Canada’s Failing Justice System, Survivor Advocacy

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/06/07

Cait Alexander, a Canadian-American survivor advocate and founder of End Violence Everywhere (EVE), channels her experience surviving near-fatal intimate partner violence into national advocacy. After her case was dismissed due to court delays, she launched EVE to support survivors and push for legal reforms in Canada and the U.S. Alexander discussed systemic failures, particularly Canada’s broken justice system and the dangers of abuser-enabling policies like Bill C-75 and R v. Jordan. She emphasized early intervention, community support, trauma-informed care, and the urgent need for legislative change. As lead plaintiff in a historic $15 million Charter lawsuit against the federal government, Alexander seeks justice for survivors and systemic accountability. Her advocacy highlights the need to believe, protect, and empower survivors at every level of society.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Cait Alexander is a Canadian-American survivor advocate and founder of End Violence Everywhere (EVE), a nonprofit organization dedicated to supporting survivors of intimate partner violence and advocating for systemic legal reform. After surviving a near-fatal assault in 2021, only to see her case dismissed due to court delays, Cait transformed her trauma into action through EVE. She supports survivor-to-survivor, champions legislative change, and fosters community allyship across North America. With a background in the arts, Cait leverages storytelling and media to amplify survivors’ voices and push for justice. She splits her time between Canada and Los Angeles, advocating for a world where survivors come first. Let us start on brand, but off-topic: what is happening with Diddy?

Cait Alexander: The trial is scheduled to begin on May 5. However, it is more important that we focus on the survivors and recognize how brave they have been in finally coming forward. As you said, it is like discovering a hidden city within a city. This situation has been happening for decades, with few people willing or able to come forward.

There were whispers before, but now survivors are speaking publicly. It is an important societal moment to see that we are finally addressing these issues more directly. Sadly, it has taken so many people getting hurt for this to happen.

When we look at the high-profile cases that have moved forward—Bill Cosby and Harvey Weinstein—we must ask: How many big-name stories are still untold?

Jacobsen: Many. Many.

Alexander: I also believe that industries like entertainment — and I say this as someone who is part of the entertainment industry — are relatively small communities. At a certain level, everybody knows everybody. How many people stayed silent after witnessing abuse? Why are people so uncomfortable coming forward?

The Me Too movement helped break that silence, but countless stories have not been told. Speculatively, it is possible.

Jacobsen: I pulled this information for documentation, prominent cases:

• Harvey Weinstein: Convicted in New York in 2020 of rape and sexual assault, sentenced to 23 years. In 2024, the New York conviction was overturned due to issues with the trial procedure. Still, he remains incarcerated based on a separate Los Angeles conviction from 2022, where he was sentenced to 16 years.
• R. Kelly: Sentenced in 2022 to 30 years in federal court for racketeering and sex trafficking in New York. In a separate federal case in Chicago, he received an additional 20-year sentence in 2023 (to be served mostly concurrently) for child sexual abuse material production and enticement of minors.
• Danny Masterson: Convicted in May 2023 on two counts of forcible rape and sentenced in September 2023 to 30 years to life in prison.
• Bill Cosby: Convicted in 2018 of aggravated indecent assault and sentenced to three to ten years. His conviction was overturned in 2021 by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court due to a prior non-prosecution agreement, leading to his release.
• Kevin Spacey: Faced multiple allegations but was acquitted in a 2023 UK trial regarding charges of sexual assault.
• Cuba Gooding Jr.: Pleaded guilty in 2022 to a misdemeanour forcible touching charge (related to non-consensual kissing) as part of a plea deal; he avoided jail time contingent on completing counselling.

Sean “Diddy” Combs was recently arrested, as you stated. So that is about half a dozen major cases. That is not a hugenumber, which suggests there are probably many more that are not reported. Do you think that is the case, or is there a phenomenon where individuals settle out of court?

Alexander: Yes. We have seen this repeatedly with many media moguls—Michael Bloomberg being one, Roger Ailes another. In the past, and likely continuing, settlements often involved non-disclosure agreements (NDAs).

People need to understand that criminal proceedings and charges take precedence over civil NDAs. You are not bound by an NDA if a crime has been committed.

We have to pull it back and understand the type of personality that commits these offences. There are almost identical patterns, identical psychology, and identical behaviours. You can almost pinpoint exactly the qualities of an abuser — it is specific. Power, control, and fear are the driving factors in abusing someone and keeping them trapped in that place.

The threats — of litigation, of not being believed — are tools abusers use to maintain power. They thrive in environments where fear and control dominate. When they lose control, they tend to react in extreme ways.

That is why it is so dangerous to leave abusive situations. It is also why it is so frightening to come forward — because the abuser will not stop; they need the upper hand. It is important that when people come forward with these stories, we create a community around survivors.

We must create a safety net and protective environment around coming forward because it is difficult. But there is power in numbers, and abusers can be held accountable and stopped when survivors come together.

That is what we are seeing in the Diddy case. Around 300 people have reportedly come forward about his actions. I look at that and think — this has been happening for a long time, and no one said anything until recently.

Cassie was brave in coming forward, and that one brave action led to hundreds of other brave actions.

It is sad—it is sad as a survivor and as someone who sees this every single day—that it had to go this far, that we did not believe survivors the first time they spoke up, that we did not believe the first time someone said, “Hey, this is wrong.”

That has to change. Of course, we should uphold “innocent until proven guilty.” That principle is important — it protects everyone.

However, we must also recognize that we no longer live in the 1900s, when there was no digital footprint. Today, there is usually a digital record of people’s actions, and it is much harder to hide.

That does not mean we bypass due process or the court system. It means when someone shows us evidence — video, photos, texts, emails — we should be more willing to believe them and support survivors accordingly.

Jacobsen: You mentioned the common patterns and psychology of individuals committing these crimes. Are there common targets, too? What are common traits or identifiers that these offenders look for?

Alexander: Yes. They look for the opposite of themselves. My experience with survivors is that they are incredible, kind, giving, empathetic, warmhearted, and generous. They generally are not abusive themselves and do not have those tendencies. They tend to be the people who give others the benefit of the doubt and who believe in kindness and second chances.

In contrast, perpetrators often fall into what is called the “dark triad” — Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and narcissism. They prey on those who embody what they lack. The throughline between all survivors I have encountered is their kindness. Yet society often places blame on survivors — asking, “Why did you not get out sooner? Why did you not see it?”

But when you are reasonable and compassionate, you naturally want to believe the best about others. Unfortunately, that kindness and openness can make someone vulnerable to being targeted. The world is not all bad. I do not want to say that. Maybe he did have a bad childhood, or maybe he was just upset that day. But being preyed upon for your big heart is what I see most often.

Jacobsen: What about getting caught or having the problem behaviour pointed out? What tends to happen then?

Alexander: They react with outrageous defensiveness. There is usually an uproar of gaslighting or complete denial of responsibility. They hate having their flaws pointed out because they are deeply insecure.

It can be very dangerous to point out an abuser’s flaws one-on-one. That confrontation can trigger them to react with explosive outrage. My ex nearly killed me because he could not find his car keys — and somehow, that became my fault. He started burning my handbags on the stove and then beat me for four hours simply because he could not find his keys.

Survivors are always told that they are in the wrong and made to bear the entire responsibility for the relationship.

It is hard to get out because reasonable people operate differently. In a normal partnership, you can say, “Hey, I did not appreciate when you did that — would you mind not doing that again?” Or “Did you have a bad day?” In a healthy relationship, you are supposed to share your flaws and humanity. It is supposed to be a safe space. That is where real growth, connection, and depth are formed.

But with an abuser, that does not exist. It is complicated, and it is dangerous.

Jacobsen: How do future victims typically fall into the orbit of these individuals, given how dangerous they are?

Alexander: I have never seen an abuser start off abusing. It always begins with what is called the “love bombing” phase, and that term is very accurate.

During this phase, they are on perfect behaviour. To paint the picture — and while abuse exists in all relationship types, I will use a heterosexual male-female relationship as an example — the man is like “Mr. Romeo”: showering the woman with gifts, going the extra mile, being constantly available, being overbearingly wonderful.

And that is a trap.

They can keep up the act for months — my ex kept it up for about five months before things turned insane — but they can also keep it up for years. There is no fixed timeline. Slowly but surely, the real personality comes out.

All of that love bombing is the honey underneath the trap. You are eating the honey without realizing that a cage is being built around you, and by the time you notice, it is very hard to get out.

That is how they do it — they are very good at it.

Jacobsen: And often, they are celebrated figures, right? Especially among celebrities?

Alexander: Exactly. They have often celebrated figures in positions of power with much to offer, and people idolize and glorify them.

That power they accumulate makes it even harder for someone to speak out and say, “Hey, this person you idolize — this is who they are.”

And because these abusers create and even believe in their idealized image, it becomes a very powerful tool. They are often so convincing that survivors are not believed when they speak up.

Jacobsen: For those who survive — those who are not murdered — and attempt to rebuild their lives, what is the range of reactions you have seen? Coping strategies, levels of thriving, levels of barely surviving, or even spiralling into self-harm?

Alexander: There are good and bad coping strategies, and it all depends on access — access to resources, access to treatments, and access to the correct treatments. Not all therapies work for trauma.

It also comes down to willingness — how ready the person is — and how stuck they are in the situation. For example, court cases can drag out the trauma. We see this, particularly in Canada, where survivors can be dragged through the court system for years. You cannot fully recover if you still have looming trial dates. Your brain stays stuck in trauma until the court process is finished until it is wrapped up, and until you can truly let it go.

As for coping strategies, I have seen the good, the bad, and the ugly.

Substance abuse is sadly very common among survivors. I would even flip that: most women who struggle with substance abuse have suffered some form of deep trauma. Overworking is another coping strategy — the constant need to stay busy, the guilt around relaxing — that is a conditioned trauma response.

You also see emotional dysregulation — the brain constantly thinking it is in danger, always operating in a hypervigilant state.

There can also be patterns of promiscuity — survivors sometimes try to “redo” the trauma experience, trying to gain mastery over it, hoping for a different outcome. That is another common response.

Unfortunately, our current systems do not offer the right support for trauma survivors.

On the positive side, once someone has access to trauma-informed therapy — EMDR, myofascial therapy, or somatic therapies — their coping strategies can become healthier.

Yoga is an amazing coping strategy, especially trauma-informed yoga. Pilates and gentle movement practices are powerful tools.

Trauma fundamentally involves a rigorous violation of consent, so having a gentler approach to healing is essential.

Exercise, being in nature, and proper nutrition can all be strong coping tools. Sleep is often disrupted for survivors, so getting assistance with sleep — sometimes even through pharmaceuticals — can be important because the brain needs restorative sleep to heal.

Water activities, like swimming, can help survivors move energy through their bodies in a soothing, methodical way.

Journaling is important, too. Talking to someone can help, but sometimes, avoiding oversharing is just as important. Oversharing can be a trauma response as well. When survivors tell long, sprawling, sometimes incomprehensible stories, the brain often tries to expel overwhelming experiences.

We all experience trauma to varying degrees in life. Sadly, no one gets through life entirely unscathed. Part of the human condition is managing trauma — recognizing what is healthy and what is unhealthy and learning to navigate those experiences.

Jacobsen: I have spoken to some experts who work with individuals who have Cluster B personality disorders — the personality disorders that are often linked to perpetrators — as you mentioned earlier. What about the possibility of change? Is there any chance that an individual like that can change?

For instance, have there been cases where someone was showing early signs of abusive tendencies, but before overt abuse happened, they went to couples counselling, and, through a lot of conscious effort and goodwill, they changed? I do not expect that to be common — or to happen in most cases.

I expect it to be a super minority of cases if it happens at all. But I wanted to know if you, in your work, had come across or heard about that.

Alexander: That is why early detection is so important. We need to work on this starting in the elementary years because the signs are generally there.

I firmly believe that there is a natural and a nurture element to developing a Cluster B diagnosis. It is both. I do not think it is exclusively one or the other—although maybe there are cases where it leans heavily to one side—but generally, it is a combination.

There are ways to heal almost everything, but it comes down to free will. One of the biggest issues with antisocial personality disorders — narcissistic, psychopathic, and Machiavellian traits — is that they do not believe anything is wrong with them. So why would they seek treatment?

I saw that with my ex. In his mind, what he did to me was somehow my fault. I was the one who needed therapy to deal with what he had done, even though he was the one committing the offences.

Whether it is a lack of moral consciousness or something else, individuals with dark triad traits do not believe they are wrong.

So, how do you help someone unwilling to admit they did anything wrong?

With disorders like borderline personality disorder or histrionic personality disorder, there can be more self-awareness. There is at least an ability to communicate and say, “Hey, what if we worked on this?” There are ways to address and work through those issues.

But with true narcissistic, psychopathic, and Machiavellian personalities, it isn’t easy. Thankfully, we are not talking about a majority of people. That is a relief. Most people are not like this. But the ones who are can be very dangerous.

I hope medicinal treatments will one day be available, but again, it comes down to free will and the willingness to seek help.

And that is the complicated issue — we cannot force people to accept treatment. So how do you help them?

Jacobsen: According to experts, when do these negative personality traits start to show? What is the earliest reasonable point for diagnosis?

Alexander: I do not think it is fair to diagnose infants or anything like that — and I am not a doctor — but somewhere in the elementary years, you start to see signs. There are often early warning indicators. Usually, something is going on at home.

My mother was an elementary school teacher, and I remember conversations with her about students. Based on their behaviour patterns, she could predict, even in grade three, which kids would graduate high school and which were at risk of ending up in jail.

Something happening in that child’s home life usually triggers the disruption we see at school. Suppose we catch these signs early and help the child. In that case, we have a real opportunity to end cycles of generational trauma.

But again, it comes down to willingness — and it comes down to how we support young people who are noticeably dysregulated. EMDR works on young minds. It can help. ADHD is often misinterpreted and can sometimes mask trauma or disruption at home.

How can we help younger children? How can we teach them about consent? How can we teach them to regulate their emotional states? My mom taught meditation to her grade two and three students, and she had the calmest classroom. Even when stuck inside on rainy days, the children could get through the day without chaos because they had the tools to self-regulate.

If we assist teachers—because teachers truly are heroes—in teaching their students math, reading, and writing and how to connect to their own bodies and emotions, there is an incredible opportunity to raise a healthier, more emotionally resilient generation.

But yes, it usually starts in the younger years. You can often see it.

Abuse of animals is a major early warning sign. If you go back through the histories of a lot of known abusers — including my ex — you will often find abuse directed toward anything more innocent or dependent than them.

Animals, especially pets, rely on humans for food, safety, and shelter. Neglect or mistreatment of those beings is indicative of future abusive patterns.

Jacobsen: When building community around survivors, how do you do it right? And how do you do it wrong?

Alexander: The first word that comes to mind is gentleness. Survivors have already been through someone trying to control them — they need a softer, safer place to land.

Slow down. That is generally what survivors need: predictability, stability, and reliability.

Those are qualities that survivors require to heal because most of their lives have been filled with unpredictability.

Believing in survivors is essential. Empathy and compassion are critical.

Empowerment is also a big concept here. That old idiom: “Teach a person to fish, and they will eat for a lifetime.”

Survivors are generally intelligent, kind, and good people. They need validation—validation of their feelings and experiences—but also encouragement that they are capable.

Kind words go an incredibly long way for people who have been abused.

Acknowledgment of even small achievements and successes is essential in the healing process.

In the right community, anyone can heal. I am living proof of that.

With the level of violence I have experienced in my life, I should not be here — but I am — because I got the warm hug I needed from people.

I got that return to societal stability and safety, more or less, even though my ex is still free.

Kindness and gentleness — that is the right way.

Jacobsen: And how do you do it wrong?

Alexander: You mimic the abuser’s behaviour — which, unfortunately, is what many governments do to survivors.

Power, control, demanding proof, questioning feelings: “Where’s your evidence? Why are you still crying? What is wrong with you? It is over now. Move on.”

That is how much of the justice system treats survivors — and it is deeply ineffective. It does not bring true justice.

I was in an intimate partner violence (IPV) murder trial last Wednesday in Superior Court in Toronto.

The way the judge and the defence counsel treated the family — who had lost their daughter because the system let an abuser out after he had already strangled her once — was shameful.

The abuser went back and killed her a few months later. And yet, the way that grieving family was treated in court — shame on Canada for allowing the system to be like that.

It is abhorrent. And I do not think it is because of ignorance — it is likely incompetence and laziness.

Creating a community where people feel genuinely listened to is essential.

I want to focus on the positive because we already know where the negative is: Our culture does not do a good enough job.

Jacobsen: In terms of media coverage, how does the media do? And I mean everything from the factual reporting level to the coverage’s proportionality, depending on the case.

Alexander: Nothing is perfect. However, my experience with the Canadian media has been overwhelmingly positive. End Violence Everywhere (EVE) would not exist without their support.

EVE would not have launched if the Canadian media had not been willing to follow the story. I have never had a negative experience with mainstream Canadian media outlets.

Jacobsen: Journalists are responsible, and most do their utmost to do it right. A journalist started the entire Me Too movement. Journalism is an effective tool. It is an essential tool, especially in this day and age when we are constantly consuming content. Journalists must always tell the truth and uphold the values of good journalism. Still, they must also understand that this is a sensitive subject. These are people’s lives.

Alexander: Most journalists want to do right. I firmly believe that, and that has been my experience. Journalism can also be a power. It is a strong tool that can be used for good. Sensationalizing these stories is wrong. We need to get to where we can name the perpetrators and have their mugshots. That is essential. It is both a warning to the public and a safety measure.

Jacobsen: There must be much respect and care, especially when dealing directly with a survivor. There must be much care, not just in reporting a story but in communication itself. It has to be personal. It can be done properly. Media, when used ethically, changes governments. I have seen it with my own eyes — the media publicizes things in a way that frustrates the community enough to change the tone of a caucus. It is a beautiful thing.

Alexander: I do not think going public is for everyone, especially on the most sensitive days of your life, because it can be incredibly difficult. Last summer, there was a situation involving Anita Vandenbeld, a Liberal MP. I spoke at the House of Commons before the Status of Women Committee. I shared my personal story, complete with photos of my black-and-blue, bloody body and 25 other survivor stories.

Anita Vandenbeld put forward a motion about abortion to hijack the meeting and derail it because she did not like what I was saying about Trudeau or that I was holding him accountable. I walked out of the meeting, along with the other witness. It became a media circus for weeks. A reporter called me during that time and said, “The Liberals want to say you are running for a Conservative caucus and that you are a pawn.” I told him, “If you publish that story, I will sue you quickly. You better not run that because it is not true. I live in Los Angeles. What am I doing? Running for office by proxy? This is insanity.”

Jacobsen: It is dangerous if the government sponsors media outlets. That can become a very big problem. The media needs to remain independent. The media must continue to do its job effectively, but governments must stay out. That is where we could go wrong. By and large, though, journalists are doing a great job.

What about the extension of intimate partner violence into workplace discrimination and violence? How are policies being changed there, if at all, in different sectors to reduce the possibility of these instances happening?

Alexander: If you see something, you need to say something. I am an employer. It is my responsibility to make sure that my team is looked after. Of course, they have their own lives, but if I saw abuse, it would be my duty to report it. It is my responsibility to at least ask, “Are you okay? How can I help you?”

I believe it is law that if there is an incident of sexual assault (SA) or intimate partner violence (IPV), employers must give people time off. I am unsure if that is a provincial or federal law; I would have to check. But there are always signs.

My dad’s secretary was murdered by her partner on December 21, 2016. She did not come to work, and my dad went to her house, where he found her body and her ex-partner’s body. He had shot her and then himself. My dad had already asked her to move in with him and my mother, but she said she would do it after Christmas. It is important to intervene now if you see signs of abuse in your staff.

She should be alive. She could have been saved. We all have a responsibility to end this because it is happening in our communities and is not an issue that only affects individuals privately. These are public problems, and everyone has a responsibility. If they see signs, they should intervene. Of course, people should use intelligence and act safely, but intervention is the only way to end it.

Jacobsen: What is the rate now in terms of intimate partner violence (IPV) leading to murder in Canada? You mentioned in another conversation that the numbers have increased quite a bit during the Trudeau years.

Alexander: There has been a 27% increase, almost 30% over the last five years.

Jacobsen: What does that translate into in total numbers?

Alexander: 187 women were murdered in 2022. That is the last full number I have. We are losing a woman about once every one to two days right now.

The biggest issue is that there are very few situations where there is no history of abuse. For instance, Britney Doff — whose trial I was at last week — was strangled by her ex. He had six charges against him, and the justice system let him go. They told him, “We will remove your charges if you go through this PARS program.”

Jacobsen: What does PARS stand for?

Alexander: The Partner Assault Response program. It should be easy to remember but hard because these programs are inadequate. They often teach abusers how to be more manipulative.

Kadeem Nedrick went through that program. After three sessions, he went and stabbed Britney to death in front of their son. Their son was four years old at the time — he is now around seven or eight — and he was autistic. He witnessed everything.

As much as Kadeem Nedrick is responsible for his actions, the Government of Canada is also responsible. After strangling Britney and being formally charged, the government let him go. The same way they let my ex go. The same way they let Brianna Broadfoot’s ex go, and he successfully killed her last July — she was only 17 or 18 years old, from London.

The same way they let Caitlyn Jennings’ abuser go, and he killed her in July 2023. In the same way, case after case. The recidivism of abusers is extremely high. When they get away with it, they become empowered. They start to feel invincible, and they know that they are.

Just last week, I received news of another case: second-degree murder and indignity to a body. A man killed a woman in her early 30s who had two children around September of last year. He was charged but is now out on bail for only $2,500.

That is the state of the nation. That is bad Liberal policy — specifically C-75 — and it is killing us. The government’s hands are covered in blood.

We filed a Charter lawsuit with Catherine Marshall, a great litigator in Canada. We—14 plaintiffs and myself—have filed for infringement of our Section 7 Charter rights: life, liberty, and security of the person. The lawsuit has been well received by many members of Parliament across all parties. We are hoping for real change because we cannot continue like this.

Jacobsen: What about safety and security?bSo a woman or man comes forward. They have been abused. They may have been severely assaulted to the point of nearly being murdered, or they may have been a victim of sexual assault. They manage to get out. Where do they go? Where do they find safety? What are some typical patterns, whether friends, family, nonprofits, or halfway houses?

Alexander: Oof. I wish there were easy answers. We are working on a solution for this because Canada — and the United States to a degree, but Canada to a greater extent — has a major housing crisis for everyone, let alone for survivors.

There is nowhere to send them. Every shelter in this country is full. I have called shelters in Winnipeg, Barrie, Nova Scotia—you name it.

So, we are building a modular homes community to house survivors. They can come, no questions asked, have their own independent living space, access medical care and trauma treatments, access education for young children, and simply get away.

That is why many women stay. Where are you supposed to go? Friends and family are an option, but many survivors have been isolated from friends and family because isolation is one of the main tactics of abusers.

What do we do for those people? We have put them up in hotels and Airbnb, but those are not real residences. That is a serious issue we need to address, and we are working every day to create a solution.

Jacobsen: From your research, what societies are more advanced in addressing these issues? Maybe we can approach this question from three different angles. First, within the international community, although the ideal number would be zero, which societies or types of societies have the lowest rates of sexual assault, intimate partner violence, and related issues?

Second, for those societies — whether they have high or low rates — which ones have the most robust, evidence-based provisions for survivors that work? And third, what kinds of cultures, political environments, policies, and legal systems are the most robust in processing these crimes and delivering proportional justice?

Alexander: It is important. People might not like this answer because it has teeth, but punishments need to reflect the crime.

You see it in countries where severe punishments lead to greater safety. Japan is one of them. I do not necessarily agree with everything going on in El Salvador from a human rights perspective, but the government there has cleaned up all of the gangs. Now, people can live safely.

From a public safety perspective, that kind of firm response can work. Canada, on the other hand, is the opposite example. There are bad policies, and criminals know it. They park in countries like Canada because they know they can escape.

A cop friend once said that he was on duty and asked a criminal, “You guys used to make it so difficult to find you when you committed crimes. Why is it so easy now?” You used to hide and are blatantly committing these offences in the open. He said, “Yes. It is easier to get booked and be out the next day than it is to bother trying to run from you guys anyway. That is what is going on in Canada.”

When criminals know there are no real punishments, they will keep offending. It is essential that we culturally handle these individuals. Again, they are a subset of the population—about 1% committing 66% of the crime.

It is important to recognize that and deal with it appropriately. That does not mean prison should be brutal. Some people are saveable. Some people can be rehabilitated. But I do not think people who commit serial murders or offence after offence should be let back out. That is unfair to innocent people just trying to have a normal life.

You see, in countries that have fewer than a dozen rapes reported a year, they have severe punishments. People feel safer because serious justice will be laid down if they commit an offence.

Jacobsen: What countries are the reverse of that? Where is it almost clownish in terms of no policy or law?

Alexander: Canada. I hate to say the quiet part out loud, but Canada is falling into that trap. It is much safer in the United States right now. And there are problems in the U.S., do not get me wrong. But it is a lot safer there.

The U.S. has ten times the population, yet it feels safer per capita in many places. Canada is in a bad state right now. There are also countries in the Middle East where there are obvious problems — Israel, Gaza, everywhere — but Canada has unfortunately fallen into that same direction.

My biggest fear is that we are at a tipping point right now. It is either going to go one way or the other. We are working hard to bring Canada back to what we thought it was growing up. But if it continues down this path, good luck. I would not raise my children there, and I would not want to have a daughter in that country.

Jacobsen: When you look at the demographics of those victimized by this, are we looking at older populations, younger populations, middle-aged populations? Are we looking at Indigenous women? Non-Indigenous women? How does that break down?

I can bring in a U.S. analogy. In the United States, if you look at the majority of school shootings, they are primarily committed by white boys, and the biggest uptick is around age 17. You can target some of these things demographically.

It is about the way they express their frustrations. Some Hispanic boys get into gangs. Some African-American boys get into gangs. Troubled youth manifest their issues in different subcultural ways.

So, when we are looking at this, are you asking about when women generally get abused or when the abusers start?

Alexander: Good question. On the former point — those who are most likely to be victimized — it tends to be girls aged 18 to 24.

That is a large population where you will see the numbers skewed upwards, but it happens to anyone. We serve survivors who are 80 years old. We see it happen to young children as well.

It usually starts early, and yes, there are much higher rates in Indigenous populations, largely due to the traumas learned through colonization and residential schools. Those traumas have carried onward. We are seeing the aftereffects of that. We are seeing a lack of respect, racism, and indignity toward people who deserve much more support.

But abuse can happen to anyone. I would not be the stereotypical person you would expect. I come from an upper-middle-class Caucasian family, am twice university-educated, have a global perspective, am well-traveled, and my parents are still together. I check all the boxes that would be the antithesis of what people typically imagine.

However, abuse can happen to anyone. We do not talk enough about abuse happening in so-called “good “neighbourhoods because of stereotypes, stigma, and a culture of keeping up appearances. There is much shame.

I went public to help end that stigma and help people realize that this is happening in their backyards—even if they want to ignore it or do not recognize it.

When it comes to abusers, we can pinpoint and profile them. But survivors and victims can come from anywhere. All of the women I mentioned earlier who were murdered came from completely different walks of life.

The one throughline I see — the one common factor — is usually that the victim was a kind person. Usually, someone sweet, not naive or sheltered, but good and trusting. That is the only significant similarity if we are looking at demographics or categories.

An agreeable personality type can certainly be a target. There is some correlation there. So yes, 18- to 24-year-old women are statistically more susceptible. It should also be noted that a child who experiences abuse or sexual assault in their elementary years is twice as likely to end up in an abusive relationship as an adult. Twice as likely. It doubles the risk.

That is not some mythical reasoning. Trauma causes biological and cellular change, especially during development. It wires the nervous system to seek out what is familiar—even if what feels familiar is unsafe.

So, you have young children who are assaulted and abused, and their nervous systems are wired to be attracted to abusive dynamics later in life.

That is why early intervention is essential. Early healing is also critical—not just going through the criminal court process or reporting, but actively healing the nervous system and body of the young person. It can be done ethically and morally soundly. It is important to access healing early.

We are all susceptible to this. That is why boundaries are important, developing an independent identity is important, and encouraging people to understand what is comfortable for them—and what is not—is essential in helping prevent the perpetuation of abuse.

Jacobsen: Are single-parent families a risk factor, or are inattentive or absentee parenting or overworked parents a factor in 18——to 24-year-old girls being at greater risk—especially if the young adults are still living at home during that time?

Alexander: 100%, but also not entirely. We have served survivors who were living at home in upper-middle-class households with present and supportive parents, and the abuse still occurred. Having a supportive family is a mitigating factor. It can help prevent abuse. But again, abusers are master manipulators.

My entire family — including my six-foot-eight, 275-pound Olympic athlete brother and my parents — thought I was going to marry my ex, who later tried to kill me. They thought he was the greatest guy on earth for the first couple of months.

So, growing up in a stable household does not hurt — but it is not the only determining factor. That is a stigma that needs to end. You can have a good, supportive household and still end up being swindled by an abuser.

Jacobsen: Are a lot of these individuals typically living parasitic lifestyles? Could you elaborate?

Alexander: Basically, they do not have any sustained periods of employment. They exploit people for finances. They manipulate others to get what they want: a meal, a place to live, or money.

Jacobsen: So the variety of tactics you are alluding to is that they are not just being abusive within their relationships but also in how they interact day-to-day in broader society.

Alexander: Yes. It stands to reason, and 90% to 95% of the cases match that pattern. Abuse generally starts small and escalates over time.

I do not think it is possible for someone capable of the violence I experienced to have a normal, healthy relationship with anyone — not with their children, not with their ex-spouses, not with friends. I believe my ex is involved in some form of criminal enterprise.

This is where the court systems, particularly the family court system, go so inherently wrong. They allow abusers continued access to children even after serious offences like strangling the mother. Abuse is never isolated to a single individual. They cannot maintain the façade for very long. You can draw a parallel to the Diddy cases, the Weinsteins, andthe Epsteins. The behaviour patterns are everywhere across their lives.

Many abusers become very skilled at manipulation. They use it to gain resources and to double down on the abuse because having access to wealth, homes, and status creates the image of power and success. Society tends to respect people with material resources, thinking they are something to admire. That becomes very dangerous.

So yes, abusers’ tactics are not limited to one relationship or situation. It is a full pattern of behaviour across every area of their lives. They cannot be normal. They need everything to be a game. Their targeted victim — their primary victim — also becomes part of their strategy for manipulating others.

If they have a good person by their side, it makes them look even better. They use the good person’s reputation — the innocent person — to make themselves appear more innocent. People often say, “Well, he is married, so he must be a good guy. Why would she be with him if he were bad?” That is a constant. They use people. They use others to construct an identity because they do not have a real, sound identity.

Jacobsen: The way you said that — there are two parts. First, they do not have a genuine identity. Second, they see everything as a game. From our side of things — and I have been subjected to abuse as well — it is like everything is fun and games to them. But this is your life. It is serious. To them, it is a game. And there is barely anyone “home” on their side. That is dangerous.

Alexander: Everyone is disposable to them. Right?

Jacobsen: Yep.

Alexander: Everyone is disposable, and no action is too small or outrageous. They will go to extreme lengths to maintain their power and control.

For instance, in my civil case, because I am still in civil litigation with my ex, remember that he is free. There are no consequences, and there are no criminal consequences at all. The peace bond expired a month ago, and I do not even have any legal protection against him.

I could send you the photos and videos of him nearly beating me to death right now, and he is out there living as if nothing happened. He lied under oath in our civil litigation. He is countersuing me, claiming that I was self-injurious — that I tried to kill myself that day — and that I fell down the stairs, that I threw myself down the stairs.

That is forensically impossible. Visibly impossible. But he is willing to lie under oath to frame the narrative around himself. So, where is the moral compass? I cannot even comprehend it sometimes. It is mind-boggling. Still, you read this about yourself or see it happen repeatedly — they constantly lie. Constantly. There is not a situation where they do not lie.

Alexander: The problem with inadequate systems is that they allow these lies to succeed — over and over and over again. Abusers learn how to manipulate the system, and eventually, that becomes their entire identity.

Jacobsen: But do they at least want to be seen as great people publicly? And by “public,” I mean family, friends — if they have them — or anyone in their circle who might be seeing them.

Alexander: I am not that person who can fully understand it. I remember once I was working on a song with my songwriting coach, and I asked him, “I want to know why. Why is he doing this? What is the point of all of this?” To me, there was no gain. What is the success of this? There is nothing to achieve here.

Alexander: My songwriting coach told me, “You must be an entirely different person to understand or answer that question.”

Jacobsen: What did they mean by that?

Alexander: They meant that you and I are probably never going to be able to sit in the abuser’s mind and understand because it does not make logical sense. It boils down to power and control. I know those terms are widely used, but what do they mean? Power at all costs. They always need to be right.

They do not necessarily want to look good for family members because they genuinely care about appearances. It is a means to an end. Looking good in front of family members gives them power over people.

Looking good in the public eye — look at Diddy — gives you power over people. People form positive assumptions about you. So, there is the power aspect. Looking good and acting good gives you a track record and more leeway. That is the control aspect.

It is all a means to an end. If eating spaghetti gave them power and control, they would obsess over eating spaghetti. But they obsess over their image because looking good in public gives them power and control. That is why they do not want to be named publicly. That is why it is important to name and hold them accountable.

One of the last things my ex said near the end of the relationship was, “I pay good money to be kept off the Internet.” I will never forget that. I thought, “What? That is a strange thing to say.” Now I understand why. He hates that, even though he has never been convicted, we have found a legal way to ensure people know who he is, what he has done, and where he lives — without being sued. He cannot stand that.

I saw how it affected him. Last year, once everything went public, he would play his music at a decibel so high that it would make you want to vomit, disturbing the entire neighbourhood for days. His façade is crumbling. He is not going to be able to lie his way into trapping another woman. He will not be able to lie his way into manipulating his son. He will not be able to lie his way through life anymore.

So now he is stuck with himself — and that must be not very good.

Jacobsen: Regarding the R v. Jordan case (2016), how has that impacted intimate partner violence cases in Canada, particularly case dismissals related to court delays?

Alexander: Oh, it has been lethal. It is one of the worst decisions ever made by the Supreme Court. I understand why they made that decision. On paper, it makes sense — because we should have the right to a speedy trial.

But here is the problem: these are ivory-tower policymakers living in theoretical land, making executive decisions that force people on the ground to suffer immeasurably. An attorney, a survivor, a survivor’s family, or a judge who does not want to go through this process effectively and expeditiously and move on.

The problem is that the Supreme Court put this law in place, and the government did not respond. The Trudeau government did not respond effectively, and neither did the provinces. The system was not equipped to handle legislation like that.

With 50% of the cases in the courts being intimate partner violence, sexual assault, and femicide — 50% — and with 2.5 days out of every 5-day court week dedicated solely to these issues, the foresight should have been there. Many of these cases were inevitably thrown out because of this decision. That was a giant mistake.

R v. Jordan should be undone. It should not have existed until the court systems were ready to handle those deadlines. Even as it stands, it should not apply to serious cases. It should not be weaponized as it is now, where defence counsel intentionally delays the process to push it over the time limit.

I would have waited eight years, twenty years, for my day in court. I would have rather waited that long than have my case thrown out. The emotional and personal impact of that — it rips your heart out. It makes you feel like you are taking crazy pills.

And it is happening ad nauseam. That is what our lawsuit is about. We see it all the time. It is making the streets more dangerous for Canadians everywhere. R v. Jordan should either not exist or should have clear exceptions. There should be a giant asterisk saying it does not apply to sexual assault, intimate partner violence, and femicide cases.

Applying it to traffic infractions or administrative issues is fine. But when it comes to human-on-human crimes involving extreme violence, it absolutely should not apply. It is inhumane. It is unethical.

One of the foundations of our Charter lawsuit is that R v. Jordan contradicts the rest of the Charter and makes it easy for criminals to get out of jail free. It is a nasty decision.

Jacobsen: Your testimony before the Status of Women Committee in the Parliament of Canada had a couple of reactions: one was the standard controversy, another was walkouts. What was that experience like for you, and how did it shape your view of political engagement at the federal level?

Alexander: It was the worst thing that Anita Vandenbeld could have done. It was a continuation of the justice process that I had already experienced. Sadly, I had the emotional placeholder for that type of experience. What Anita did that day — hijacking the meeting — was a visible, public way of saying, “We do not care about survivors. Sit down. Shut up.”

What she did exposed the entire broken system. That is where my gratitude for the media comes in: They captured it and held her accountable in a way that survivors themselves often cannot.

We cannot forget the support of NDP MP Leah Gazan. Her support was crucial in this. If you look at the Zoom meeting, you can see it because Leah was on Zoom, and Anita was in the room. You can see, through Gazan’s paper, the word “abortion” written in big letters. They planned it. They planned to hijack the meeting.

They had no intention of coming in and having a respectful, dignified meeting with decorum. There were also about twenty-five minutes of Leah arguing about whose hand was up first, which followed after Anita’s motion about abortion.

We were sitting there. I was spinning around in the chair. I went and sat with my parents. I went and got a coffee. I was watching them act worse than kindergarten children. That is why we walked out.

It is hard to rank things sometimes, but it was one of the worst feelings. But, again, it was nothing I was not already used to—because that is how the entire system operates. So, I am grateful to Anita for being so blatantly disrespectful. It allowed everyone to see how terrible the Trudeau government has handled things.

I am grateful that my family was there. I am grateful that Megan Walker, the other witness beside me, and I were on the same page. We sat there, staring at each other, thinking, “What are we doing here? This is insane.”

It hurt. It still hurts. I am grateful that Pierre Poilievre has sent over staffers to support us. No one walked out of that room without crying. Adrienne LaRoche from the Bloc was bawling. After the cameras stopped rolling, my mom went over and had a few choice words for Anita. Anita ended up pressing the panic button, and parliamentary security came up. It was ridiculous.

The victim mentality that Anita Vandenbeld tries to project — I have a personal issue with that. It is so abusive what she did. It was textbook gaslighting. It was all the tactics abusers use.

It reminded me of everything — where you are holding up some of the evidence from your case, explaining your story, explaining that you want to change, that these are the problems, asking for an open and honest discussion — and then having someone who thinks they are more powerful than you behave like that.

No. I do not have time for that anymore. I do not need to play in that sandbox. So yes, it was the worst thing she could have done. It was a strange, backhanded gift with a slap in the face.

At what point did Anita Vandenbeld press the panic button? That might be a nuanced question that has not been asked. That was at the end after the camera stopped rolling. So much occurred off-camera that people did not get to see, and that was also problematic because Anita was in a constant state of denial.

Not only was there the planned hijacking between her and Leah Gazan, but more happened after the meeting was adjourned, and we all exited. My dad and I stood outside the room with a few Conservative MPs, Bloc MPs, reporters, and staffers.

Then I heard something — I recognized my mom’s voice. I said, “What’s that?” My dad immediately went back inside. My mom was “mama bearing” — standing up for her daughter and other survivors. She told Anita that what had happened was unacceptable and would be a problem.

My mom is not a violent person by any means, but she had every right to defend her child. What Anita did was wrong. Then Anita pressed the panic button, and parliamentary security showed up. My mom was in tears and said — and it is comical in a way — “You can arrest me.”

They said, “Ma’am, we are not arresting you. You have not done anything wrong. This was just a verbal altercation.” But my mom insisted, “You can arrest me, but you cannot arrest my daughter. She has to go back to America where she will be safe.” I thought, “Oh my God, that is so adorable.” My mom is an elementary school teacher. She follows the rules. But when you reach a certain point, after seeing so much wrongdoing, it just becomes too much.

When you are trying to do the right thing, trying to take care of survivors because no one else seems to understand, and then you see the government behaving like this — I do not even have words for how wrong it was.

What Anita did was bad enough, but the real kicker was what happened afterward. We wrote identical letters to all party leaders—Trudeau, Pierre Poilievre, Yves-François Blanchet, and Jagmeet Singh. We said, “This is what happened. Here is your opportunity to publicly apologize.”

Everyone else responded appropriately—except Trudeau and the Liberals. Anita had ample opportunity. I asked for a public apology and said I would accept it. I even said, “Maybe you had a bad day. I am willing to give you that. I am human, too. I mess up.”

But she would not do it. Instead, she said, “You pulled me from my constituency.” She lives eighteen minutes away from the Wellington Building — eighteen minutes. I flew up from Los Angeles the day before, a fourteen-hour journey. She was eighteen minutes away and made it about herself.

She made herself the victim in the situation. That is textbook gaslighting. 100%. It is exactly what abusers do. There is no respect there. I cannot respect someone who behaves like that. If she were ever to come forward and apologize, I would accept it. I would extend the olive branch and move on. But until then, there is no respect left.

I believe in being able to cross party lines and communicate with people you disagree with. But you have to own your mistakes in that process. She does not, and I cannot respect her for that.

Jacobsen: Why are rural girls and women at higher risk of femicide than urban girls?

Alexander: I was also born into a smaller community. There is a lack of resources and support, less to do, fewer entertainment options, and fewer services. Isolating someone in a rural community is much easier than in a city.

I am not saying people who live in rural communities are uneducated—look at my parents—but there might not be as strong a social services network, education systems, or schools nearby. Isolation is a big one. It is much easier to isolate someone on a farm or small town than in an urban setting. My full town would have been twenty minutes across.

Jacobsen: You have been covered in a podcast, Global News, CTV News, a Star Gala fundraising article, Toronto Life, and a Global News report. You were again on The Voice of Women podcast, CBTV News, and Global News.

Of all those — including Le Monde — which one has been the most “newsy”? By that, I mean objective, fair, and evidence-based in reporting your case specifically or broader issues like IPV, femicide, or SA, where you spoke as an expert.

Alexander: The most in-depth one was the Toronto Life article. That was an hours-long interview process with the amazing Andrea Yu, who ghostwrote it. Plus, there was a full photo shoot. The whole team at Toronto Life — Rad Novak and everyone — was so lovely.

That piece was the most personal because of its structure. But overall, over 80 different news outlets and independent podcasts have covered this in the past year. It has been everybody.

I am fortunate to have known some of these people before, and those relationships have only strengthened. They have all been amazing. Through the Canadian Press, Liam Casey at Queen’s Park has been awesome. Cynthia Mulligan at CityTV—I have a special place in my heart for her. She is wonderful. CTV has had us on a few times.

My friends at Northern Perspective, Ryan and Tanya, have been great. Daryl Greer at The Globe on the West Coast did a really strong piece on R v. Jordan. Even the smaller outlets have been incredible. People in Sault Ste. Marie—Elaine, and Kenneth at The Sault Today—have been covering this nonstop.

Toronto Star has covered many of our events and featured us on their podcast. Everyone has been amazing, and I am grateful for that. I do not know if there is one outlet that stands out as more journalistic than the others.

The truth is, there is not much to argue about in these stories. It would be nice if the government recognized that and legislated accordingly. They need to address that.

If they could keep track of how many cases they stay, it would expose the size of the problem. But we do not know that number because no one must count it. The other thing is that these issues are not difficult to understand. The nature of the violence and discomfort is difficult, but figuring out what is going wrong is not some deep, complex mystery. It is obvious. We have a bad justice system in Canada. Everyone covering this has done a great job. I truly have no complaints.

Jacobsen: Speaking not from a Canadian legal-geography perspective but more from a regional or international one — what rights documents or national laws could be applied to pressure Canada to create a more robust legal and justice system?

Alexander: I am starting my American podcast tour this week, so I have been thinking about this a lot. There are many pages Canada could take from the U.S. playbook.

We should have more expeditious trials. We should be able to get to trial within sixty to ninety days. I do not think the Charter should be used as it currently is to prevent that, but we need faster timelines. We need to fund the justice system. That is one of the biggest problems — maybe the biggest. Yes, that falls under provincial responsibility, too, but it needs to happen urgently.

We need to repeal R v. Jordan or at least amend it. We also need to repeal Section 278, which allows the defence counsel and the accused to subpoena all personal records of the survivor—even private journals. That law makes survivors incredibly vulnerable. We need to get rid of Bill C-75. That should be first. It needs to go.

Australia created a Department for the Prevention of Male Violence — not the exact name, but something along those lines. Canada needs something similar. We need to understand these problems from the abuser’s perspective and start addressing the root causes. But the start — the absolute minimum — is to have a good justice system. That is essential right now. Prevention is important, yes. But we deal daily with criminals who are being caught, released, and reoffending immediately. So we need immediate action.

We need to make our judges work. Right now, they take extensive holidays. The court starts at 10:00 a.m., and then there is about an hour of setup and procedural stuff.

Then, they take a fifteen-minute recess, usually twenty to twenty-five minutes when everyone is seated again. Then you have another hour of proceedings, then a ninety-minute lunch. Then, you return for the afternoon session, take another recess, and the court wraps up around 4:00 or 4:30 p.m.

So they are working four hours a day. No wonder these cases get pushed over. They are not even putting in a full day of work. Our two-hour podcast is half a day’s work compared to what they do in court daily. They need to get to work.

I am sorry. Enough is enough. We need to have stricter penalties. We cannot be letting murderers out. Nope. That is not acceptable. Carla Homolka should still be in jail. What happened there is so wrong. We need to support the police officers in what they are doing. Canadians need to get over themselves and recognize what is happening.

It does not mean we need to be shamed, blamed, or hate ourselves, but we do need to recognize the reality. We need to move past the well-marketed ideology of being the country of maple syrup, hockey players, and polar bears—that wonderful caricature we like to play of ourselves.

But we have to understand: this is serious. And if we do not turn the page soon, we will have a bigger problem than we already have. Those changes can happen quickly if we have the right people in place and if we listen. There is no point in arguing about this or studying it further. We need to move.

Jacobsen: How was the Moving Affair Gala on October 24, 2024, at the Four Seasons in Toronto, where you raised $600,000 for survivors with Shelter Movers?

Alexander: Thank you. Shelter Movers is an amazing organization. It is a national charity that helps survivors physically move out of abusive situations, safely moving all of their belongings. Shelter Movers provides a specific, essential, and much-needed service right now.

The gala was beautiful. Jennifer Bassett—a world-class event planner and a fabulous human—organized it. It was an impactful, moving night. That was the first time I wanted to bring this cause into the mainstream gala circuit because it has not been there. There are many important causes, such as SickKids, Telehealth, Boost for Kids, and cancer research.

Those are all essential causes that deserve attention. But we also have this issue — domestic violence and survivor support — and it needs to be raised to the same level where we can bring in major funding. It costs much money to run these initiatives. It costs megabucks. That is just reality.

We need more people willing to support these initiatives — not just through awareness or writing their politicians, though essential — but also by donating if they can. It is about helping good people rebuild their lives without abuse. It was awesome to work with Shelter Movers. It was a pivotal event. Everybody in that room knew why they were there.

Of course, the Four Seasons is a beautiful venue, but beyond that, it was a special, deep, impactful evening.

Jacobsen: Would you prefer to talk about quotes or being the lead plaintiff?

Alexander: Let’s talk about the Charter case, which is important for people to know about.

Jacobsen: As lead plaintiff in a $15,000,000 lawsuit against the federal government for Charter rights violations, what are the key points people should know?

Alexander: This lawsuit is based on injustice in the justice system — which, sadly, has become the norm. Very few people get justice in the justice system. That is why I call it the injustice system. This Charter lawsuit is unprecedented. It is the first of its kind in Canadian history. Catherine Marshall is leading it — a phenomenal litigator — and her entire team, who have been doing this pro bono at no cost to survivors.

The case is based largely on the Jordan decision issues, where all the plaintiffs experienced some form of Jordan time-out — meaning they were not allowed justice because of delays — thereby infringing on our Section 7 Charter rights: safety, liberty, and freedom.

There are other issues within the case as well. For instance, in my case, my ex was let out on bail the next day for $500 — completely unacceptable. We have plaintiffs who lost their daughters needlessly to intimate partner violence, again tied to Bill C-75.

Of course, we are asking for a financial award because survivors deserve it. Every good civil lawsuit seeks fiscal damages. However, the major purpose of this lawsuit is to hold the government accountable for failing survivors — for failing to provide justice, which is their job.

No one else can fix the system except the government. Survivors and citizens do not have that power. Part of our ask is for them to repeal these bad laws, amend others, create new legislation, and enforce the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights — because while it exists, the way it is currently written nullifies itself.

They have written all this beautiful language about victims, but in the fine print, they say it does not have to be enforced. Therefore, it isn’t very sensible. We are holding the government accountable for that. We will not have a formal response to the lawsuit until after the election because we do not have a government right now.

We launched the suit, knowing this is a nonpartisan issue. Whoever wins the election will inherit the lawsuit. We want to work with all parties to fix these issues because they are nonpartisan. We are very much looking forward to the government’s response. We are also adding more plaintiffs because more people have come forward — and unfortunately, most cases have major problems like these.

We are proud to have put this work together to try to improve things for Canadians and to set a new tone and precedent.

Jacobsen: Kate, thank you for today’s opportunity and time. I appreciate your expertise, and it is nice to reconnect.

Alexander: Thank you so much, Scott. I appreciate it.

Jacobsen: You are welcome. 

Alexander: Thanks so much. I hope you have a good rest of your day.

Jacobsen: You too. Take care.

Alexander: Bye.

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.