Feminist Research Education Development and Action Centre Reports Index

The FREDA Centre for Research on Violence against Women and Children The Denial of Race in the Murder of Reena Virk Yasmin Jiwani, Ph.D. April 2000 This article appeared in the May 2000 edition of Kinesis: News About Women That's Not in the Dailies. On April 20, 2000, Madame Justice Nancy Morrison sentenced Kelly Ellard, convicted of the murder of Reena Virk, to parole eligibility in 5 years. Ellard was convicted of second-degree murder by a jury on March 31, 2000. The jury made no recommendations regarding parole eligibility. In her sentencing decision, Judge Morrison stated: "The motive was not racism." In so doing, the judge highlighted the narrow interpretations of racism that informed this particular case and factors that contributed to its erasure. In her decision, Judge Morrison portrayed Ellard as a person who loves animals, had positive and caring relationships with her family and friends, and posed a low risk to society in general. By implication, the judge was suggesting that racists don't love animals, have no positive relations with others, and pose a high risk in terms of criminal behaviour. To confine racism to just these types of individuals removes the onus of recognizing the systemic nature of racism. It deflects attention from the inequalities and power differentials perpetuated by racism - across and within gender lines. It ultimately safeguards the actions of Kelly Ellard as the actions of white girl from a privileged class background who happened to hang out with the wrong crowd. As a result of their influence, she happened to kill Reena Virk, a 14-year-old girl of South Asian origin. The sheer brutality of the murder was rendered insignificant by the judge's decision. The decision also reflected that despite the numerous educational initiatives directed at the judiciary - the understanding of race and racism is appalling. The FREDA Centre and Justice for Girls were present for the duration of the 17-day trial, and observed the full proceedings. The intent was to document the ways in which issues of race, class, gender, and age played out in the courtroom and influenced the ways in which the story of Reena Virk was understood and framed in a legal context. An additional purpose was to observe the ways in which young witnesses - and particularly young women - were treated by the court. In all, 32 witnesses were called and of the 358 exhibits collected in the course of the murder investigation, 30 were presented to the jury. Of the 32 witnesses who testified, 4 were involved in the beating of Reena Virk. In total, we heard the testimonies of 16 young people who were either in the vicinity or present at the beating; experts who identified the body; signs of injury; the weather at the time; and police officers involved in the investigation. On the night of November 14, 1997, Reena Virk was attacked by a group of 7 girls and 1 boy in a small suburb of Victoria, BC. After enduring a terrible beating, Reena Virk staggered across a bridge in an attempt to get home. She was followed by Kelly Ellard and Warren Glowatski, told to take off her shoes and jacket, and then viciously beaten again to the point of unconsciousness. Ellard and Glowatski then dragged her body to a waterway known as "the Gorge," where she struggled for life. Ellard held her foot over Reena's head until she drowned. Glowatski was convicted of second degree murder last year. Neither Ellard nor Glowatski knew Reena Virk - they had only met her that night. According to the pathologist's testimony, the injuries Reena suffered that night would have killed her even if she had not been dragged to the water and drowned. She noted that Virk had been kicked 18 times in the head and her internal injuries were so severe as to result in tissues being crushed between the abdomen and backbone. She added that the injuries were similar to those that would result from a car being driven over a body. Flattening the Analysis: Focusing on "Girl-on-Girl" Violence This brutal killing sparked a moral panic across the nation. Even in international circles, the story of Reena Virk came to symbolize the purported trend of growing violence among and by girls. This panic continues to escalate despite research which demonstrates that aggravated assault by girls is statistically low - having increased by approximately 4% over the last five year period - and this statistic doesn't take into consideration the increase in the population of girls, the issues that underpin violence, or the fact that approximately 75% of the cases involving violent crimes committed by youth are by young males. Further, according to research cited by Professor Reitsma-Street less than 4 in every 100,000 girls are charged for aggravated assaults, and that most charges against girls are for non-compliance or property offences. Neither does the moral panic take into consideration the real and perceived differences among girls - differences based on race, class, sexual orientation, or disability. Instead, the notion of the universal girl or the generic girl tends to frame the discussion on girl-on-girl violence. Yet, as Sheila Batacharya points out in her thesis on the story of Reena Virk, race has always been a factor in how girls and women treat other girls and women. The history of colonial encounters between white women and women of colour is a case in point. And the legacy of colonialism lives on and is apparent in the hierarchical nature of Canadian society. Using a frame of "girl-on-girl" violence then, serves to deflect attention from the alarming rates of male violence that girls and young women experience and takes attention away from the inequalities among girls. It also makes the issue a safer one to talk about because there is no room to discuss race, class, sexuality or any other form of systemic inequality. Gender becomes the focal point. The denial of race as being a factor in this case was often predicated on the notion that because other girls of colour were involved in the first beating, there was no racism. It was quickly forgotten that both Glowatski and Ellard were white - and that they had been instrumental in Reena's death. Similarly, Reena's mother's statements about the racism Reena endured and that racism was a factor in her tragic death, were never touched on in the courtroom. Yet, in Warren Glowatski's trial one of the witnesses mentioned that Warren had a beef against South Asians because of what "they" had done to one of his friends. In another instance, a witness recounted that Glowatski had said at first that he had beaten up a native man. What became apparent in observing the Kelly Ellard trial was that the native man that Glowatski first claimed to have beaten up was a member of native gang in Victoria called the "Bloods." However, the interchangeability of beating up a native man and killing a South Asian girl were issues that were never explored by either Crown counsel or defence counsel in the Ellard or Glowatski trials. In similar manner, the issue of why a lit cigarette was stubbed out on Reena's forehead was never considered or framed as a sign of racism. This erasure was effective because it served to explain the action as one of physical violence alone motivated by a sentiment of retaliation. The retaliation being based on Reena having violated confidentiality in her relationship with one of the girls by taking her telephone book and making phone calls and telling stories. But in looking at this action within a historical frame, it is apparent that in cases involving similar acts of brutality, injuries like this one tend to be directed to those parts of the body that are either not visible to others or that are only visible to the person being injured. For example, in cases involving torture, cigarette burns tend to be on the victim's arms, fingers or hands - where they themselves can see the action. In situations of intimate violence, injuries tend to be on those parts of the body that are not visible to others outside the situation. To butt a lit cigarette on the forehead was a definite way of marking Reena's cultural identity as a South Asian girl. In observing the Kelly Ellard trial, it was interesting to see that though there was no mention of the racism that Reena experienced, race was an ever present theme in the courtroom. In describing Reena's body hair, which was immaterial to this case, the Crown commented how excessive body hair is common to particular racial groups. In contrast, in descriptions of Kelly Ellard, the phrase of how "white" she is was used both by defence counsel and by the defence's witnesses. Ellard's whiteness contrasted not only with Reena's darkness but also alluded to her innocence (or purity). This was in sharp contrast to identifiers that were used to mark some of the other young witnesses that were called to the stand. The only young Aboriginal man (FT - his initials) to appear as a Crown witness, was described by the defence as "drunken FT" and by Crown counsel as a "practiced drinker." This young man was immediately asked how much he had drunk that night and how it might have influenced his perception of seeing Ellard wet to her waist. A young black woman who testified was singled out for her "bad character" and past criminality and was constructed by the defence to be the real murderer. Yet, she was the only young woman to have had a friendship with Reena. Class and Credibility Credibility, we observed, was based on appearance, demeanor, criminal record, professional status, the ways in which the witnesses articulated their responses, and the certainty with which they answered the questions directed to them. Legitimacy was ascribed to those behaviours and characteristics rooted in and reflective of a middle-class background. We found that while adults were considered more credible - because of their age, profession, and status in society - young people and especially young women were often discredited on the stand. Their records were brought up by the defence, and though many showed remorse and some had actually changed their lives, for the most part these witnesses were stripped of their dignity and treated rather contemptuously by both Crown and defence counsels. Even being a participant in an anger management course was taken by defence counsel as an indication of lack of credibility. The defence counsel's explicit suggestion that many of the young witnesses were liars, combined with the rigorous interrogation they were subjected to, raised issues for us regarding fairness of treatment and how such interrogation could actually facilitate the giving of a more accurate testimony. One poignant example regarding the lack of credibility of young witnesses can be seen from the treatment of GO. She was a young woman of colour who had turned herself in after a warrant was issued for her arrest because of her non-compliance with the subpoena requiring her presence as a witness in this case. GO entered the courtroom in youth detention garb - sweats - without shoes. She was clearly distressed, rocking back and forth while answering the questions directed to her by counsel. She spoke softly and often inaudibly. She broke down crying, and the judge ordered a recess until the next day to give her time to look over her police statement so that she could better answer the questions. Contrast this to the presence of Mrs. Karen Ellard or her friend Tammy Brown - the defence's witnesses. Both were white and from middle-class backgrounds. Both were well-dressed. Both answered questions directed at them and appeared composed on the stand, and both spoke clearly and in a well-articulated tone. One could argue that GO had a criminal record, was brought in from detention, etc. However, Warren Glowatski - already convicted for his role in the murder of Reena Virk - appeared twice, in both instances without the jury present. While he was first dressed in prison sweats, in his subsequent appearance, he was dressed in his own clothes. In contrast to GO, Warren Glowatski had some choice as to whether to testify or not - he chose not to and now faces a contempt of court hearing and a possible sentence which would be served concurrently with his life sentence. GO had no choice - she had a warrant out for her arrest. The only instances in which young people were considered credible dealt with the defence's three witnesses: Kelly Ellard herself; JB, a young woman whom the defence described as having turned her life around; and SL, a young man who worked part-time at a hotel. Working at a hotel, going to college, and being well-dressed - these were the signs of class and these were the signs used to demonstrate credibility. Interestingly, it was only in the case of Kelly Ellard that defence counsel pointed to the stress that a witness experiences in giving testimony. Further, the defence reminded the jury that they were to "bear in mind that she is in Grade 11 because she will be cross-examined by an experienced prosecutor who has more years of experience than she has been in school." That same issue was never raised by the Crown with regard to its young witnesses. Nor were aspects of their lives brought in to contextualize their behaviour. These contextual features are extremely relevant when one considers the sheer range of violence that is experienced by young women today. More than half of Canadian girls and young women have experienced some form of violence. Add to this the effects of poverty; of being in foster care where statistics reveal that 43% have been abused; or the effects of race and disability. Another instance which demonstrates the lack of importance paid to contextual factors can be seen in the treatment of CK - another young woman who testified. The Crown had alerted defence counsel one month prior to the trial that CK was familiar with defence counsel Adrian Brooks and had negative associations about him. The Crown requested that rather than Brooks, the cross-examination be conducted by defence counsel Mark Jette. On the day CK was to testify, the Crown discovered that despite this request, Brooks insisted that he conduct the cross-examination. The Crown appealed to Judge Morrison pointing out that cross-examination by Brooks would jeopardize the witness's ability to provide accurate testimony. The Crown presented as witness CK's aunt who is now her foster mom. The aunt relayed that when CK was about six-and-a-half years old she had witnessed her mother shooting her father. Brooks had been involved in defending the mother, and the mother had taken CK with her into hiding. CK was subsequently found in what appeared to be a drug-den, ill-clothed and ill-fed. She had vivid memories of this and associated Brooks with what she had experienced and witnessed. Despite this telling evidence, the judge ordered Brooks to proceed with the cross-examination on the grounds that witnesses could not dictate to the court. The defence could have conducted the cross-examination in an alternative manner - by having the witness in another room and the examination conducted via video camera. However, this did not occur. Explaining the Murder The Crown's explanation of the murder fit the "common sense" explanation - that these were a group of teenagers from a suburb in a small town who were bound by a code of loyalty. That code of loyalty made Ellard and Glowatski follow Reena Virk to ensure that she didn't "rat" on the others who had beaten her up. This one-dimensional explanation was countered by another one-dimensional explanation by defence counsel who argued that Ellard was innocent and had been framed by Glowatski in concert with others. The defence further argued that rather than Ellard, the girl who killed Reena Virk was none other than the only friend she had in that group. The Crown never put forth the position that violence is about power and dominance, and that the hierarchical relations within the group were predicated on notions of belonging and power, which in turn influenced the vulnerability of those who did not belong and had no power. Reena did not belong - she was an outsider who was visibly different - and she had no power. Her difference, negatively valued as it was, made her an easy target - a target that could be erased without any fear of repercussions. Aftermath In light of the circumstantial evidence presented in this case, the perceived lack of credibility of the young people who testified, and the judge's acquiescence to defence counsel's objections and requests, it was surprising that the jury came up with a guilty verdict. As observers, our opinion is that this was a verdict not a victory. The verdict undoubtedly sent a strong message that violence of this magnitude will not be condoned. However, the issue of incarcerating young women continues to haunt us as does the reality that there are many other Reena Virks out there, as there are Kelly Ellards and Warren Glowatskis. More than anything, this case reminds us once again, how age, race, class, age and sexuality intersect to make some girls and young women more vulnerable to violence than others. It also underscores the reality that violence is about power and power manifests itself in terms of race and class privilege, as well as heterosexuality and ability. Race, class, and gender, were aspects that Judge Morrison shared with Kelly Ellard. To that extent she was able to relate to Ellard as another human being, almost as if Ellard could have been her own daughter. Ellard, herself, never related to Reena Virk in that way - despite the commonalities of age and gender. Yasmin Jiwani is the executive coordinator and principal researcher at the FREDA Centre for Research on Violence against Women and Children. She would like to acknowledge the input and assistance of: Brenna Bhandar, Alexandra Bordon, Zara Suleman, Sunera Thobani, and Annabel Webb.