Once in prison, the practical reality is that mental health needs have been equated with risk. Physical and mental disability are included in s. 17 of the Regulations of the CCRA, as factors which must be considered in determining security classification. This does not mean, however, that the presence of a disability should result in an increased security classification. Mental health concerns that are disabling undoubtedly create very real needs for federally sentenced women and therefore for CSC. But, equating mental health disabilities with risks only serves to perpetuate a social construction of persons with mental disabilities as dangerous.

This is precisely the kind of stereotyping which is prohibited by the equality provisions of the Charter. Many of the women identified as having mental health needs do not pose the kind of risks to which s. 17 of the Regulations is directed. Using the need for mental health treatment as a reason to classify women as maximum security imposes harsher treatment on such women. Since this is based on their disability, it is clearly discriminatory and contrary to s. 15(1) of the Charter. Consequently, CAEFS continues to pursue opportunities to challenge the increased criminalization of women with cognitive and mental disabilities.

Finally, CAEFS and other equality-seeking women’s groups are working to counter the increased criminalization of women who experience violence. Part of the backlash to increased attempts to hold violent men accountable has been the application of so-called “gender neutral” zero tolerance policies to cross or counter charge women. Women are increasingly charged in circumstances where they have called the police in relation to assault and/or threats directed at them by abusive men, especially if they have managed to defend or otherwise react to the violence perpetrated against them. This is especially true for Aboriginal and other racialized women.