Although this is precisely the kind of stereotyping prohibited by the equality provisions of the section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, most such young women end up isolated in segregated and/or maximum security units in juvenile and adult jails. Most of these women and girls pose the greatest risk to themselves and their own well-being. They are, however, perceived as difficult to "manage" in prison settings, especially if they resist restraint, lock-up, or medications, slash and carve their bodies, burn themselves, swallow items, try to smash in their own skulls, gouge out their eyes, try to kill themselves, et cetera.

The inability of correctional systems to address cognitive challenges and mental health needs has thus been used as a reason to classify women and girls with cognitive or mental disabilities as risks to the community. As a result, they are imprisoned in high security settings where they are subjected to harsh, often inhumane and illegal treatment. Since this kind of treatment occurs directly as a result of these women prisoners' cognitive and mental disabilities, it is clearly discriminatory and thus contravenes human rights as well as s. 15(1) of our constitutionally enshrined Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

We must continue to pursue opportunities to challenge the increasing criminalization of those with cognitive and mental disabilities. In addition, we must focus upon the development of community-based services. Where we have not been able prevent women or girls with cognitive or mental disabilities from being criminalized in the first place, we need to work to have these women and girls taken out of the prisons on passes and/or released into the community so that they may access the community-based services they need. It would be folly of the most profound and irresponsible proportions to focus on the development of institutionally-based services alone.

Another significant factor in the increasing trend to criminalize women and girls is the adoption and application of so-called "gender neutral" zero-tolerance policies. As will be discussed in more detail below, part of the backlash to increased attempts to hold violent men accountable has been the application of zero-tolerance policies to charge and/or counter charge women and girls. While eliminating violence is an important objective and violence should never be condoned, the state should not counter-charge women and girls involved in relatively minor altercations in school yards, or those who defend themselves or others from violence perpetrated against them by abusive men.

Impact of Stereotypes of Young Women and Violence

The notion of criminality has evolved from such outdated labels as "immorality." Women and children have traditionally been seen as inherently morally "pure." They have also been perceived as property and, therefore, subject to the control of the men who fathered them or married them. Any woman who dared to step outside of her designated role as a "good" mother, wife, daughter, et cetera, was likely to be judged immoral. If she deigned to commit violent acts, regardless of the circumstances (i.e., whether reactive or even defensive), or if she engaged in sexual acts outside of marriage (regardless of whether she was raped or otherwise the subject of unwanted sexual advances); and, worse still, if she voluntarily engaged in sexual activity because she enjoyed it, she would be deemed an aberration and relegated to the margins of her gender.