46 GENDER PERSPECTIVES ON TORTURE: Law and Practice Canada’s Fall as a Human Rights Global Leader Canada’s actions to legally misname non-State torture as another crime, such as aggravated assault, to reject United Nations resolutions that encourage the Committee against Torture to prac­ tice human rights non-discrimination by becoming inclusive of gender-sensitive manifestations of violence that amount to torture, to ignore that soft law sets standards of conduct not completely lacking legal significance, and to refuse to consider evolving international law standards that address due diligence in a gender-sensitive manner mean that Canada is no longer a human rights global leader working to eliminate all forms of violence against women and girls. Canada can be considered as contributing to societal and legal human rights regression, both nationally and internationally. Gender-based violence is pandemic, and over the past three decades has become increasingly acknowledged as fundamental discrimination (Manjoo, 2011; for an overview of early attempts by other UN bodies see Chinkin, 2012). For a society to progress, it must confront violence against women (Arendt, 1970; Hudson, Ballif-Spanvill, & Caprioli, 2012; Study of the SecretaryGeneral, 2006), including non-State torture victimization in the domestic or private sphere. Feminist movements are key to such policy transformation (Htun & Weldon, 2012). To develop, Canada must acknowledge that women, who as infants and developing children, were persons who incurred substantial impairment of their human rights when subjected to torture by non-State actors. Canada must adhere to the fundamental and legal human rights principle of non-discrim­ ination that specifically names non-State torture as a crime. This ensures that women are equal before the law. If access to such justice is denied, they must be able to bring before the Committee against Torture acts of torture that have been inflicted by non-State actors, as women who have suffered acts of State inflicted torture do. To the Future: International Law and A New International Legally Binding Treaty As Cook wrote in 1994, “International human rights law has not yet been applied effectively to redress the disadvantages and injustices experienced by women by reason only of their being women” (p. 3). This chapter has presented direct and lengthy evidence that Cook’s statement is still true today. It has also presented compelling evidence in support of the legal obligation of States to fulfill their international law obligations for violence against women and girls subject to non-State torture. Equally, States are responsible for their omissions and failures to take positive measures to protect and promote rights (Ashworth & Zedner, 2014, chapter 1; see generally Crawford & Olleson, 2014, chapter 15; Study of the Secretary-General, 2006; Walby, 1990, p. 150). International obligations must be transposed into the national legal system. This includes passing and properly implementing normative instruments that outlaw violence and prosecute perpetrators. Interpreting normative instruments in a ‘gender-inclusive manner’ would be a step in the right direction. However, laws that purport to be gender-neutral, but are in fact gender-blind, do not fulfil international law obligations (Romany, 1994). Once States are aware of a pattern of violence against women by non-State actors, their due diligence obligations are engaged. General Recommendation No. 2 of the UN Committee against Torture clearly states that if a State is indifferent or inactive it provides “a form of encouragement and/or de facto permission” (para. 18). That is gender-blind­ ness in action, and is not acceptable (see Dzemajil v. Yugoslavia 2002). To date, Canada has failed in its obligations to protect women and girls from non-State torture violence. Additionally, because