on the Greyhound bus, the details of which were sensational enough that public outcry followed each time he was subsequently granted any liberty away from a secure psychiatric facility. Matthew de Grood, who was found not criminally responsible (NCR) for the death of five young people in Alberta — same thing.
From these headlines, the public learns to make the connection that people with mental health issues are dangerous. That unfounded presumption then fuels public sentiment, which ultimately informs populist legal policy and decision-making, grossly overestimating dangerousness that simply doesn’t exist.
In my practice, I have seen this many times over the years. As soon as I see a news story that involves a person with a mental health issue who has done anything violent, I know what’s coming. Months, if not years, of unwarranted restrictions on my clients who live with such serious mental health conditions — a crackdown on their liberty, a lockdown where that’s available and heightened safety concerns about them, despite that nothing of the sort is warranted.
Sometimes new legislative provisions are enacted, solely in response to the public’s escalation of unwarranted fears of a group of people, based on a single incident. One such example was the introduction of the “high-risk accused” label for some people NCR, which is really the equivalent of a “dangerous mentally ill offender” designation, depriving these individuals of effectively all liberty, potentially for life. That legislative amendment followed on the heels of the Vincent Lee incident and resulted from it.
Changes to the law based on public hysteria is the worst kind of governance, but it is not as uncommon as we would hope. The louder the public outcry, however unfounded, the more likely such injustices will result. And the pattern of the genesis of such wrong-headed policy decisions is always the same.
Isolated but horrifying incidents are baselessly generalized and projected onto entire communities of people who have been living peacefully among us and just want to be left alone to continue to do exactly that. But what they’re up against these days is no longer just traditional media. The explosion of social media and now artificial intelligence, the dissemination of “fake news” — all of it makes for the perfect breeding ground for unrestrained hate. And all of it makes the daily lives of marginalized communities who already face systemic discrimination and personally traumatizing exclusion and hate even harder. At its most extreme, it ultimately exposes them to escalating systemic rights deprivations and legislated discrimination — or unequal treatment under the law.
That’s not to suggest anything like that is on the immediate horizon here, or at least not yet. Although mental health issues are already being flagged. There is of course a sense in which anyone who wakes up one morning determined to kill a lot of people is clearly unwell. These are not the actions of stable, well-adjusted individuals. And this shooter had reportedly had some police contacts due to mental health concerns. But whether there is anything to suggest a formal mental health diagnosis, and even while there may well be a significant trauma history, none of that means what we all fear the public will take away — that mental health issues or being a transgender person or both mean you are a danger to the public.
Advocates for those with mental health issues have been here time and again. Trans people and trans advocates are now bracing for impact, even while the motive for this tragedy remains unknown. Sometimes some things are not capable of being explained.
We all want to ensure nothing like this happens again. We all want to understand what happened. And perhaps in the fullness of time, some insights in that regard will be gained. But we must not allow our collective, even well-meaning, search for answers to cloud our judgment and cause unjustified, irreparable harm to already vulnerable, already unfairly maligned peaceful citizens.
Anita Szigeti is the principal lawyer at Anita Szigeti Advocates, a boutique Toronto law firm specializing in mental health justice litigation. She is the founder of two national volunteer lawyer associations: the Law and Mental Disorder Association and Women in Canadian Criminal Defence. Find her on LinkedIn, follow her on BlueSky and on her blog.
The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada, or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.
Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.