Canadian Woman Faces 33 years in U.S. Prison for Protecting her Kids from Abusive Father

(originally published at rabble.ca)

By Matthew Behrens

            When Justice Minister Peter MacKay announced he was leaving politics to spend more time with his top priority – a family he began with his spouse, Nazanin Afshin-Jam, who advocates for an end to violence against women and children – he missed the opportunity to protect a Canadian family of four who are all survivors of brutal violence inflicted by a U.S.-based father/ex-husband.

            Now, that family – all Canadian citizens – lives in daily fear of being torn apart as a result of Canada’s woefully unfair Extradition Act, under which the U.S. is seeking the mother for an alleged violation of a highly problematic custody order. She faces up to 33 years behind bars because she and her children had had enough of the violence they experienced while living stateside and chose, instead, to live, by coming to Canada. 

            MacKay’s exit date is October, so he still has the power to rescind his extradition order against MM, a mother and survivor of male violence who cannot be identified due to a publication ban. MM had survived years at the hands of an abuser who’d broken her ribs and teeth, kicked her while she was pregnant, raped and threatened to kill her, and beat and terrorized their three children. It’s a complex story that spans almost two decades, replicating the well-known patterns of male violence against women and kids, as well as the use of courts and police as further tools of control over a woman who wanted only to be free of violence.

Following the 2001 breakup of her marriage, custody of MM’s three children bounced back and forth between her and the ex-husband due to a number of aggravating circumstances. In 2008, a judge imposed a draconian custody order in MM’s  absence that prevented her from having any contact with her children. MM was subsequently arrested for violations of the order on numerous occasions, usually because the children were desperate to be in contact with her.

Kids Run Away From Abusive Father

In November, 2010, while MM was trying to regain access to her kids, the children (then aged 14, 11 and 9) escaped from their abusive father and lived a week in an abandoned house, sleeping on a concrete garage floor. Afterwards, they couch-surfed from house to house, all the while begging MM to take them in. She refused, noting she could go to jail if she had any contact with them. Given the desperate circumstances of the children, who continued couch-surfing in an effort to avoid being returned to their abusive father  – and the increasing levels of violence and threats made against MM by her ex – she turned to an adult daughter from a previous marriage, who packed a distressed MM and the kids in a car and drove them to Canada (where MM was born).

The U.S. then sought to have MM brought back through an extradition request based  only on the father’s “suspicions” that MM had taken the children from him. The  RCMP found the family in a women’s shelter by tracing the internet log-in passwords of the children. MM was arrested and jailed two days before Christmas (she would remain behind bars awaiting bail for six months), and her children assigned to foster care. At the time of the arrest, a Mountie acknowledged that the children “expressed their fear of the father.” 

The first two weeks in jail, a devastated MM cried incessantly, and was eventually given anti-depressants, the first pills she had ever taken in her life. Her main concern was preventing the children from being returned to their abusive U.S. father.  “From a jailhouse with zero resources, I pulled from any place I could to make sure those children were not sent back to their abuser, and even the children said, ‘we’re not going back, we’ll take foster care here.’”

In a 2011 Canadian court hearing, MM testified that back in the U.S., the father had called police after the children ran away, alleging MM had taken the kids intentionally. MM did not know they had run off and was frantic not knowing where they were. Police searched her house on numerous occasions but the children were not there.

            Speaking of her decision to come to Canada, MM said, “I made the decision that I had to protect myself, he was gonna kill me, he threatened to kill me, he threatened to kill the kids, and he beat me and I said, ‘that’s it.’ My daughter said: ‘Enough is enough. Mom, let’s go.’ She’s twenty-nine (29) years old. So we drove to Canada and I crossed the border and went immediately into a women’s shelter.”

Asked why she went to a women’s shelter, she replied, “Because I had been beaten by him for the last final time.”

Case Found “Defective and Unreliable”

In August, 2011, a provincial court judge rejected extradition, noting the only evidence proffered by the US was the ex-husband’s “suspicions” that MM had taken the kids, a rationale which was found “so defective and unreliable that it is not worthy of consideration.” The judge pointed out that “the children were not abducted but rather ran away from their father, who was physically and mentally abusing them. The children only contacted their mother more than a week later, and she refused to have them stay at her house knowing she was bound by the 2008 custody order; instead, she filed a motion for custody of the children” in the U.S.

“We are in the presence of children running away from an abusive father without the knowledge or assistance of their mother, living in an abandoned home and finally begging their mother to take them away, so that their father couldn’t hurt them again,” the judge noted.

The judge also referenced a concept familiar to the extradition process known as double criminality, whose purpose, as defined by the Supreme Court of Canada, is to “safeguard the liberty of an individual whose extradition is sought by ensuring that he or she is not surrendered to face prosecution in another country for conduct that would not amount to a criminal offence in the country of refuge.” The provincial court found that under Section 285 of the Criminal Code (which provides a defence for those charged with “abduction in contravention of custody order”), no one shall be found guilty of an offence if the act of receiving or harbouring a young person was “necessary to protect the young person from imminent harm or if the person charged with the offence was escaping from danger of imminent harm.” Thus, the judge concluded, MM “could not be found guilty in Canada…if her intent was to protect the children from danger of imminent harm at the hands of their father and this, even if she did have the specific intent of depriving [him] of possession of the children as well.” No jury reasonably instructed in Canada would convict her, the judge concluded.

In addition, such a defence against charges of custody interference and abduction does not exist in the U.S. jurisdiction to which MM might be sent.

Suddenly free to get on with her life, MM’s sense of relief did not last long. The Harper government appealed on behalf of the U.S. and the abusive father, who in interviews with child protection workers never referred to his children by name, and also admitted to hitting them with his belt buckle. (Indeed, the father had made no request to contact the children or for custody in Canada, claiming it would be too long a trip to come and get them. As one child protection worker wrote, “He did not express that he loved the children and wanted them to return to the home.” A social worker assigned to the case noted that American children’s services “cannot confirm that the children will be safe from abuse if taken back.”

A provincial court of appeal reversed the decision to quash the extradition, and the case found its way to the Supreme Court of Canada this past spring. The children sat close to their mother that day and, in what was likely a first for that staid institution, once the judges left at hearing’s end, the kids sang a beautiful song of hope they had composed. Clearly moved by the emotional place from which the kids were singing, guards did not seek to have them leave the hallowed chambers until the song was complete.

If Canada’s top court rules in MM’s favour, the case will go back to the Justice Minister (Peter MacKay) for further consideration (still no guarantee of safety for MM, given that such decisions are political). If not, MM will be arrested and transferred to the U.S., her kids delivered into foster care, and her elderly mother (for whom MM cares) will be forced to enter a nursing home.

Living in Fear

With school out for the summer, the kids remain frazzled because that life-altering Supreme Court decision could come any day.

According to one of MM’s two youngest children, “We want to stay here [in Canada] where we feel protected and safe. Our mom did not kidnap us. It was us who ran away from our dad. The day we left our dad he was coming to hit us again because when we lived with our dad he would always hit us all the time. He would beat us and always threaten us with bad things and that he would find us if we ever left.”

            In the same way MM divorced her husband because she had had enough of the endless cycle of emotional, psychological, and physical violence, her children ran away because they, too, had had enough.

“I didn’t wanna be hit anymore so I decided to run and I ran outside and he told me to go back inside [but I knew] he was going to hit me again and I didn’t want to be hit anymore because I was so tired of being hit,” said one of the children. “He didn’t want us to see our mother because he was always mad at her after she divorced him. One day he caught us trying to walk to her house and he ordered us to get into the car and he drove us back. Whenever he went to my room he started hitting me with the belt so hard, it would be so often that he hit us that it wouldn’t even hurt anymore, and then he would go to my sister’s room and hit her and tell her to stop crying when he hit her.”

According to MM’s youngest child, “He would always tell me to stop crying and that I need to be tough. He was always afraid that the neighbours would hear.” The middle child concurs, noting, “He told us never to tell anybody and that anytime someone would come over we would say everything was OK because we would always be so scared that he would hit us again.”

MM’s middle child says “since we’ve been in Canada, we feel safe here with our Mom, but we’re always scared that our dad might come back while we’re sleeping and pick us up again. We always have nightmares or are afraid that the police might show up while we’re having dinner and just take us.”

            The children’s worst fears were realized four years after they escaped to Canada. Last November, while they were at school, their abusive father showed up unannounced  at their Canadian home, inviting himself into the house when the only one home, MM’s elderly mother (who has Alzheimer’s), did not recognize him. Coming home from school, the children recognized the U.S. licence plates on his car in their driveway and ran off. They eventually reunited with their mother in a women’s shelter, where they spent two weeks until they were sure the father had left Canada. The children, who wanted to remain in the shelter, returned home reluctantly and fearfully only when MM promised to dispose of the chair in which the father had been sitting waiting for them.

            As they await a court decision, they try and get on as a family, juggling school, soccer practice, and a mom who has to sign in with the authorities on a weekly basis and adhere, five years later, to very strict bail conditions.

Push-pull factors of an Abusive Relationship

            What was MM’s second marriage in 1995 was disastrous from the start. Living in a Caribbean nation, she suffered physical, mental, emotional abuse from the beginning, and after the birth of a first child, came to Canada to escape the father. “I married him without thinking,” she says, but adds, “I felt bad and felt like everything was my fault, so I went back to [the Caribbean] and got a visitor visa for him to come to the U.S. [MM is a dual citizen].” Pregnant with a second child, things went downhill again, and she received a temporary protective order preventing him from coming near her or the first-born. She returned to Canada with their first- and second-born children, and he followed her here, during which time he whipped and raped her before leaving again for the U.S.

            MM says she suffered the push-pull factors of an abusive relationship, and that after getting the “baby blues” following the third birth, she visited the father once again in the Caribbean nation. After a short while there, though, he abandoned them when he got his residency papers for the U.S., leaving them without any of their documents. Meanwhile, MM was also battling an alcohol problem.

“It’s a vicious cycle and this is a way a person self-medicates to continue in an abusive relationship, and so in my case it was alcohol and cannabis,” MM says. While alone with seven children (including the elder four children from her first marriage), she returned to the U.S. and her home renovation business, but the father would not leave them alone. In MM’s words, it continued to be “abuse, abuse, abuse in every possible way anybody can imagine, and he said he would kill me or destroy me by imprisoning me forever.” She eventually had him charged, but the case resulted only in a sentence of anger management classes.

Following a 2001 divorce, she received custody of the children, with the father receiving visiting rights.  He was granted temporary custody in 2005 when MM went for three months of rehabilitation. Fearful for the safety of herself and her children, MM at one point took the children out of state for six months. It was during this time that the father went to court and got the 2008 order for sole custody, no contact with the children, and an end to his alimony payments. MM says she was never served notice of the hearing, and had no chance to present her side of the story. The kids believed he got custody because he lied to the judge about the mother abusing them and that, according to a child welfare report, “He put the blame of his own actions onto the mother’s back.”

Set-up for Arrest

All during these years, MM says everywhere she turned, she faced possible violations of the court orders and probation. “One January, he had me arrested when he gave me permission to take the kids to my house for a holiday and then he called the police on me for interference of custody,” MM recalls. “He then said he didn’t give me permission. He was setting me up to be arrested.”  

When the courts granted temporary custody to her ex-husband in 2005, MM says sadly, “My kids went to him for custody. I gave him the house, the swimming pool, the toys, everything. I walked out of my own house, with only a suitcase.” At that point, she entered rehab, after which the temporary custody order expired and she took the children out of state (which led to the full-custody, no-contact order imposed against MM by the court in her absence).

The three children, however, were desperate for their mother, and kept trying to be in touch with her. At a very young age, the father left them alone five nights a week while he was out working. Other times, MM says they would be locked in the basement or forbidden from seeing friends. “They weren’t being fed or bathed or hair-brushed,” MM recalled. “What was I supposed to do?” Unable to say no to the cries of her children (a social worker’s evaluation stated that MM had “always taken good care” of the kids), she would be subsequently arrested numerous times for violating the custody and no-contact order when the kids went to her house.  

In submissions to Canada’s Justice Minister, MM’s lawyers noted, “While it is true that [MM] did not always respect the conditions imposed on her by United States court orders, it should be understood that she has always done so for the good of her children. …When she fled to Canada with the children…[MM] felt that she didn’t have a choice, as the children begged her to take care of them and help them to run away from the danger that the custody of their father represents to them.”  They went on, “it is clear from the evidence that there was a danger of imminent harm to the children…there were no reasonable legal alternatives” available to her.

             In addition to such details, a critical factor was addressed before the Supreme Court on behalf of the Criminal Lawyers’ Association (Ontario) by lawyer John Norris, who has handled many an extradition case. He reminded the justices that under the Extradition Act, the Justice Minister has to consider if surrender would be “unjust or oppressive having regard to all the relevant circumstances.” In noting that the U.S. has confirmed MM would not have the same defence stateside as she would in Canada, he declared: “As a matter of fundamental justice, criminal liability cannot be imposed on someone when realistically he or she had no choice but to commit the otherwise wrongful act.” Under Section 285 of Canada’s Criminal Code, if certain actions are justified, “then they are not wrongful at all and it would be contrary to the principles of fundamental justice to impose a criminal sanction in the absence of any blameworthy conduct.”  Further, “surrender to a legal system which does not provide for a defence that is required by the principles of fundamental justice would be unjust and oppressive. It would violate the principles of fundamental justice. It would shock the conscience and be simply unacceptable. It would, in short, not be lawful under Canadian law.”

 Next Steps

As she tries to deal with the cloud hanging over her head, MM is studying to become a paralegal, and advocates for women behind bars while sitting on the board of a women’s shelter.  She says many of the women she met in prison were abuse survivors like herself.  

MM is proud that she has been clean for four years, and continues to attend counseling individually and with her family. In other words, things are going fairly well, a result that could all come undone depending on the Supreme Court decision and what Justice Minister Peter MacKay (or his eventual successor) decides.

Homes not Bombs, which runs a campaign called Women Who Choose to Live, is organizing political and financial support for MM, from a letter-writing campaign to Justice Minister Peter MacKay to establishing a trust fund for MM’s kids (with the goal of raising $10,000). Details on support are below.

1, Letters to Justice Minister Peter MacKay: Simple requests urging that he reverse his extradition order and allow MM to stay in Canada with her children, since she has done what any parent under the circumstances would do. Please make letters polite and to the point, without making political statements (as those would reflect badly on MM). MacKay can be reached at peter.mackay@parl.gc.ca, peter.mackay.c1@parl.gc.ca, peter.mackay.c2@parl.gc.ca, and peter.mackay.c1a@parl.gc.ca   In Subject line: Stop the Extradition of MM. Feel free to cc your MP as well as the NDP Justice critic Françoise Boivin (Francoise.Boivin@parl.gc.ca) and Liberal Justice Critic Sean Casey Sean.Casey@parl.gc.ca 2. Sign the Petition to Justice Minister Peter MacKay at https://www.change.org/p/peter-mackay-justice-minister-of-canada-halt-the-extradition-of-canadian-citizen-and-male-violence-survivor-mm-who-faces-33-years-in-u-s-prison-for-protecting-her-children?just_created=true 3. Contribute to the MM Trust Fund. You can send an email money transfer to tasc@web.ca or cheques can be made out to Homes not Bombs and mailed to PO Box 2121, 57 Foster Street, Perth, ON K7H 1R0 (put MM in subject line). There is absolutely zero overhead for this: all funds will go directly to support MM’s children. 4. Send a personal letter of support to MM and the children c/o Homes not Bombs at PO Box 2121, 57 Foster Street, Perth, ON K7H 1R0

             

  

  

Domestic Violence Survivor Sentenced, Transferred To ICE Custody Pending Deportation , #StandWithNanHui

(reprinted with permission from http://reappropriate.co/2015/04/breaking-domestic-violence-survivor-sentenced-transferred-to-ice-custody-pending-deportation-standwithnanhui/)

April 28, 2015

Nan-Hui Jo reacts to the guilty verdict in her trial last month. 

(Photo credit: Randy Pench / Sacramento Bee)

An hour ago, the judge in Nan-Hui Jo’s child abduction case rejected the motion to dismiss the guilty verdict against her, and sentenced Jo to 175 days of jail (counted as time served) and three years probation. A jury found Jo guilty of child abduction last month — despite errors in jury instructions highlighted by Jo’s defense in their motion — after Jo fled an abusive relationship she believed endangered both herself and her child and (because she lacked documentation to remain in the United States) returned to Korea.

Jo’s conviction on the child abduction charges now stand (and likely await an appeal) which significantly complicates her fight to regain custody of her six-year-old daughter, who is currently being cared for by Jo’s abuser, the child’s father. Meanwhile, because Jo is not a U.S. citizen, ICE placed a deportation hold on her. After her sentencing today, Jo was transferred to ICE custody and is being detained in an ICE facility pending a decision on deportation.

With this move, Nan-Hui Jo is likely to become one of the thousands of immigrant parents separated from their families by ICE deportation.

This is a devastating setback for Nan-Hui Jo and her supporters. The community is urged to contact ICE Sacramento, and to tweet @icegov and @customsborder and urge them to drop the deportation proceedings.

Supporters are currently awaiting Jo as she as processed out of county jail and released to ICE.
This post will be updated with details as they emerge.

Lawyer: Botched Jury Instructions Led to Wrongful Kidnapping Conviction for DV Survivor

(reprinted with permission from http://reappropriate.co/2015/04/breaking-domestic-violence-survivor-sentenced-transferred-to-ice-custody-pending-deportation-standwithnanhui/)

April 24, 2015

Nan-Hui Jo reacts to the guilty verdict in her trial last month. (Photo credit: Randy Pench / Sacramento Bee)

There have been major developments in the case of Nan-Hui Jo, the Korean American survivor of domestic violence who fled with her young child to Korea to escape a dangerous and abusive relationship, only to face kidnapping charges when she returned to the United States for a visit.
Earlier this year, Jo was retried on charges that she kidnapped her daughter — her first trial ended in a hung jury. Jo’s abuser, who is her daughter’s father, claims that Jo’s escape to Korea violated his parental access. Yet, at the time of Jo’s departure, she was facing loss of legal immigration status and was facing deportation. Jo’s abuser, Jesse Charlton — an Iraq war veteran — confessed that at the time he was unemployed, emotionally unstable due to largely untreated PTSD and substance abuse, and was not prepared to assume full-time custody of their daughter. Facing the possibility that she would become an undocumented immigrant (and therefore unable to obtain work) and fearing for her and her daughter’s safety if they remained within Charlton’s influence, Nan-Hui Jo did what conservatives dream of: she “self-deported” with her child.


A protester holds a sign in support of Nan-Hui Jo. Photo credit: Down Like JTown

While in Korea, Jo received several emails from Charlton demanding that she return their daughter to the United States. While most emails were pleading in tone, in one email, Charlton threatened to send a mutual friend — a “scary” bounty hunter who had taken lives in the Iraq War and whom both were aware had allegedly raped his wife — to find her. Frightened by these emails, Jo further distanced herself from Charlton and refused to respond to him. Last year, when Jo applied for a travel visa to visit the United States to tour schools for her daughter, who is an American citizen, was Jo arrested and charged with kidnapping.

Jo’s retrial galvanized the Korean American community and domestic violence advocates. Jo’s supporters argue that the charges against Jo — whose abuser confessed on the witness stand to grabbing Jo by the throat and throwing her against a wall — are punitive retribution for steps Jo felt were necessary to protect the physical safety of herself and her child.

In some studies, up to 2/3rds of Asian American women say that they have experienced domestic abuse in their marriages.

Confoundingly, Jo was found guilty last month on the kidnapping charges, even after one juror was permitted to recuse herself on the grounds that returning a guilty verdict in the case would be immoral and unjust. Next Tuesday, Jo faces sentencing and possible deportation, which would likely prevent Nan-Hui Jo from having further contact with her daughter for (at the very least) the rest of the child’s upbringing.

That verdict may be an interpretation of what the law expects, but it is not what justice looks like.

An Instagram user posts her support for #StandWithNanHui.

However, there is new hope in this case.

Late last month, Nan-Hui Jo’s defense was taken up by high-powered lawyer Dennis Riordan, whom the Davis Vanguard characterizes as “among the best known defense attorneys in the state, having represented, among others, Barry Bonds, O.J. Simpson and Lodi terrorism suspect Hamid Hayat.”

Defense attorney, Dennis Riordan.

Riordan has hit the ground running. After filing a 4-week continuance on the sentencing so that he could familiarize himself with the case, Riordan has now filed a motion to set aside Nan-Hui Jo’s guilty verdict, citing “multiple, serious legal errors” in Jo’s second trial.

Riordan’s motion charges that the judge in Jo’s case — Judge David Rosenberg — made a fatal error in jury instructions that led to Jo’s wrongful guilty verdict. The kidnapping charge that Jo was found guilty of requires that the kidnapper exhibit “malice” in committing the act. There are legal precedents that guide the determination of “malice”.

Riordan contends that the judge erroneously instructed the jury to define the term “malice” by a broader meaning; one that did not require that Jo be aware that she might be deliberately breaking a law when she removed her daughter from the country. Yet, Riordan says that this broader definition of “malice” was misapplied with regard to the particular charges in the Jo case leading jurors to the wrong interpretation of the law. Reports the Davis Vanguard:

[Riordan] argues that “[t]he Court altered the definition of malice provided by Neidinger in order to instruct the jury pursuant to CALCRIM 250… rather than CALCRIM 251…” However, the Bench Note to CALCRIM 250 states that “this instruction must not be used if the crime requires a specific mental state, such as knowledge or malice, even if the crime is classified as a general intent crime.”

Mr. Riordan argues, “Plainly, the Court erred in reducing the definition of malice to the terms of CALCRIM 250. In so doing, the Court effectively eliminated malice as an element of the offense that had to be proven above and beyond the general intent required of every criminal violation in California.”

This is not a small error, because it was the definition of malice that caused the juror to question the legal definition of malice, which resulted in the judge dismissing her.
Mr. Riordan continues, “The Court compounded that error by instructing the jury that a defendant’s belief in the legality of her actions could not constitute a defense. When properly defined, the element of malice is inconsistent with an honestly held belief in the legality of ones action’s.”

In commenting on this motion, blogger David Greenwald who runs the Davis Vanguard said:

From our perspective, there are two key points that Mr. Riordan raises. First, that the judge erred on his instruction on malice. And second, as a result, there was no malicious or unlawful taking of the child by Ms. Jo.

Toward the issue of jury instructions, this case is unusual in that there is no way to deny that, if the judge misinformed the jury on the legal definition of malice, it was a harmful error. Judge Rosenberg dismissed Juror #5, Denise Hoffner, from the jury over the objections of the defense – after she brought it to the judge’s attention that, while she did not believe Ms. Jo acted with malice, the way the law was written, she would have no choice but to convict.

She said, “Look at this woman, she couldn’t have done this maliciously.” But then, “we get this definition that we’re supposed to use malice like it’s not used anywhere, why do they even have the word in the statute? Because it wasn’t about malice when we were instructed to decide the case.”

However, it seems that Ms. Hoffner was right. The court never looked at a key case, the 2006 People v. Neidingercase. Mr. Riordan argued that “the court altered the definition of malice provided by Neidinger” and instructed the jury to consider “malice” under “general intent” rather than “specific intent.”

Judge Rosenberg in fact did this, despite the explicit warning in the jury instructions to the bench that “this instruction must not be used if the crime requires a specific mental state, such as knowledge or malice, even if the crime is classified as a general intent crime.”

In other words, Ms. Jo had to be aware at the time that she was breaking the law to have illegally abducted her daughter, rather than simply being aware of her actions and performing them intentionally, as the jury interpreted them.

If Mr. Riordan is right, this is not only a serious legal error by Judge Rosenberg, but is the issue at the heart of the jury verdict. As Mr. Riordan points out, “The errors also deprived Ms. Jo of her state and federal constitutional right to be convicted only upon the unanimous decision of the twelve jurors selected to decide her case.”

It remains to be seen whether or not Riordan’s motion will result in an overturning of Jo’s guilty verdict.

However, what is clear from Greenwald’s editorial on the Davis Vanguard that justice has not yet been found in this case. Greenwald, whose website has been maintaining a courtwatch of the trial proceedings, lays out the legal and moral Catch-22 that Nan-Hui Jo faced when she made the impossible decision to escape her relationship; her circumstances defy the notion that she acted recklessly and with malice intent in removing herself and her daughter from the situation. In fact, from Jo’s perspective, she was acting in compliance with federal law.

Nan-Hui Jo and Jesse Charlton engaged in a passionate relationship that resulted in the birth of the child. At the time, Mr. Charlton was neglectful of his responsibilities and was suffering from PTSD.

He attempted to convince Ms. Jo to have an abortion, while family members attempted to convince her to give the baby up for adoption.

Ms. Jo, due to her financial problems, was forced to drop out of school, which put her student visa in jeopardy. As a means of rectifying the situation, she attempted to marry Mr. Charlton, but he declined to do so. Tensions escalated and Mr. Charlton admitted on the stand that he assaulted her by lifting her by the throat and slamming her into the wall.
Facing a federal immigration directive to leave the country, Ms. Jo made plans to leave. It was only then, at the last moment, that Mr. Charlton attempted to keep his daughter in the country by filing for custody rights in the family court.

Mr. Riordan rather convincingly argues that Ms. Jo didn’t violate Penal Code section 278.5 before leaving California on November 8, 2009 with her daughter. Instead, he argued, she was required to leave to avoid violating federal immigration laws and he argued that “under the Supremacy Clause [it] trumped any state court order to remain in the state (even had Ms. Jo been served with that order, which she was not.)”

Mr. Charlton did not have custody or even visitation rights with the daughter under any form of judicial order before Ms. Jo left the state. Moreover, “He has testified that he would have been incapable of caring for (the child) if she had been left with him when Ms. Jo left for Korea, and he agreed at that time that (the child) should remain with her mother.”

The prosecution has relied on Ms. Jo’s lack of response to Mr. Charlton’s emails as proof of malice. However, Mr. Charlton in emails “threatened to come after Ms. Jo with a ‘scary bounty hunter’ who had ‘rolled up his wife in a mattress and raped her.’”
The immigration pressure, along with Mr. Charlton’s physical abuse and verbal threats, ought to paint Ms. Jo’s actions in a very different light.

One can only hope that Riordan’s influence on Nan-Hui Jo’s defense will finally shine that necessary light on this domestic violence survivor’s plight. However, given how this case has attracted all matter of domestic violence apologists who express a breathtaking range of defenses for domestic abuse, I hope you can forgive my fears. 67 Comments, it’s easier to find an American male abuser more sympathetic than his victim, a foreign-born non-English-speaking woman of colour.

Banner for next week’s Pack the Court event.

Campaigns to support Nan-Hui Jo remain active through these latest developments. A letter-writing campaign is ongoing to provide Nan-Hui Jo with much-needed emotional support and strength from the community. Meanwhile, organizers are also asking that supporters in the area pack the courtroom next Tuesday, April 28th, during Nan-Hui Jo’s sentencing. They write in the Pack the Courtroom Facebook event:

Please join us for Nan-Hui’s sentencing next Tuesday, and help us make calls to ICE and CBP until then. We need your support ramping up the calls to ICE/CBP again, because we are very concerned about the likelihood that Nan-Hui will be picked up by ICE *that day* if she is released—we heard recently of another undocumented person who was taken by ICE from the lobby/waiting room in Yolo County Jail. Call ICE and CBP to say DROP the immigration hold and NO deportation proceedings for Nan-Hui!

Help is needed to apply pressure to Immigration & Customs Enforcement and Customs & Border Protection, asking that the deportation proceedings against Nan-Hui Jo be dropped: in addition to phone calls and emails, you can sign this petition and participate in an ongoing Twitterstorm to @icegov and @CustomsBorder.
Please also tweet all of your action to #StandWithNanHui.

Stand with Nan-Hui Jo, Facing Double Punishment in California

(from her support website, http://standwithnanhui.org/

Nan-Hui Jo is a proud and devoted Korean single mother, an avid photographer, and writer of children’s books. She loves to spend time with her daughter, take photos, and visit places alongside the ocean.
 
In 2009, Nan-Hui fled to Korea with her daughter to escape physical and emotional abuse by the father of the child, a combat veteran of the Iraq War with PTSD and anger issues. Using a common manipulation tactic to control a partner’s attempts to regain independence, her ex-partner reported Nan-Hui for child abduction. When Nan-Hui landed in Hawai’i with her daughter in July 2014, she was handcuffed, arrested, and immediately separated from her daughter in an operation that involved Yolo County Child Abduction Unit, Honolulu Police Department, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and the International Criminal Police Organization (Interpol). Nan-Hui has not been able to see her daughter since. She has also been placed under an immigration hold issued by CBP and enforced by ICE.

Nan-Hui’s former partner has publicly testified about his repeated violence against her, confirming at least one incident of physical assault. He has also, on two separate occasions, broken his hand while punching the wall by her head, and again when punching the car’s steering wheel when she was in the car with him. When Nan-Hui fled and attempted to rebuild her life, he “sent emails saying he was ‘considering spending thousands of dollars on a scary bounty hunter.” It must be noted that domestic violence thrives behind closed doors, away from the eyes and ears of the public, and these incidents are simply the ones that have been publicly brought to light. 

Nan-Hui and her daughter have an incredibly close and caring relationship. She named her daughter Vitz Da, meaning “all light” in Korean. Like many survivors of domestic violence, Nan-Hui has also been concerned about violence against her child. According to a study funded by the U.S. Department of Justice, 30 to 60% of perpetrators of intimate partner violence also abuse children in the household. Vitz Da, who lived in Korea for most of her life, has been abruptly disallowed any contact with her mother, and she is now under full custody of her White American father.

Domestic violence is not just physical violence; it often involves “coercive control, economic abuse, emotional abuse, and/or sexual violence. It is intended to gain or maintain power and control over a romantic or intimate partner to intimidate, frighten, terrorize, humiliate, blame, or injure.” Nan-Hui’s former partner’s patterns of violence fit well into the prototypes of abusive partners, using different forms of power to control, manipulate, and smear their partners. Conflict in relationships is normal. Punching walls and hitting steering wheels to intimidate your partner, escalating into extreme physical assault, and threatening to use a bounty hunter is a pattern of abuse and violent behavior.

Nan-Hui was tried on December 15, 2014, for “child abduction,” and the trial resulted in a hung jury. The Yolo County District Attorney Steve Mount, however, pursued a retrial. He refused to acknowledge the importance of domestic violence in Nan-Hui’s case and instead, used all resources available to prosecute her. It is deeply disturbing how aggressively the Yolo County District Attorney’s Office, Customs & Border Protection (CBP), and Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) is working to prosecute, criminalize and deport a single immigrant mother and survivor of domestic violence. Instead of being granted protection, survivors of domestic violence are often criminalized: the ACLU reports that of all incarcerated women in the United States, 85-90% have a history of domestic and sexual abuse. Survivors of domestic violence should not be punished for defending themselves, protecting their children, and rebuilding their lives from the violence of an abuser.

On March 3rd 2015, Nan-Hui was convicted of “child abduction” in her re-trial. Her sentencing is set to take place on April 28, 2015. As Nan-Hui is still under an immigration hold, deportation proceedings could take effect immediately after her sentencing, which could separate Nan-Hui from her daughter permanently.

Colliding worlds in an Ottawa courtroom highlight Canada's gender-based violence

ByMatthew Behrens (from rabble.ca)

| June 20, 2014

Trigger alert -- references to cruel acts of male violence are contained herein.
An Ottawa courtroom recently witnessed the rare intersection of numerous taproots of violence undergirding Canadian society. In 2010, 22-year-old Ashley White was brutally beaten by her then-boyfriend Patrick Halcro, aged 36, an Afghan war veteran with PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder) whose assault landed her in hospital for facial reconstruction surgery, concussive syndrome and PTSD. In the chaos she experienced that night, White, her face bloodied beyond recognition and fearing for her life, grabbed a knife and stabbed Halcro in the chest, causing a minor wound to his lung. By night's end, White was in detention, where she would spend the next five days, her injuries untreated, charged with attempted murder and aggravated assault. Halcro, despite admitting his assault against White -- in which he said her head "bounced" off a doorframe after the first of his many closed-fist punches -- mysteriously walked away with no charges being laid.

Though the attempted murder charge was dismissed, White was found guilty of aggravated assault, and the Crown vigorously sought a one-year prison term for a young woman who sought to defend herself against what Judge L. Ratushny described as conduct that "can only be characterized as criminal in nature and also vicious and appalling….violent and reprehensible."

In sentencing her, Ratushny refused to accept the Crown's request for a one-year jail sentence, making note of White's outstanding pre-sentencing report and a number of other mitigating circumstances, "including your response to a situation that made you think you were going to die. I agree that you are not a bad person. You are a young person who found herself in the most horrifying of circumstances and you committed a serious crime. I have concluded that you are a good young person who made a very serious mistake."

A prison of PTSD and physical pain
Though she will spend no time in jail, and Ratushny rightly acknowledged the outrageous act of violence committed against her, White nonetheless continues to be punished for defending herself, facing two years of supervised probation, a six-figure legal debt that will delay her post-secondary education for years as she works full-time to pay it off, a curfew, a DNA order, the stain of a criminal record, and the Halcro-imposed prison of PTSD, post-concussion syndrome, and other injuries which have caused her to suffer nightmares, migraines, severe anxiety attacks, neck pain from damaged nerves, runaway heart palpitations, difficulties seeing, and loss of balance.

As I witnessed the court proceedings, including the "victim impact statement" in which Halcro never apologized for what he did to White, and seemed to blame her (and not his war trauma) for the sad state of his own life, I had to wonder where the cycle of violence in this case began. Needless to say, Ashley White lives in a Canadian society where violence against women is so epidemic (and still vastly underreported) that 500-plus full-to-capacity women's shelters are often forced to turn women away when they seek asylum from the persecution and torture faced in their own homes. And while the plight of returning soldiers who cannot get treatment for PTSD and veteran suicides are a national scandal that the War Dept. continues to sweep under the rug (a report last week revealed that an internal memo on how to clear the backlog of suicide investigations was ignored), where are the headlines about the need to provide PTSD treatment for the hundreds of thousands of internally displaced women and children who annually escape from the war zones in their Canadian homes? Needless to say, where is any sense of responsibility for Canadians' contribution to making Afghanistan a nation that suffers PTSD by the millions? 

 Halcro is a product of that sexist society as well; he also no doubt picked up on the hypermasculinity of life in the Canadian Armed Forces, a body that is riddled with sexism and violence against women. Halcro's own defence of his assault on White is couched in military terms like "proportional force" and, as White testified, he told her during the attack: "'I'm trained to kill and will kill you' or words to that effect…I thought I was going to die."

Meanwhile, the military continues to treat sexual assault with kid gloves. The former commander of Wainwright training base, David Yurczyszyn, was convicted in April of sexual assault in a case that heard of "porn and chicken nights" where soldiers unwound by munching on KFC and watching porn, with Yurczyszyn in one video overheard saying "get her while she's drunk." He was sentenced by a military judge to a mere demotion in rank.

Notably, not everyone in the military is so inclined; indeed, a number of military members were among Ashley White's strongest supporters.

Myths of glory, honour
In confronting the sickening myths of glory and honour that this year's celebrations of the two world wars are meant to inspire, it is helpful to remember that soldiers are, in the words of former warlord Rick Hillier, trained to kill; they are indoctrinated and deadened to the consequences of their actions, and then hung out to dry when their fragile humanity is confronted with and unable to deal with the horrors of war. Indeed, the vulnerability of PTSD and the growing numbers of soldier suicides fly in the face of the military's recruiting tropes of glory, heroism and manliness. Mr. Halcro, who must consume a daily cocktail of prescription drugs and can go nowhere without his PTSD therapy dog, will not be featured in upcoming War Dept. recruitment videos. He has been discarded by an institution that no longer finds him useful.

During the trial and sentencing of Ashley White, there was someone missing in the court. A general, perhaps, or the military historians who glorify war, the high school guidance counsellors who facilitate military co-ops to (illegally) train child soldiers, or the recruiters who never tell what war is really like -- someone who would take responsibility for a product of their training, who could have helped shed some light on whether Halcro developed before the military the profound disrespect for women that would lead him to pummel someone 14 years his junior. Or were Halcro's actions in smashing in Ashley White's face consistent with the militarized petrie dish in which he spent a number of years before being discarded as "medically unfit"?

Two weeks before White was sentenced, L'Actualite magazine published an exhaustive report based on eight months of research revealing that at least five women in the Canadian Forces are assaulted each and every day by their male colleagues (there are also cases of men assaulting other men). The report speaks of women experiencing "suffocating, primal terror" at the hands of fellow soldiers, whether while on training, on deployment overseas, or during dinners in mess halls. Other women speak of dismissive superior officers who, for example, believe the women have not resisted the advances of male colleagues "forcefully enough," and individuals alleged to have committed assaults never being questioned. "Women who filed complaints suffered mockery, were ostracized, and worse," says the report, reprinted in Maclean's.

Retired Colonel Michel Drapeau says, "Military justice is meant to operate like hockey penalties: players are sent to the bench to cool down so they can get back in the game and play. The idea is to rehabilitate guys so they can go back to their unit and fight. Does that really make sense for someone who has raped his fellow combatant?"

Military lawlessness
The report notes that as part of a 15-week training course for Canadian Forces leadership, "sexual misconduct" is covered in a short ten minutes, while there "isn't a single word that could help recruits learn how to detect signs of sexual violence -- nothing about the resources available for rape victims, or about how to file a complaint. In three hours, the words 'sexual assault' are uttered exactly two times."

All this comes 16 years after an earlier, 1998 Maclean's report on "the unofficial culture of rape in the Canadian military." Journalist Jane O'Hara, writing now in 2014, recalls in Maclean's that "this is going to sound crazy, but in most cases, the rape was not remotely the worst part of what happened to them. The real torture, the real evil, came after these women reported the crimes to the military command. That's when the gods of war really started raining down their particular form of vengeance. And that is when these unsuspecting women, most from poor families, all trying just to get ahead in the world, found their lives ruined, their psyches destroyed, their careers gone. There were so many of them." O'Hara concludes by saying that the military, which has had 15 years to address the issue, "will react to this latest story with another comforting set of bromides. I react to it with the same sadness and disgust I felt 16 years ago when I first discovered the darkness and lawlessness at the heart of the Canadian military."

Sure enough, two weeks after she wrote this, Canada's top warlord, General Tom Lawson, appeared before a Parliamentary committee not only with the comforting bromides about improvements in what he laughingly called a "nurturing" workplace, but also repeated some of the language that contributes to the worst rape myths. And while he said he took such stories seriously, it surely has not been reflected in the case of Petawawa Corporal Derrick Gallagher, who police believe drugged, raped and videotaped as many as 16 women. Despite this horrific list of crimes, the War Dept. is preventing police from finding out about more potential victims by refusing to publicly release all the locations to which Gallagher had been posted.

The May 27 committee hearing featured a Lawson performance that would have won him an award for disingenuousness. Despite the horrors reported in Maclean's, the committee hearing began with the odd phrasing, "We're here to discuss sexual assault in the military, and it's our pleasure to welcome the Chief of Defence Staff," followed by an understandable note of condolence over the recent death of a soldier in training. This was not matched by similar words of condolence for the 1,800-plus female soldiers who are sexually assaulted every year in the Canadian Armed Forces, nor for those brave women who stepped forward to publicly discuss their cases in the magazine stories.

Watering down sexual assault
Indeed, the military may be a brotherhood in which soldiers are supposed to have each other's backs, but not when they have been sexually assaulted. This was clearly illustrated by Lawson's pathetic performance in Parliament, where he had trouble uttering the words assault and rape, preferring the more benign-sounding "sexual misconduct." Lawson spent much time trying to shore up the War Dept.'s reputation: he consistently referred to a report stating that sexual harassment had decreased over the past 15 years, but failed to understand that the same report undermined his position. As Lawson himself noted, the same report also stated that women "may be less likely to report harassment for fear of career repercussions or due to a belief that their complaints may not be taken seriously."

Women in the military are wholly justified in knowing that very fact: indeed, anyone listening to Lawson could quickly figure out that he himself would not treat the issue seriously. His careful dissimulation is represented by cautious statements such as his declaration that there "may be a gap between our official policies and procedures, and the reality on the ground," rather than stating it outright, as Colonel Drapeau did when he told Maclean's, "Is the military equipped to investigate, police and prosecute sexual assault? We have the answer. No. They had 16 years to fix it, and they haven't."

Similarly, Lawson humiliates women who have been assaulted by reducing their trauma to a feeling or perception, using phrases like "individuals who felt they had suffered from sexual harassment" and, in response to a question about procedures for "a person who has been sexually assaulted," replying with watered down language to reassure that there are numerous ways "that someone who feels that they've suffered a sexual misconduct" can respond. Sexual assault becomes misconduct, a minor malfeasance like one sees on a soccer pitch. Assault, rape and harassment are reduced to feelings, not facts, part of a classic myth that questions the veracity of women and underscores the roots of male violence. It's also a key part of military culture, in which soldiers are always considered right, and the "enemy," whether an 80-year-old Afghan elder or the first woman to enter a previously all-male unit, is not to be trusted. Lawson later gloats about a toll-free number for "anyone who believes they've suffered sexual misconduct." Rape is not a belief but a crime: would Lawson say that a soldier who has had his wallet swiped "believes" he is the victim of a robbery?

Most members of the Parliamentary committee were united in a rare display of anger at the state of rape in the Canadian military. NDP war critic Jack Harris pointed out that another manner in which the military tends to hide or underplay sexual assault is the new format of judge advocate general ­reports (which have yet to be publicly released for 2012, 2013, and 2014). They lump in sexual assaults, which used to be dealt with separately, under the general heading of "Conduct Prejudicial to Good Order and Discipline."

Supplying regimes oppressive to women
Instead of treating sexual assault in the military as the crisis that it is, Lawson appeared in a hurry to get off to another meeting. It would seem a leader truly interested in these concerns would have told the committee he was at their disposal for as long as necessary. Perhaps he had more important military matters on his mind like meeting up with his counterparts from regimes that are particularly oppressive towards women at the massive CANSEC arms bazaar, which opened that day across town at the Ottawa airport. There, some 11,000 visitors mingled amongst 330 weapons firms that sold their wares to military delegations from some of the most brutal armies on the planet, including Bahrain, Colombia, Saudi Arabia, Israel, the U.S., and the U.K.

The Canadian military is not the only institution in our society built on and sustained by the culture of sexist violence; the hundreds of brave female Mounties who have filed a lawsuit regarding their own experience of similar assault in the RCMP are another example. And then there is society at large: whether in the peace movement or a college frat house or in the executive offices of the Royal Bank of Canada, sexual assault continues to be an epidemic that is largely ignored. Given the sheer numbers, one would think it deserves a special section on CBC broadcasts the way business and sports receive such blanket, daily coverage. Until it does, and until there is a true national strategy to end male violence, women in this country will continue to be targeted in what psycho-historian Robert Jay Lifton names "atrocity-producing" situations, while women like Ashley White will face lifetime sentences of anxiety, fear, depression and PTSD.

Individuals wishing to help pay off Ashley White's massive debt can make a contribution: mail a cheque to Toronto Action for Social Change (put Ashley White in the memo portion of the cheque) and mail it to PO Box 2121, 57 Foster Street, Perth, ON K7H 1R0. There is no overhead: every last cent will go to Ashley.

Why Do We Jail Women Who Choose to Live?

Why Do We Jail Women Who Choose to Live?

(Trigger alert, this story contains disturbing reports of assault)

By Matthew Behrens (rabble.ca, November, 2013)

            Earlier this year, the World Health Organization released a comprehensive study that found more than a third of all women worldwide – 35.6% – will experience physical or sexual violence in their lifetime. The great majority of this violence is committed by intimate male partners in acts that can only be described as domestic or home-grown terrorism. It’s the latest in an endless stream of similar reports on this form of domestic terror, but Canada and other governments refuse to both recognize the extent of the crisis and respond accordingly.

            When the report was released, WHO Director General Dr. Margaret Chan declared, "These findings send a powerful message that violence against women is a global health problem of epidemic proportions. We also see that the world's health systems can and must do more for women who experience violence." The report found that of the women who experience direct attacks, 42% require some form of hospitalization.

            In confirming what more than half of the population already knows is a daily reality, the WHO report did not exactly produce a firestorm of response and calls for urgent action from government leaders.  Instead, their “war on terrorism” focuses on racial and religious profiling, the jailing of innocents, the closing borders to refugees, extra-judicial assassination by Canadian-made drones, and continuation of indefinite detention and rendition-to-torture programs. There are no massive interventions that address the greatest purveyors of fear and violence in Canada and around the world: the men in women’s lives.

            As of April, 2010, there were an astounding 593 women’s shelters in Canada. Earlier this month, the Ontario Association of Interval and Transition Houses released its annual Femicide report, a grim reminder of women’s lives snuffed out by men in Ontario during 2013 (http://www.oaith.ca/assets/files/OAITH%20Final%202013%20Femicide%20List-%20Nov%202013.pdf). And despite a United Nations call for Canada to develop a comprehensive national review to end violence against aboriginal women, Canada’s envoy to the UN in Geneva rejected the idea. Similarly, in 2010, Canada adopted a National Action Plan for the implementation of United Nations Security Council resolutions on Women, Peace and Security which included supporting the rights of girls and women abroad, but it is unclear if anything has been done because it has failed to deliver on its promise of annual and midterm reports.

            Perhaps that is due in part to the fact that Canada’s rhetoric about supporting women’s rights (a mainstay of its justification for the occupation of Afghanistan) rings hollow. In Afghanistan, Canada’s presence does not appear to have moved things forward for women. Indeed, the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan reported last December that women who flee rapists and abusive husbands are regularly jailed by the hundreds for alleged “moral crimes.”  Among those jailed are those who have defended themselves against and, in the process, wounded or killed rapists.

            Lest one conclude that Afghanistan is just “behind the times”, it is worth noting that here in North America, women who choose to live by defending themselves are similarly jailed in alarming numbers. In the U.S., the Michigan Women’s Justice and Clemency Project, found: "The average prison sentence for men who kill their intimate partners is 2 to 6 years. Women who kill their partners are sentenced, on average, to 15 years." 

            Marissa Alexander, an African-American mother of three, did not kill her abusive ex-partner when he physically attacked her and threatened her with death only nine days after she gave birth. She fired a warning shot into the ceiling to scare him off, and as a result is serving 20 years of hard time in Florida. During her trial – one in which the judge rejected her “stand your ground” defence, the same rationale used by the state of Florida for failing to arrest the man who murdered Trayvon Martin – Alexander recounted numerous incidents of severe physical abuse including choking, attempted strangulation, and other incidents that required hospitalization. She lost the ability to swallow as a result of her injuries and lost ten pounds. She subsequently obtained a domestic violence injunction against her ex. In 2010, when she was five months pregnant, she was “head-butted” twice, her clothes torn, and she was also thrown to the ground. During all these episodes—and at other times, as well—he threatened to kill her. At trial, numerous witnesses testified about seeing Alexander's injuries, while in-laws of her abusive husband testified about his reputation for violence. One witness confirmed that Marissa Alexander met the criteria for “battered person’s syndrome.” 

            On top of this, her abusive husband admitted in a sworn affidavit, “The way I was with women…they never knew what I was thinking or what I might do. Hit them, push them. …I honestly think [Marissa] just didn’t want me to put my hands on her anymore, so she did what she feel like she have to do to make sure she wouldn’t get hurt, you know. …The gun was never actually pointed at me.”      

            While an appeals court recently rejected her contention that she should have been granted immunity from prosecution under Stand Your Ground (under which an individual can use deadly force if “he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm”), it did find, in granting her a new trial, that the jury was given the wrong instructions. The original judge essentially placed the burden of proof on Marissa Alexander when it came to showing that she was about to be attacked and needed to act in self-defence. The appeals court confirmed that Alexander “was charged with aggravated assault but – under any possible review of the evidence – inflicted no injury.”           

            While a new trial was a breakthrough, Alexander’s supporters called on the state to drop the charges and let her go free. Unfortunately, the state of Florida is pursuing the trial option, and a hearing to determine whether Marissa will be freed on bond and returned to her children (she has not seen her youngest child in three years) took place earlier this month, with a decision expected by the end of the year.  Meanwhile, the man who continually assaulted her and threatened to take her life walks free.   

            I have had the privilege of corresponding with Alexander while she has been in jail. She is a compassionate and insightful person who recognized immediately upon going behind bars how many women were also in her shoes: they too were in jail because they chose to live, and the judicial system simply could not understand the terror that constituted their daily lives. 

            Closer to home is the case of Ottawa’s Ashley White, 25, who earlier this year was found guilty of aggravated assault (and acquitted of attempted murder) for stabbing her abusive former boyfriend. She faces a possible maximum of 14 years behind bars for defending herself. According to press reports on her trial, White’s former boyfriend, Patrick Halcro, aged 36, a veteran of the Afghanistan occupation who suffers PTSD, often went into fits of rage and jealousy. He admitted in court to punching her and smashing her head into a door frame. As QMI News reported, he claimed, "I used proportional force. I felt threatened."

            White suffered a shattered nose and cheekbone, requiring facial reconstruction surgery, in addition to post-concussion syndrome and a diagnosis of PTSD. The Ottawa Sun reported, “Medical evidence suggested her head trauma and the shock of seeing her face bathed in blood could have placed her in a state where she wouldn't have known what she was doing when she stabbed Halcro. As for Halcro, the knife blade nicked his lung but a trauma surgeon said the injury was relatively minor.”

            At one point in the trial, White’s lawyer noted that after pummeling her, Mr. Halcro stepped over her bloodied body to retrieve his luggage. “Your luggage was more important to you than checking on Ashley,” the lawyer said. According to QMI News, “He said he didn’t realize the extent to which he’d hurt her until he got his bag and noticed a lot of blood where White had collapsed.” 

            The Ottawa Sun reported that White “remembers being pummeled on the floor as he loomed over her until she could no longer see and felt like she was going to die. He said: ‘I am trained to kill you and I will kill you’ or something like that, White said.”

            Four years after his horrific beating, White remains out on restrictive bail, while her ex was never charged. A community of friends has come together to try and assist her with her massive legal bills, both for the trial and an expected appeal. That group has formed a Facebook page, on which they write: “We strongly believe [Ashley] was wrongly convicted of aggravated assault for stabbing her abusive ex-military boyfriend. After being beaten so badly she would later require reconstructive surgery and in a state of near unconsciousness, Ashley fended off the attack with a kitchen knife. It has never been explained why he was never charged and why the lead detective never testified in court, yet Ashley’s life is changed forever. Ashley’s friends and supporters are planning a fund-raising event to help her cover the $90,000 accumulated costs to date and $50,000+ she is facing in future legal fees.” To join that Facebook page, where you can leave messages of support and donate to her costs, visit https://www.facebook.com/pages/Friends-of-Ashley-White/471297956316613

            In the meantime, Marissa Alexander’s supporters ask that you contact FreeMarissaNow@gmail.com and visit https://www.facebook.com/FreeMarissaNow and http://www.justice4marissa.com/

            As Canada marks the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women on November 25, it is a reminder of how much work remains to be done, not simply on symbolic days, but every day as the war against women grinds mercilessly on.