injusticebusters logo

Dueck's Torture of Anita Klassen

Canadian Criminal Code on Torture | International Law Definition of Torture

In the next weeks, we will expand our allegation that Superintendent Brian Dueck committed the crime of torture in 1990 while a corporal. This appears as number 48 in Dueck's Statement as to Documents in the $10M lawsuit.

His interview of Anita Klassen, the foster mother of the Ross children, is evidence of his crime. This one hour interview ends with her complete emotional collapse, in the words of Linden MacIntyre on the Fifth Estate "Scandal of the Century" program (which was part of a series which won the Michener award, Canada's highest prize in journalism and the Justicia award).

The other instance of torture in Saskatchewan is that of Howard Gowan, a Saskatchewan man who was removed from his home by R.C.M.P. in 1969, taken to Weyburn mental hospital and submitted to shock treatments. Gowan had committed no crime nor was he charged with any. The Fifth Estate carried this story a few years ago but Gowan has still not received so much as an apology from the mounties. In his story, we find government ministers at every level and defence lawyers ganging up to silence him and prevent him from receiving any remedy for the undeniable damage which was done to him.

In the taped interview with Anita, we see an interrogation which is extremely difficult to watch. The camera is fixed in one position (the one seen here) and we do not see Dueck, the interrogator. We hear his voice. Anita is wearing her Dairy Queen uniform as Dueck has picked her up at work.

Dueck begins the interrogation by reading Anita her rights. He reads them clearly, as though he is speaking to a six year old. This is his tactic throughout the interrogation.

Part of the reading of rights includes asking her if she would like to speak to a lawyer. She clearly answers "yes." Dueck continues the interrogation as though he hasn't heard her. (This is 36 seconds into the interview)

Dueck: Do you understand that you can call a lawyer?

Anita: Yes

Dueck: Would you like to call a lawyer?

Anita: Yes

He finishes the reading of rights. Anita seems to be waiting for him to give her the go-ahead to call a lawyer.

1.21 He tells her that prosecutors have asked him to come to Red Deer to talk to her.

"We have two prosecutors assigned there; I already spoke to Diane in Saskatoon and we were advised to do the same thing here."

Throughout the interview he uses the fact that he has already spoken to her sister to imply that her sister has somehow implicated her.

1.53: Dueck tells her that the investigation involves "disclosures made by the three Ross children" three children who have been fostered by her sister-in-law, Pam and three children fostered by her sister Diane.

He claims nine children have made disclosures alleging sexual abuse done to them by her.

2.42: He then reasssures her that "We are not arresting you or anyone else today."

3.00: Tells her that her sister has told him private things about her growing up.

Anita becomes more and more uncomfortable.

Dueck suggests to her that her father had molested her and Anita corrects him and explains that it was a man who raped her when she was 14 and killed himself before he was brought to trial.

Dueck suggests she feels guilty about the rape/suicide incident and assures her it is not her fault.

"You should have got help," he tells her.

Anita agrees, "Yes, I needed help"

Dueck then quickly plays with the word "help," suggesting the nine children who disclosed to him that she had abused them are now getting help and that there will be help for her, too.

This is only five minutes into a one hour interrogation where Brian Dueck makes the claim that he has interviewed over 200 children, that children don't lie, that he believes the children but he does not believe her and on and on. As we have time we will post the minute by minute details, as he proceeds to "confront" her with the allegations of the Ross children, who have now admitted on national television that they made it all up.

We will also present strong arguments to show that Brian Dueck not only knew that the Ross children were making up these stories but that he aided and abetted in the construction of these stories.

As stated above, this is only 5 minutes into a 45 minute interview.


Canadian Criminal Code Section on Torture

Criminal code of Canada, Section 269.1
(1) Every official, or every person acting at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of an official, who inflicts torture on any other person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.

(2)For the purposes of this section, "official" means
(a) a peace officer
(b) a public officer
(c) a member of the Canadian forces, or
(d) any person who may exercise powers, pursuant to a law in force in a foreign state, that would, in Canada, be exercised by a person refered to in paragraph (a), (b), or (c), whether the person exercised powers in Canada or outside Canada;
"torture" means any act or omissions by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentially inflicted on a person
(a) for a purpose including
(i) obtaining from the person, or from a third person, information or a statement,
(ii) punishing the person for an act that the person or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, and
(iii) intimidating or coercing the person or a third person, or
(b) for any reason based on discrimination of any kind,
but does not include any act or omission arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

(3) It is no defence to charge under this section that the accused was ordered by a superior or public authority to perform the act or omission that forms the subject matter of the charge or that the act or omission is alleged to have been justified by exceptional circumstances, including a state of war, a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency.

(4) In any proceedings over which Parliament has jurisdiction, any statement obtained as a result of the commission of an offence under this section is inadmissible in evidence, except as evidence that the statement was so obtained. R.S.C. 1985m c 10 (3rd supp.), s. 2.

SYNOPSIS
This section makes it an offence for any person, either acting in an official capacity or acting at the instigation or acquiescence of an official, to inflict torture on another person. This is an indictable offence punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of 14 years. This section contains complete definitions of the terms "official" and "torture." A person accused of an offence under this section may not escape criminal liability as a result of the fact that he was following the orders of a superior or a public authority or that exceptional circumstances justified the action.

The contents of any statement obtained as a result of the commission of an offence under this section is inadmissible in evidence in any proceedings over which Parliament has jurisdiction.
--Martin's Criminal Code, 1998, pp. 496-7.


International Law Definition of Torture

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966

Article 7

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation.

Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 1984

Article 1

For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.

Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 1998

Article 7: Crimes against humanity

1. For the purpose of this Statute, "crime against humanity" means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:

(f) Torture;

Article 7 (1) (f)

Crime against humanity of torture

Elements

1. The perpetrator inflicted severe physical or mental pain or suffering upon one or more persons.

2. Such person or persons were in the custody or under the control of the perpetrator.

3. Such pain or suffering did not arise only from, and was not inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions.

4. The conduct was committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population.

5. The perpetrator knew that the conduct was part of or intended the conduct to be part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population.

2. For the purpose of paragraph 1:

(e) "Torture" means the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, upon a person in the custody or under the control of the accused; except that torture shall not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions;

Elements of Crime as contained in the finalised draft prepared by the fifth session of the Preparatory Commission for the International Court (PrepCom) held in New York from June 12 to 30 2000: