OPINION: Intimate partner violence is not a women's issue – where are the men?
Failing to name the crisis prevents us from confronting it with the urgency it demands. Every 48 hours, a woman in Canada is killed by her partner. This isn't rhetoric — it's reality.
In December 2024, a 23-year-old woman thought she was safe after leaving her abusive ex. But he returned, forced her into a car and drove it into the freezing Richelieu River before swimming away. She survived, but many aren't as lucky.
Prominent journalist Sally Armstrong's provocative question: 'Where are the men?' strikes at the heart of the issue. IPV is too often labelled a 'women's issue,' placing responsibility on victims rather than addressing the root cause: Violence enacted by men. Women cannot end IPV alone.
Declaring IPV an epidemic isn't semantic; it's a public health approach that frames violence as systemic, societal and preventable. In 2022, Canada's federal government launched a 10-year National Action Plan on Gender-Based Violence, focused on prevention, survivors, justice, community-led solutions and social support. Ontario received $162 million in federal funding and pledged $1.4 billion over four years, with programs ranging from IPV-focused training for judges and education for high school coaches to promote healthy relationships among male athletes. At the municipal level, Toronto has declared IPV an epidemic, building on programs like the IPV Action Plan and SafeTO's Community Safety and Well-Being Plan, but the action remains fragmented and under-resourced.
Each day, about 699 women and 236 children in Canada are denied access to domestic violence shelters. This crisis forces survivors into an impossible choice – returning to their abuser or facing homelessness. The lack of immediate options underscores the urgent need for increased investment in shelter capacity and survivor support. No one should endure further harm because they have nowhere to go.
IPV is rooted in power dynamics among men. Until men, especially those in leadership, speak up and act, change is stalled. We need men to be unequivocal: IPV is unacceptable and silence is complicity. Just as Bell's Let's Talk campaign shifted the conversation on mental health, corporations can lead public education efforts and business leaders can use their platforms to drive cultural change. We also need faith leaders to challenge harmful norms in their congregations and sports organizations to adopt respect and consent as foundational values.
As immediate next steps, we must:
• Declare IPV an epidemic in Ontario and across Canada to reflect its scale and urgency; • Embed comprehensive education on respect, consent and intervention in schools, universities and workplaces; • Expand shelter capacity with sustained funding so that when survivors seek help, no one is turned away; • Define clear metrics, timelines and public reporting across all levels of government; • Launch targeted public education campaigns that engage men as active allies and leaders.
It's impossible to ignore the growing crisis of IPV. In the past three months, six women in the Maritimes have been killed.
The tragic deaths of these women — mothers, daughters, and friends — underscore the deadly consequences of inaction.
Their deaths are a direct result of warning signs being ignored, systems failing to intervene and a lack of comprehensive support for survivors. We can no longer afford to wait for another tragedy to mobilize us.
If we are serious about ending IPV, we must hold ourselves and each other accountable. The time for change is now. Corporate Canada must step up.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Fox News
an hour ago
- Fox News
Undermining Trump
'Life, Liberty & Levin' explores the fundamental values and principles undergirding American society, culture, politics, and current events, and their relevance to the nation's future and everyday lives of citizens. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit


Fox News
an hour ago
- Fox News
The Foreign Funding Of Universities
'Life, Liberty & Levin' explores the fundamental values and principles undergirding American society, culture, politics, and current events, and their relevance to the nation's future and everyday lives of citizens. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Elon Musk claims he has launched a new party. Will it work?
Just over a month since he departed the White House, Elon Musk claims to have formed a new political party — but even the world's richest person could face some insurmountable challenges with this new venture, experts warn. Despite leading the Department of Government Efficiency in Donald Trump's administration for four months, Musk has publicly split from the president as of late, most recently criticizing the 'big, beautiful bill.' On Saturday, the tech billionaire announced on X, the platform he owns, that he was forming a 'new political party' - the America Party. Musk has detailed how this new party would infiltrate the country's long-standing two-party system. 'One way to execute on this would be to laser-focus on just 2 or 3 Senate seats and 8 to 10 House districts,' he explained. 'Given the razor-thin legislative margins, that would be enough to serve as the deciding vote on contentious laws, ensuring that they serve the true will of the people.' Fellow billionaire Mark Cuban and Trump's former White House Communications Director Anthony Scaramucci have encouraged the idea. But history and institutional barriers suggest it would be unlikely that the 'America Party' would succeed, experts say. 'Third-party movements in the US have generally arisen out of some sort of set of deep-seated grievances,' Alan Abramowitz, a political science professor at Emory University, told CNN. 'It was not just some wealthy person who's decided they wanted to start a third party.' The Democratic and Republican parties aren't the only ones to exist — but history shows alternative party candidates fail to gain traction in presidential elections. Even prominent Independent Senator Bernie Sanders caucuses with Democrats. Jill Stein, for example, served as the Green Party's presidential candidate in 2012, 2016, and 2024. In 2024, she earned 628,129 votes, but no electoral votes. Then there's Ross Perot, who ran as an independent in 1992 and 1996. During his first run, he garnered 19 percent of the popular vote — but still didn't earn an electoral vote. 'Perot did amazingly well … but he didn't come in first in any state, and the way the electoral college works, that means he's got nothing,' Hans Noel, a professor at Georgetown University researching political parties and ideology, told the Washington Post. The most successful third-party candidate in U.S. history was none other than a former president: Theodore Roosevelt. After serving in office as a Republican, he ran again in 1912 as a Progressive Party candidate, garnering 88 electoral votes. He lost to Democrat Woodrow Wilson. More recently, in 1968 George Wallace, who ran as an American Independent candidate, earned 45 electoral votes; Republican Richard Nixon won 301. Following Musk's announcement, some also pointed to more recent examples of third-party runs, like the 'No Labels' party, which failed to find a centrist candidate to take on Donald Trump or Joe Biden in the 2024 presidential race. Republican strategist Melik Abdul responded to Musk's tweet: "'No Labels' was designed to do the very thing you're suggesting. It, too, was a dud.' Abdul added: 'You have the resources to buy influence but lack the charisma and political gravitas to lead a [movement].' But Musk's resources alone may not be enough to secure a new political party due to donation limits. 'One very wealthy individual cannot capitalize a new national political party, the way he might start a business, because of federal contribution limits,' former FEC chair Lee Goodman told CNN. 'The prospect of a wealthy founder seed funding a national party to participate in federal elections around the country is not feasible in the current regulatory system.' Musk may have spent more than $250 million helping Trump get elected during the last cycle. But different rules apply to political parties, Bradley Smith, another former FEC chair, told the outlet: 'You can fund super PACs all you want. But you can't fund a political party, as a strange part of American law.' Abdul's remark that Musk lacks charisma may also serve as a barrier to building a new party. Recent indicators suggest he's not too popular. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent took a dig at Musk's new party announcement, telling CNN's Dana Bash on Sunday: "The principles of DOGE were very popular. I think if you looked at the polling, Elon was not." A Quinnipiac Poll taken last month shows just 30 percent of voters have a favorable opinion of the tech billionaire while 57 percent have an unfavorable opinion of him. Among Republicans 62 percent viewed Musk favorably. Some predicted the billionaire could split the GOP vote. "Third parties do not tend to have a long lifetime in American politics. Often, they are bugbears to one particular party, and this might be the case with Musk's proposed America Party," Dafydd Townley, who teaches at the University of Portsmouth, told Newsweek. "If anything, the new party would likely split the Republican vote, potentially resulting in a Democrat-dominated House of Representatives, at least in the short term, due to the winner-takes-all electoral system." If anything's certain, the rocket-building Musk doesn't shy away from a challenge. He appears confident in fighting what appears to be an uphill battle. In response to an X user posting about how he could 'break the two-party stranglehold,' Musk replied: 'Not hard tbh.'