War reorganizes gender-based violence and violence against women.

When we read Labor Amid Displacement: How Lebanon’s Midwives are Carrying Expecting Mothers Through War, we cried. We connected deeply and profoundly with the realities being described, and with the broader struggle facing women and girls in regions living under bombardment, genocide, sanctions, and militarized violence.

We know how hard it is for women and girls under patriarchy. What we are witnessing now is that reality intensified under deep violations of international law and a growing lawlessness permeating the globe, where women and girls face unique and compounding harms.

The article discusses Lebanon, and it could speak to many region, Sudan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Palestine, Afghanistan under the Taliban, Venezuela, and Cuba, as we see how militarized violence, state policies, and structural conditions reshape risk for women and girls, including those carrying pregnancies through displacement, disrupted care, and conditions shaped by war and militarized violence.

Midwives are stepping in as systems fracture, providing care to thousands of displaced pregnant women as access to healthcare collapses and births happen on the move.
What should be a time of support becomes a negotiation with fear, uncertainty, bombardment, and survival. Women are expected to manage stress that is known to harm their babies while living through conditions that make that impossible.

Care does not disappear.
Instead, it is pushed onto those with the least resources to carry it.

The work of holding life continues, often carried by women themselves.
This is one of the conditions that produces gender-based violence.

The forms are different as is the scale and the histories/herstories are unique to each region also. However, the pattern is clear.
At BWSS, we work in a different context, here in Canada and we see this pattern in another form. When women attempt to leave violence, they encounter systems that are out of reach or not built for their safety. Housing, healthcare, income, and legal protection determine whether safety is possible, the impacts of racism, misogyny, experiences of powerlessness to change the material conditions of their lives and the lives of their children.

We are a small anti-violence organization in Vancouver, doing our work here and we remain in solidarity with women and girls everywhere navigating militarized, state conditioned violence, genocide, patriarchal violence, relationship violence.

Safety is not what remains when violence stops.
It is what exists when the conditions for life are in place.

Anti-violence organization calls for accountability following charges against sitting MLA

Vancouver, B.C. – Recent reporting confirms that Richmond Centre MLA Hon Chan has been charged with assault, assault by choking, and uttering threats in an alleged case of intimate partner violence. The reported timeline is clear: an incident in January 2024, an election in October 2024, a special prosecutor appointed in June 2025, and charges laid in March 2026.

This is not simply a sequence of events. It is a sequence in which known risk moved through systems without interruption.

What was known, when it was known, and what was done with that knowledge remains the central question.

The appointment of a special prosecutor signals that the matter reached a level of seriousness well before charges were laid. This raises critical questions about how information was assessed, where it moved, and why it did not produce earlier action across systems, including those responsible for public office and public safety.

We hope the victim in this case is receiving the support and protection needed, especially given the added weight of high-profile exposure. Experiencing high-risk violence is already dangerous; navigating it in the public eye can deepen the harm and isolation.

The charges themselves are not incidental because strangulation is one of the clearest predictors of homicide in cases of intimate partner violence. Threats are indicators of escalation and control so together, they represent high-risk, high-lethality violence that requires immediate intervention.

Yet once high-risk violence enters formal systems, it is often contained rather than acted upon. Decision-making shifts toward what can be managed instead of what must be stopped so often reputational considerations move quickly and the safety and accountability does not.

This case reflects a broader structural issue that intimate partner violence continues to be treated as separate from public safety, even when the indicators of lethal risk are well established. As a result, risk can move through investigative processes, oversight mechanisms, and public institutions without triggering coordinated action.

The fact that this case involves a sitting member of the Legislative Assembly raises an additional level of concern. It calls into question whether existing standards and protocols are sufficient when high-risk violence intersects with public responsibility and leadership.

Intimate partner violence is not rare, it exists across all sectors, including among those in positions of authority. What distinguishes this moment is not the presence of violence, but the presence of known risk indicators and the absence of interruption.

So, in this case, at a minimum, someone facing charges of this seriousness should step aside while the matter is before the courts. Public office requires trust, and that trust includes women and survivors who must be able to see themselves as safe and represented. 

British Columbia is already overrepresented in femicides. Shelters are at capacity. Requests for service continue to rise. These are not isolated pressures. They are evidence of a broader environment in which risk is not being acted on early enough.

“Strangulation is a known predictor of femicide. Said Angela Marie MacDougall, executive director, BWSS, “When that level of risk is managed as information instead of acted on, the danger is being minimized.”

“What was known, when it was known, and what was done with that knowledge is the measure of whether public safety exists in practice.” She continued, “This is not about awareness. It is about what happens after awareness. Risk is being contained instead of interrupted.”

Public safety cannot be defined only by what happens after charges are laid. It must be defined by what happens when risk becomes known.

Until the questions of what was known, when it was known, and why it did not result in action are answered, this cannot be understood as an isolated case.

Domestic violence is often framed as an issue associated with poverty, instability, or social disadvantage. While economic stress can certainly intensify violence, this narrative obscures an important reality: abuse occurs across all social classes.

In affluent communities, violence may be less visible not because it is absent, but because social structures work to contain it. Reputation, professional status, and community standing can create powerful incentives to maintain silence. Survivors may fear the consequences of disclosure, damage to family image, loss of social networks, or public scrutiny.

At the same time, abusers in positions of influence often benefit from credibility and institutional trust. Professionals, community leaders, and respected figures may be assumed to be incapable of violence. This assumption can discourage survivors from seeking help and can shape how institutions respond when allegations emerge.

Privilege does not eliminate violence. In some contexts, it can create additional barriers to recognizing and addressing it. Understanding how class operates in these situations is essential to challenging the myths that allow abuse to remain hidden.

A feminist analysis recognizes that violence against women is not simply a private problem. It is shaped by social norms, power structures, and systems that influence whose experiences are believed and whose are dismissed.

Across British Columbia, many survivors of intimate partner violence are making decisions about their safety while navigating housing shortages, financial instability, and limited access to childcare. Leaving violence is not simply a personal decision, the systems around us shape what is possible.

In this Global News report, BWSS Executive Director Angela Marie MacDougall explains how these conditions affect the choices survivors face when seeking safety.
When safe housing is scarce and supports are difficult to access, leaving violence becomes far more complicated and more dangerous.

At Battered Women’s Support Services, we see these realities every day through crisis support, counselling, legal advocacy, and second-stage housing. Supporting survivors is essential, but it is only part of the work. We must also change the conditions that shape safety.

Policies on housing, childcare, and economic stability are not separate from violence prevention. They directly influence whether survivors can leave abuse and rebuild their lives.
This story also includes perspectives from $10 a Day Childcare advocate Sharon Gregson and BC Minister of Housing Christine Boyle, reflecting how housing and childcare policy intersect with survivor safety.

As British Columbia debates housing, childcare, and provincial budget priorities, these decisions have real consequences for survivors seeking safety.
Safety is never accidental because it is shaped by the systems around us.

Escalation is not accidental. It is often a pattern rooted in control.

Many survivors describe how abuse changes over time, increased monitoring, stricter rules, threats that grow more explicit, or the first acts of physical violence. These shifts are not isolated moments; they can signal that an abusive partner is trying to reinforce power when they feel control slipping away.

Escalation may look like intimidation, isolation from friends or family, dismissal of boundaries, or threats toward children or pets. What begins as pressure or emotional manipulation can become more dangerous when control is challenged.

Understanding escalation helps us move away from questions like “Why didn’t they leave sooner?” and toward recognizing how coercive control operates in real life. Survivors are not responsible for the choices of an abusive partner, and safety is not a single decision, but a process shaped by many factors.

The good news is that escalation patterns can be recognized. Support, advocacy, and trauma and violence-informed safety planning can make a difference.

If you or someone you know is experiencing escalation or feeling unsafe, BWSS offers confidential support, legal advocacy, safety planning, and support groups.