These writings were alleged to have linked her to gang activity, and it was largely on the basis of this alleged gang involvement that the conviction was anchored and the severe sentence imposed. Moreover, the basis for the conviction lay primarily in the evidence of one young man, who was not charged by the police once he agreed to testify. Although there was significant blood, DNA, footprint, and other material evidence obtained from the location where the victim was killed, none of it linked Ms. Pranteau to the man’s death.

As you will recall, Lisa Neve’s sentence appeal and appeal of her dangerous offender designation never made it to the Supreme Court of Canada, as it was overturned by the Alberta Court of Appeal. We had hoped to be able to raise a number of the same issues regarding racist and misogynist bias, reliance upon writings and assertions versus actions, et cetera, which were articulated by the three women justices of the Alberta Court of Appeal in Lisa Neve’s case, but unfortunately were never sanctioned by the Supreme Court of Canada.

Although the Supreme Court avenue has now been closed to Ms. Pranteau, we continue to examine other avenues such as the Royal Prerogative of Mercy via an appeal to the Solicitor General and the Minister of Justice, pursuant to section 690 of the Criminal Code of Canada.

International Women’s Day, March 8, 2003, marked the second anniversary of CAEFS’ complaint to the Canadian Human Rights Commission. This coming year, the Commission will issue a special report regarding the systemic review of the manner in which the human rights of federally sentenced women are violated. The report will address their findings and recommendations for remedying the human rights violations experienced by women prisoners as a result of the discrimination they face.

On March 8, 2001, the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies (CAEFS) requested that the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) conduct a broad-based systemic review and issue a special report, pursuant to section 61(2) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, regarding the treatment of women serving federal terms of imprisonment. CAEFS’ request was supported by twenty-seven other organizations. The Commission has decided to undertake a special report and issue recommendations to government based on its findings, addressing government policies and programs. This will take the form of a special report to Parliament. CAEFS will strengthen its capacity to influence government policy and legislation, with respect to criminalized women in Canada, by building a coalition of interested organizations to join CAEFS in informing the development of the Commission’s special report.

The basis of the human rights complaint is the fact that federally sentenced women face discrimination throughout the criminal (in)justice system. This is particularly true of Aboriginal and other racialized women, as well as women with mental and cognitive disabilities. Accordingly, we have rooted our claim in the fact that all federally sentenced women are discriminated against on the basis of their sex, and that women who are racialized and women with disabilities are further marginalized and discriminated against in prison.