I spent a long time pondering how I should approach this issue, mainly in terms of thinking about the safety of myself and the failure of authorities to take claims of harassment seriously.
Recently, I experienced being stalked at UBC, directly fitting Policy 131’s definition of “engaging in conduct that causes an individual to fear for their physical or psychological safety, such as repeatedly following or communicating through any means with someone, engaging in threatening conduct, or keeping watch over the place where the individual happens to be,” (8.1.3).
This occurred to me in the form of having an individual message me dozens of times a day, finding different platforms to contact me even after being blocked, turning hostile and angry when I rejected advances, joining all clubs events I was involved in, and attempting to find out from others where I lived.
To say the least, I was stressed and scared, but had hoped that with an array of witnesses, as well as documented proof of many incidents, that the authorities would take me seriously.
After contacting the police, I realized I was wrong. My experience was brushed off as not serious, since the perpetrator had never directly threatened or committed violence against me. While said person was contacted by the police, this failed to change his behaviour, and I was advised to “just ignore it” and make sure I “state communication is unwanted” in the future, despite having already tried this. This raises the question, at what point do we consider harassment violence, and at what point is it “dangerous enough” to do something about it?
When doing some research on harassment, I found that I am not alone — 41 per cent of people that went to police were dissatisfied with how their case was handled, 71 per cent of women who reported sexual assault to police said their experience was negative, and people who report assault or harassment can experience re-victimization.
This does not mean premature prosecution, but I believe there is no such thing as premature protection. By classifying events as not “bad enough” to be taken seriously, authorities put community members, particularly female-identifying ones, at serious risk. It should not have to take violence for an issue to be resolved, or even considered. Furthermore, public institutions that are paid for by citizens should serve to protect citizens.
There are possibilities other than prosecution when stalking has been confirmed, such as risk management, specialized treatment, supervision, and victim safety planning. There is also support that can, and should be offered, for victims who likely feel frightened, isolated and powerless. None of this was done for me by the police.
To this end, I am deeply grateful to the Sexual Assault Support Centre (SASC) for helping me find a solution and providing me a place of refuge, but I continue to hold the view that safety and security should not be exclusively provided because of membership to an organization not available to everyone.
Specifically, I pay just under $45 a year to belong to the AMS and have access to the SASC — this resource is not available to people who find themselves in a similar situation to me but do not go to UBC. There needs to be better training for police on the issues of gendered violence, and proactive rather than reactive stances need to be taken to ensure safety.
Kirsten Tarasoff is a second year gender, race, sexuality, & social justice (GRSJ) student.
Share this article
