Men have no conscience and possess no capacity for empathy, you say?

Here is a part of an email message that my husband sent to the Federal Ombudsperson for victims. I'm sharing it here with his permission. Whether you agree with his proposal or not, I think it goes without saying that a male victim capable of composing such a message certainly has a capacity for empathy.

Subject: Submission Regarding Bill C-16 (2026): The Victim’s Right to Conscience and Decarceration

 

To: [[email protected]](mailto:[email protected])

 

Dear Federal Ombudsperson,

 

I respectfully submit the following legislative proposal for consideration as part of the ongoing review of the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, with particular attention to the conscience rights of the victim to protect the human rights of a vulnerable defendant from a sentence that the victim perceives as excessive.

 

As a male victim of sexual violence that escalated into a forced marriage, followed by a suicide attempt to escape the situation, I was confronted with an impasse: I could not seek help for reasons of conscience, fearing disproportionate consequences for an asylum seeker. To address this gap, I propose a victims’ rights framework structured around the following two pillars:

 

1.  The victim’s right to protect the rights of an accused person of precarious status

Any victim of sexual assault or of an offence related to coercive control would retain the right, where the victim alone has reported the matter to authorities, to:

1)  Authorize an accused who distrusts courtroom interpretation (often for good reason) to opt for a hearing in Esperanto (a language several times easier to master than the official ones as revealed by the economist François Grin in 2005) without interpretation in any jurisdiction the Ministry of Education of which has recognized Esperanto as fulfilling the second-language requirement for the obtention of the secondary-school diploma since at least fifteen years before the accused's day of birth;

2)  Authorize an accused who would prefer a less adversarial hearing to opt for a hearing under an inquisitorial system;

3)  Limit any sentence imposed on the offender to a purely monetary cap, the amount of which would be determined by the victim;

4)  Submit any decision of the judge to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (which a victim might view as more aligned with his faith);

5)  Prevent a conviction against the offender from being considered in immigration proceedings.

 

2.  Judicial discretion

The judge would retain the authority, without the victim’s consent, to:

1)  Increase the cap set by the victim by multiplying it by the number of repeat offences;

2)  Impose a sentence, in accordance, within the range of zero to the prescribed cap;

3)  Order institutionalization (in the broad sense, including incarceration) of the offender only if the judge determines that the offender represents an unreasonable threat to themselves or others.

 

Financial details

To preserve the value of the sentencing cap against inflation, I propose that the amount be expressed in milligrams of pure gold. The victim could thus determine an amount subject to a minimum of 30 grams (for example, the victim could set a maximum penalty of 32.775 grams if they so wished).

A reductio ad absurdum highlights the limited usefulness of an upper cap: even if a victim were to authorize a cap of one thousand kilotons of pure gold, and the judge were to multiply it by the number of repeat offences, the judge would still have the obligation to impose a final sentence conformant to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

 

Alternative approaches

While I would prefer to grant this right of conscience to every victim, I recognize that some may fear that male offenders could misuse such a right. To address such opposition, and by invoking section 15(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the State could grant this “right to conscience” to victims of female offenders only, in recognition of the risks that such victims may pose to the safety of women.

This framework would reduce the risk of reactive violence against the woman in a state of crisis and traumatic capitulation, potentially leading to a suicide attempt by the victim that could in turn traumatize the woman. Reducing the risk of suicide attempts among victims would also help conserve mental health resources and free up funding for services for women.

 

Justification and systemic impact

I emphasize the moral superiority of a “lenient” sentence chosen by the victim over the complete absence of reporting. At present, the barrier of conscience created by consequences perceived as disproportionate (such as deportation or incarceration exceeding what safety requires) constitutes a real obstacle to seeking help. This silence, effectively imposed by the system, enables violence to escalate into extreme situations.