Causation, Common Sense, and the Common Law: Replacing Unexamined Assumptions with What We Know about Male Violence against Women or from Jane Doe to Bonnie Mooney
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, Elizabeth Sheehy argues that Jane Doe v. Metropolitan Toronto Police, wherein the police were held accountable in law for sex discrimination in violation of women's section 15 equality rights under the Charter and for negligence in their investigation of a serial rapist, represents a high point in feminist litigation. She details the feminist knowledge, language, and strategy as well as the individual contributions by Jane Doe herself, her lawyers, her experts, her judges, and even a police officer that together made this groundbreaking legal victory possible. She compares this case to Mooney v. Canada, a case also involving sexism in the policing of male violence against women, where Bonnie Mooney's negligence case was lost on the legal stumbling block of proof of causation. Elizabeth Sheehy suggests that although feminists became involved in this case on appeal and argued that Bonnie Mooney's section 15 rights were infringed, proof of the element of causation could have been facilitated had women's equality been at issue at the trial level. She shows how a feminist analysis of wife battering and femicide could have been used to challenge the assumptions of both police and judges that in turn shaped the ruling on causation and argues that even when lawyers fail to raise section 15 arguments, judges bear a responsibility to interpret the law consistent with the equality guarantee. Dans le présent article, Elizabeth Sheehy soutient que l'arrêt Jane Doe c. Metropolitan Toronto Police marque un point tournant dans la présentation réussie d'arguments féministes devant les tribunaux. Cet arrêt a tenu la police responsable pour son comportement discriminatoire, en contravention des droits à l'égalité des femmes prévus à l'article 15 de la Charte et responsable de négligence dans leur enquête sur un violeur en série. L'auteure identifie les connaissances, la langue et la stratégie féministes aussi bien que les contributions personnelles de Jane Doe elle-même, de ses avocates, de ses spécialistes, de ses juges, et même d'un agent de police qui, ensemble, ont rendu possible cette victoire juridique quasi-révolutionnaire. Elle compare cette décision à l'affaire Mooney c. Canada, un arrêt qui traite également du sexisme dans le contrôle policier de la violence masculine contre les femmes. Dans cette affaire, la difficulté de prouver le lien de causalité a provoqué l'échec de la poursuite pour négligence policière, intentée par Bonnie Mooney. Selon Elizabeth Sheehy, la preuve du lien de causalité aurait pu être facilitée si l'égalité des femmes avait été invoquée en première instance et si les féministes y étaient intervenues à ce stade plutôt que simplement au niveau de l'appel. Elle indique comment une analyse féministe du fémicide et de la violence contre les conjointes aurait pu servir à contester les a prioris de la police et des juges qui ont fondé leur décision sur l'absence de preuve du lien de causalité. Elle soutient aussi que même lorsque les avocates et avocats ne soulèvent pas devant le tribunal des arguments fondés sur l'article 15, le tribunal se doit néanmoins d'interpréter le droit en tenant compte d'office de la garantie d'égalité.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it