Jackie Jones, Jeanne Sarson, and Linda MacDonald 45 ment of their torture pain, suffering, and humiliation is important in ending powerlessness and social isolation. Healing benefits happen with the right to legally denounce non-State torturers. Smith and Boyles (2009) and Bettinger-Lόpez (2008) identify denunciation as providing therapeu­ tic rehabilitation for women. Denunciation helps prevent socio-legal secondary re-victimization when non-State torture suffered is truthfully acknowledged, preventing an erosion of dignity, pro­ moting social inclusion, and alleviating social exclusion, which mires women in their suffering (Phillips, 2011). No regard was given to Special Rapporteur Mendez’s 2016 report on Gender Perspectives on Torture, which states that it is the act committed rather than who committed the act that helps advance legal non-discriminatory human rights equality. Also ignored were United Nations reso­ lutions aimed at eliminating the discriminatory operationalization of the UNCAT and Committee against Torture (2008), as well as General Comments that Canada was failing to exercise due dil­ igence to prevent, investigate, prosecute, and punish non-State torturers consistently with the UNCAT. Thus, Canada or its officials were considered to be consenting or acquiescing to impermis­ sible, ongoing acts. Back in 2005, a Government of Canada report said that discriminatory attitudes underlie gendered violence, referring to equality promoted in the UDHR and specifically quot­ ing the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom principles of fundamental justice, which guarantees equality before and under the law in addition to equal protection and benefit of the law for all. This was not acted upon by the Standing Committee for the women identified seeking social and legal access to justice, specifically for the human right crime of non-State torture. We repeat: How will women ever earn legal credibility if they are forever denied legal justice to name and speak of the non-State torture crimes they have suffered? Naming a specific crime—nonState torture—would create factual evidence identifying specific data about such a crime. Naming non-State torture would also eliminate impunity afforded to non-State torturers, and expand understanding that non-State torture victimization exists in the private sphere. This understanding would help to improve the skills of law enforcement officers, legal practitioners, child protection workers, and health professionals. It would therefore improve women’s safety and the develop­ ment of non-State torture victimization-traumatization informed interventions, which are of ulti­ mate importance in ensuring women’s legal credibility and reliability. In the end, the Members of the Standing Committee unanimously voted to defeat Bill C-242 (2016c). Reporting to the Parliament of Canada (n.d.), the Chair of the Standing Committee rein­ forced the use of euphemisms by stating that existing provisions of aggravated assault and aggra­ vated sexual assault can deal with non-State torture violations. The Standing Committee (2016c) sent a letter to the Honourable Jody Wilson-Raybould, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, asking that the issue be considered when addressing her mandate of updating the Criminal Code of Canada. In her capacity, Minister Wilson-Raybould is responsible for the administration of justice, including human rights law and private international law, addressing gaps, and keeping survivors and children safe (Trudeau, n.d.). However, Minister Wilson-Raybould’s perspective is State-centric; she writes: [T]he existing specific offence of torture is meant to deter the infliction of pain and suf­ fering by persons acting on behalf of a state for state purposes such as obtaining infor­ mation or a confession. . . . This policy was set by the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment . . . . (J. Wilson-Raybould, personal communication, January 09, 2016).