Vic Toews MisInforming Public On Prison Expansion

"We have not built a single new prison, and we have no plans to build a new prison."

OK Vic..... I'm really hoping people are not as blind as Toews would like to believe.  Claiming not to be building any new prisons is a stretch when substantial prison expansion is ongoing all over this country.  (see Justin Piche's blog for some info on this http://tpcp-canada.blogspot.ca/2011/09/are-provinces-and-territories-ready-for.html)

Read the full article from which I pulled the above Toews quote on Market Watch.com here;  http://www.marketwatch.com/story/harper-government-is-taking-action-to-help-victims-of-crime-2012-03-21

Parent of Murdered Child Speaks Out Against Bill C10

I urge people to read the following thoughts about tough on crime rhetoric and its history of ineffectually addressing community harm.  Its an eloquently spoken critique of the omnibus crime bill by the parent of a murdered child.
Retrieved from: http://cpcml.ca/Tmld2011/D41121.HTM#7

Victim Advocacy Group Emphasizes Need for Social Programs Not "Law and Order" Approach to Crime

Posted below are excerpts from the presentation to the Justice and Human Rights Committee hearings considering Bill C-10 by Wilma Derksen, Founder, Victims' Voice Program and Past Coordinator, Mennonite Central Committee Canada.

***

[...] I am here on behalf of the Mennonite Central Committee [... h]owever, I will be speaking to you as a parent of a murdered child. I am also here because the issues you are addressing are extremely important to me and my family.
My daughter Candace was 13 years old when she was abducted and found murdered six weeks later. We lived for two decades without knowing the details of what happened. I not only know the horror of murder, but I am also intimately acquainted with the aftermath of violence. From the beginning, I began working with other victims, and I learned that the emotional aftermath can be as threatening as the crime itself. It does and it can destroy us.
The attention focused on this bill reminds me very much of the time when Candace first disappeared. All I could think of was the murder and the need for justice and safety. It was very difficult for me to think or talk about anything else, but I had to learn. I had two other children who were alive and I had a husband who needed a loving wife. If I had waited for justice and safety, I would have had to wait for a very long time -- life would have passed me by.
I am still involved with other victims of crime. Two weeks ago, I was with a group that spent most of the evening analyzing the problems of our justice system. We were wallowing in our pain, not always being politically correct, as one member put it, but allowing each other to speak freely.
At the end of the evening, I asked them what they would do to create justice in the country. To be honest, I expected that they would suggest changes to our criminal justice system similar to the bill that we have before us today. I thought they would prioritize safety at all costs, propose stiffer sentences, and advocate for victims' rights.
They didn't. As we went around the circle, they all agreed that the answer to crime is to put more emphasis on the school system and other social programs. While not denying that we have to maintain prisons, they insisted that we as a society need to put our energy and creative thinking into giving our young people a better education and a better life.
I could share equally compelling stories from my work with offenders. My experience in the way my family and I chose to respond opened up opportunities to visit many of the prisons across Canada, from William Head Institution in B.C. to Dorchester Penitentiary in New Brunswick.
I am thrilled to report that this last February we saw our own case finally brought to justice. For the first time, we actually heard the story of what had happened to our daughter, but the sentencing of the man who murdered our daughter did not satisfy our deep longing for justice. In some ways, we had already found justice in the joy of the good things that had come out of Candace's death and in the support of our community of friends.
The trial brought out the truth, and it was the truth that healed us and set us free, not the sentencing. I still find no satisfaction in thinking that the man will be sitting in prison for the next 25 years. There is nothing life-giving about that. It's just sad. And it's going to cost us probably $2.5 million.
In this short time I can't begin to give you a comprehensive critique of the bill, but I do want to register my concerns with the potential for unintended consequences. For example, even though it sounds wonderful to enshrine the victim's voice at Parole Board hearings, I also worry about this. Are we going to be putting pressure on victims? Could we be locking some victims and offenders together in a dysfunctional dialogue for the rest of their lives?
Perhaps we need to include the victims at the beginning of the process, mapping out their healing journey at the same time as we are sentencing the guilty. Perhaps this should be at the discretion of the judge. We can think about these things creatively.
Furthermore, I wonder if we can afford to focus so many of our scarce resources on mopping up the past so that there are only crumbs left for the living, who are struggling to find hope for the future. As the Minister of Justice rightly noted earlier this week, the Government of Canada is funding many creative community-based justice initiatives that address the root causes of crime, support victims of crime, and help ex-offenders reintegrate into the community. I would ask that you assign a greater proportion of your attention to this good work. [...]

Additional Thoughts At Least Harper Got One Thing Right, Locking Up Sex Offenders?....

After thinking through the issues surrounding child sex predators and how the system deals with "offenders", I felt I needed to add to my last remarks and expand a little on this issue.  I talked about how the "lock em up" approach doesn't address any social issues including sex offences against children.  And I believe this is true especially if the only approach we take is prison.  

I am not implying that people who hurt other people, especially those who hurt children should simply be allowed to roam where they may, doing harm as they please.  A period of incapacitation is likely going to be necessary for those we were not able to apply effective prevention techniques with before they hurt anyone.

Should this period of incapacitation take shape under the  banner of retribution in prison, and then for only 15-45 days?  I don't see the point.  This kind of action does not one thing to address the survivor's needs, nor does it minimize the likelihood that a particular "offender" will not cause future harm.  There must be treatment grounded in human rights for everyone involved.  I make the point of stating that treatment must involve consideration of human rights, and this may seem obvious to many of us.  But treatment has often been applied without the slightest consideration of emotional well being, or anti-oppression practice.

Sexual predators often don't receive any "treatment" until they have multiple victims and a path of destruction many years long behind them.  When they finally get "treatment" it involves a prison term and cycles of ammonia injected up their noses if demonstrating arousal while viewing images of children.  I believe this "intervention" to be based on theory developed by Pavlov in his experiments with dogs.  Apparently this type of "treatment" has a success rate of a few percentage points.  Which by the way, Corrections Services Canada considers successful.  The vast majority of these mostly male prisoners will one day be released and some of them will harm another child.

I don't consider anything about it a success.

At the same time I am aware that there are no viable - up and running alternatives.  I am also aware that even if we provided the best treatment imaginable with the highest attainment of success...there will always be in the words of prison abolitionist, Ruth Moore "the dangerous few" for whom permanent imprisonment is the only conceivable means to ensure the safety of others.  I won't mention the names of serial offenders here.  They get enough notoriety  as it is.  

I have however included a survivor's story.  Survivors tend to fade from view over the years, while their assailants continue to receive press mention on into infinity.

I have also included some resources for learning more about child sexual abuse and other violent acts.

Articles for Learning More About Acts of Violence for Survivors and Family/Friends

Resources for Survivors and Those Who Care About Them

http://www.thegatehouse.org/                                                                                                                         Child and Adult Survivor's offered counselling services in a safe environment

http://www.trccmwar.ca/ Toronto Rape Crisis Centre/Multi-cultural Women Against Rape                Provides crisis line and counselling services, including support group for criminalised women    email:   crisis@trccmwar.ca   and phone  (416) 597-8808

 http://www.sadvtreatmentcentres.ca/ Ontario Network of Sexual Assault and Treatment Centre's    Will provide you with information for the resources you need in your community.

Because it is known that 80-100% of women survivors of rape and childhood sexual abuse, use substances problematically, I have included the number for Jean Tweed Addiction Treatment 416-255-7359  http://www.jeantweed.com/ContactUs.aspx

 Rachel's Story: From a Survivor

When I was 12 I didn’t know I couldn’t get pregnant by kissing and fondling. I was scared. I was even more scared because the person who was doing the kissing and fondling was my father. I wanted to make him stop, especially after he went on to touch my two younger sisters in the bedroom we shared, but I thought if I told, it would destroy my family.
When I was 39 years old, I had an overwhelmingly frightening nightmare about my father coming into my bedroom to sexually abuse me, but this time in my own home. This was a safe space that I had created for myself as a loving adult. I thought I was done dealing with the sexual abuse, but I realized that the abuse I experienced as a child was still a family secret. I finally confronted my father with the abuse and he did acknowledge what he had done.
At the time, I thought that this confrontation would be enough. Three years later when I saw a photograph of my father holding my young niece, I realized I had to talk about this within my whole family if I wanted my niece to be safe.
I call this a story of hope because in this second confrontation my father admitted what he did — not just to me, but to the whole family — and apologized. The family is now aware that we have a problem that can’t be buried any longer, even though they wish it would just go away. It’s a story of hope because maybe more abusers will understand they can admit what they did and help their families heal. Maybe more survivors of abuse will realize they can confront the history that haunts them and regain control over their lives.
Don’t get me wrong — this story does not have a fairytale ending. Life isn’t usually like that. The first time I confronted my father was in a letter after I had a nightmare that was really a flashback to when I was 12 and my father came into my room at night to fondle my breasts and kiss me. But in my dream, my father was in my own house, the home and safety I created for myself as an adult.
After a couple of years, he stopped touching me, but it was worse watching him kiss and fondle my younger sister. When I caught him touching her, he would tell me to go away and I would simply walk away. I was the oldest. I was supposed to protect my younger sisters, and I couldn't. I'd lie awake in bed at night and try to figure out how to stop him. I thought if I could just understand why he was doing this, I could make him stop.
I wrote that first letter nearly 20 years after I left home for college. My father acknowledged what he did, but that was it. My sister, who had just given birth to a daughter, wrote me a long letter. She was afraid, she said, that if her husband found out about the abuse, it would ruin her marriage. She asked why it was coming up now and why I wanted to hurt mom and dad. After all, she wrote, "dad never hurt us, he meant no harm". She urged me to resolve this in my own mind so we could be a family again, and so that I would not live in regret if my parents died before we were reconciled.
I had very little communication with my family during this time. The communication I did have was minimal and there were no family visits except for major holidays. After three years of further silence around the sexual abuse, I received a photograph from my sister of my dad holding my three-year-old niece. A chill went up my spine. He molested his own daughters, so how could my sister trust him with her daughter? To keep my niece safe I had to bring it all up again and make sure the whole family understood about dad sexually abusing us.
I called and asked my parents if they would come to one of my therapy sessions. My dad didn’t argue: where and when I wanted him there was all he asked.
When I got to the therapist’s office, my parents were already there. My mother was crying, "What are you doing to me?" I had to explain that this session wasn’t about her, it was about me and the pain I had been through. She said that when I was a child, she felt trapped, too. "I told your father not to go into your bedroom, but he still did. I just didn’t know what to do to stop him."
My father first tried to excuse his actions by saying that in the culture of the time, "my daughters were my property and I could do anything I wanted to with them." At least he admitted the abuse. My therapist said I should tell my parents what I wanted from them.
I wanted my father to tell my brother about the abuse and to acknowledge to my two sisters that what he did to us as children was abuse and to apologize to them. I was also very passionate about making sure that everyone agreed to never let my niece be left alone with my father, hopefully protecting her from any sexually abusive behavior. I know he told my brother, who wrote me a letter of support. As far as I know he apologized to my sisters. And we’re all involved in keeping my niece safe.
I think my dad is "getting it" about his inappropriate actions, and when he doesn’t I feel confident about talking to him directly. For example, at their 50th anniversary party, he asked me to slow dance with him. I looked him directly in the face and told him that this was not something I could do with him. He respected my decision. A few days later he called me to ask how I was doing and to apologize for his poor choices in that situation. That feels like progress. Now, if only he can learn to think about it before instead of after!
We're not living an everybody-lives-happily-ever-after fairytale. It’s not easy. But I’ve done enough work on my own issues to let me claim my own life and find my own sense of peace. My family isn’t perfect by a long shot. But there’s hope.

Video - Speakers Forum: At Least Harper Got One Thing Right, Locking Up Sex Offenders?....

For those of you who may have been unable to make it to the anti-bill C10 speakers forum, "Thrown Under the omniBUS" in November a video has been put together of the entire speaking portion of the event.  There were a range of viewpoints from 6 panelists who are mostly against the Bill.  Remember the omnibus crime Bill contains 9 individual portions with suggested changes to many areas of law.  

As with many Canadians at least one of our panelists could not say he was opposed to tougher sentences for child sex offenders.  I get where he was coming from, however as a survivor of childhood sexual abuse at the hands of multiple male assailents, I have to disagree with the "lock em up approach" even to this most heinous of abuses.

Proponents of the Bill often focus on the portion which increases the time child sex offenders and other violent people will spend in jail.  The claim is that our kids will be safer with predators locked up longer.  Lets take a closer look at the facts!  Right now as the law stands, a first time sexual abuser of children receives 15 days in jail.  Bill C10 will extend that time to 45 days.  Is this really going to increase our children's safety?  

Its not.  If anything the time spent in jail may connect this person with other predators, and at the very least he or she is likely to experience the same sense of anger, resentment and disgust with the system that the rest of us do when subjected to the total uselessness that is prison.  Will this make him/her less dangerous?  I don't think so.

What will make our kids safer is prevention strategies which take a broad look at what it is in society that allows child sexual abuse to be so prevalent.  We can begin by looking at whether children are truly valued or not socially.  Some measures of this might be how may children are living in poverty, how mush assistance is provided to low income families, existence of a national childcare program, and how or whether we encourage kids who have suffered abuse to come forward.  

As a child I was certainly told about "stranger danger" and what to do if someone "touched" me - to tell another adult like my mom or dad.  Unfortunately the men who began abusing me at age 6 were not strangers and I was too frightened and humiliated to tell my mom or dad.

These are the issues we need to look at if the safety and long term mental health of our children are really what our conservative government seeks to address.  Not a crime bill which really equates to nothing more than empty words.

10 Reasons to Oppose C10 - A Critique

The article included below, “10 reasons to oppose Bill C10” has good intentions but stops short on some issues, and is mis-informative on others.  Though we should all welcome and cheer most any support in opposing Bill C10, I also think we should think critically and welcome and cheer each other for those efforts.

Yes it is true as the article's authors states, that the Canadian Bar Association representing 37000 wrote a collective letter of opposition to the Harper government. But so did dozens of others including another collective letter, this time of human rights organizations from all across Canada including the Civil Liberties Association, and the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network. The Urban Health Research Initiative also organized a petition letter with over 550 signatures from healthcare workers.

Letters however were not the only form of address taken. Other organizations arranged actions which included developing web sites and blogs, building community coalitions, hosting discussion panels, forums, and public speaks, as well as designing letter and petition campaigns. Articles have been written, letters to MP's sent out, and conversations with friends, neighbours, and colleagues have taken place individually by 10's of thousands of Canadians since 2007 when the current law and order agenda was first introduced.

For those who wish to be involved there are current campaigns including a petition at AVAZZ.org (www.avaaz.org) asking Premiers to oppose Bill C10 on the basis of dollar cost. Another petition at Lead Now (leadnow.ca/keep-canada-safe) asks for a more radical re-thinking of the law and order approach to justice period. Lead Now requests that government officials “establish an independent commission of diverse citizens and experts to create a 21st century Canadian justice plan.” Lead now is also in the process of building a national campaign on this issue for those wishing to do more than write their MP's.

Most recently several Premiers have stated publicly that they will not be responsible for footing the dollar cost of this Bill. This is wonderful new but has 2 failings I can see. First, in attacking only the dollar costs associated with Bill C10 we fail to acknowledge that the greatest consequence will be the human cost. (although both human and dollar costs are intertwined and one failure increases failings in the other) Secondly, what do our Premiers intend to do if Ottawa steps up and provides funding? Will they simply continue to disregard all of the more important reasons for not supporting this Bill?

The author, Trinda L. Ernst begins in point one with a call to increase use of and funding for preventative measures to community harm – that which we refer to as crime. However she leaves out some of the most crucial and impactful measures known to both prevent community harm and increase public safety. Measures such as affordable housing and childcare, quality education, meaningful, well paid work, and equitable access to healthcare must be the focus of any “crime” prevention strategy where human rights, and community safety are the prime considerations.

Points 2, 3, and 4 discuss the rush with which the conservatives are pushing Bill C10 through parliament, the subsequent lack of review, and the methods with which they are promoting this legislation. In addition to stating that these processes are problematic we need to talk about why its a problem, who stands to benefit from this approach, and how.

The conservatives have made it known time and again that they care not for proven best practices, nor the evidence, research and statistics backing those approaches. What they care about are the demands and ideology of their core political base. People who tend to be mainly white, and middle class. People who are a long way from the experiences of oppression that many of us are subjected to which have often lead to our continued impoverishment and criminalisation. Not only do most of the conservatives political base not understand the day to day realities of what it means to be criminalised but they are also lied to and provided misinformation from their leaders in regards to the connecting issues of poverty and trauma. As Trinda states, those who support increasing criminalisation do so without fact based information.

Who benefits from this approach? The status quo, and those who represent them. By keeping mostly working class people under foot and not only infringing on civil rights as evidenced by the many recent attacks on labour unions and protestors, but by also threatening imprisonment more often and for longer periods of time, people are made fearful, and kept silent. These tactics combined allow the upper classes to maintain ownership, high profits and unfair percentages of our national resources, all off the backs of the low waged poor.

Point 5 deals with our youth. One important point left out here is that Canada leads the world in our rates of incarcerating young people. This trend will likely not only continue but be made worse under the conservatives who are once again pandering to ideology. That is that our youth have become dangerous and are out of control, that they need to be locked up. In fact just the opposite is true. “Crime” rates among young people are like most rates of “crime” in Canada, on the decline.

Trinda makes the point that imprisonment is a forerunner to later law breaking, that community based options are less likely to see continued lawbreaking behaviour. The piece she leaves out is that all people, not just youth are known to fare better with regards to increased stability, and decreased lawbreaking in community based programs as opposed to imprisonment.

In point 6 Trinda significantly points out that despite the title the conservatives have given to the portion of the act dealing with house arrest, (Ending House Arrest for Serious and Violent Criminals Act) it does not merely target acts of violence. In fact most people who are sentenced to conditional sentences or house arrest are non violent, property law breakers. So who benefits from this mis-information and how? Once again the owning classes are seeing their property and their profits protected as a priority in legislation which despite conservative claims, has nothing to do with ending violence in our communities.

Trinda's comments in the next point about prison creating predators were particularly annoying to me. People subject to ongoing degradation and humiliation at the hands of others for extended periods of time can become less socially able to live and work among us on a number of levels. But I would argue that someone who was not a predator going into prison, will still not be one when they come out. Moving on to the point behind Trinda's line of reasoning; disregard for prisoners human rights is a serious and prolific issue even with fairly strong law in place to protect them. Prison walls have the effect of blocking all public scrutiny, it is difficult to monitor what really goes on behind their walls even in the best of circumstances. The “Parole and Conditional Release Act” which is the Canadian legislation that deals with prisoner treatment states that prisoners maintain all rights afforded every Canadian except those necessairly restricted by withdrawal of individual liberty.

The conservatives want to see these rights transformed into privileges that have to be earned. This means for instance that freedom to protest conditions could be made illegal and subject to sanction. Protesting illegal treatment of one self by guards is already extremely difficult and indeed dangerous for those inside. Now with law on their side, stories of rape, assault and other abuses could be legally silenced.

I agree with Trinda in that the system with regards to prison overcrowding is at the breaking point right now. I would argue that this overcrowding fits into the effects of degrading and humiliating conditions I alluded to above. There are few if any quiet moments in prison, and no privacy at all, ever. These conditions can have the effect of causing anxiety and depression, as well as heightening survival instincts (fight or flight mechanisms) which in turn can increase incidents of aggression which become more difficult to turn off or undue as time goes on.

I don't agree that the police need more money to do their jobs. They are already some of the highest paid cops on the planet with access to some of the most up to date technology and resources available. Policing money would be better spent in alternative, grassroots, prevention and treatment initiatives.

In point 9 Trinda talks about victimizing the most vulnerable, a top issue of any law and order based agenda. But Trinda gets a little confabulated here.

The truth is that aboriginal folks are often moved far from their homes in order to be imprisoned. This is true of all women imprisoned in Canada as well, even after the building of 5 “regional centres” for women. The truth is that aboriginal peoples are vastly over represented throughout the criminal legal system. What we also need to know is that women are the fasted growing segment of the prison population and that aboriginal women are most impacted by this trend. Its also important to note that women account for 80% of all people victimized in Canada. In prison populations those statistics rise, with 85% of all women noted as survivors of sexual or physical assault. That number increases still more to 95% when speaking of aboriginal women. Other populations known to be vulnerable to criminalisation and imprisonment are the poor, people of colour, youth, people living with mental health issues, trans men and women, and those who use drugs. The methods by which they are criminalised almost always relate in some way to extended periods of poverty.

And finally the financial cost of this travesty called Bill C10? No one knows, and not enough people seem to care. What they are doing is not only irresponsible and disrespectful of the Canadian people, this kind of devil may care spending is not particularly conservative.... or is it?

10 reasons to oppose Bill C-10

Published On Mon Nov 14 2011

Under Bill C-10, prison officials will have more latitude to disregard prisoners’ human rights, bypassing the least restrictive means to enforce discipline. This means inmates are more likely to re-enter society as predators hardened by their prison experience.

Chris So/Toronto Star

Trinda L. Ernst
Bill C-10 is titled The Safe Streets and Communities Act — an ironic name, considering that Canada already has some of the safest streets and communities in the world and a declining crime rate. This bill will do nothing to improve that state of affairs but, through its overreach and overreaction to imaginary problems, Bill C-10 could easily make it worse. It could eventually create the very problems it’s supposed to solve.
Bill C-10 will require new prisons; mandate incarceration for minor, non-violent offenses; justify poor treatment of inmates and make their reintegration into society more difficult. Texas and California, among other jurisdictions, have already started down this road before changing course, realizing it cost too much and made their justice system worse. Canada is poised to repeat their mistake.
The Canadian Bar Association, representing over 37,000 lawyers across the country, has identified 10 reasons why the passage of Bill C-10 will be a mistake and a setback for Canada:
1. Ignoring reality. Decades of research and experience have shown what actually reduces crime: (a) addressing child poverty, (b) providing services for the mentally ill and those afflicted with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, (c) diverting young offenders from the adult justice system, and (d) rehabilitating prisoners, and helping them to reintegrate into society. Bill C-10 ignores these proven facts.
2. Rush job. Instead of receiving a thorough review, Bill C-10 is being rushed through Parliament purely to meet the “100-day passage” promise from the last election. Expert witnesses attempting to comment on more than 150 pages of legislation in committee hearings are cut off mid-sentence after just five minutes.
3. Spin triumphs over substance. The federal government has chosen to take a “marketing” approach to Bill C-10, rather than explaining the facts to Canadians. This campaign misrepresents the bill’s actual content and ensures that its public support is based heavily on inaccuracies.
4. No proper inspection. Contrary to government claims, some parts of Bill C-10 have received no previous study by parliamentary committee. Other sections have been studied before and were changed — but, in Bill C-10, they’re back in their original form.
5. Wasted youth. More young Canadians will spend months in custodial centres before trial, thanks to Bill C-10. Experience has shown that at-risk youth learn or reinforce criminal behaviour in custodial centres; only when diverted to community options are they more likely to be reformed.
6. Punishments eclipse the crime. The slogan for one proposal was Ending House Arrest for Serious and Violent Criminals Act, but Bill C-10 will actually also eliminate conditional sentences for minor and property offenders and instead send those people to jail. Is roughly $100,000 per year to incarcerate someone unnecessarily a good use of taxpayers’ money?
7. Training predators. Bill C-10 would force judges to incarcerate people whose offenses and circumstances clearly do not warrant time in custody. Prison officials will have more latitude to disregard prisoners’ human rights, bypassing the least restrictive means to discipline and control inmates. Almost every inmate will re-enter society someday. Do we want them to come out as neighbours, or as predators hardened by their prison experience?
8. Justice system overload. Longer and harsher sentences will increase the strains on a justice system already at the breaking point. Courts and Crown prosecutors’ offices are overwhelmed as is, legal aid plans are at the breaking point, and police forces don’t have the resources to do their jobs properly. Bill C-10 addresses none of these problems and will make them much worse.
9. Victimizing the most vulnerable. With mandatory minimums replacing conditional sentences, people in remote, rural and northern communities will be shipped far from their families to serve time. Canada’s aboriginal people already represent up to 80 per cent of inmates in institutions in the Prairies, a national embarrassment that Bill C-10 will make worse.
10. How much money? With no reliable price tag for its recommendations, there is no way to responsibly decide the bill’s financial implications. What will Canadians sacrifice to pay for these initiatives? Will they be worth the cost?
Canadians deserve accurate information about Bill C-10, its costs and its effects. This bill will change our country’s entire approach to crime at every stage of the justice system. It represents a huge step backwards; rather than prioritizing public safety, it emphasizes retribution above all else. It’s an approach that will make us less safe, less secure, and ultimately, less Canadian.
Trinda L. Ernst is president of the Canadian Bar Association.

Omnibus Forum and an Advocate for Survivor's of Violence

In October I participated on a community organizing committee seeking to educate the public on Bill C10.  The Harper governments Safe Streets and Communities Act.  The committee members spent considerable time discussing who should be invited as speakers.  We wanted to ensure a range of people were heard from on the impacts this Bill will have on Canadians.  One committee member suggested we might invite someone not opposing the Bill in order to provide insight from that side of the podium too.  While I could see why he would make that suggestion - to allow the event a certain level of credibility - as in "see were hearing from everyone, its a well rounded debate", while I could see his point, I did not agree.  I think the Right, the conservatives have their voice heard and have greater access to the public podium than those of us who actually care about people.  We don't need to provide them additional space.  However this did get us talking and thinking about what other view points are important in a discussion about how to address harm.  Another committee member suggested we invite someone to speak on the issues affecting victims.  And it was agreed that we should look for someone who could provide a balanced, but most of all honest view point on what victims go through as they traverse the criminal "justice" system, what they need, and how they can best be supported.  

I personally was pretty nervous about ensuring the person we invited to speak on this important piece was not from the "Release them Later, Release them Sicker" camp - Issue Solved - Victim Healed and that's it. 

I don't believe in everything Steve Sullivan  does when it comes to survivor's of violence, but I certainly believe he is on the right track and that he has a sound knowledge of what victims need....support to heal.

Take a look at this post from Steve's Blog, "crime victim advocacy"  

http://advocateforvictims.blogspot.com/

Thursday, November 3, 2011

An email to Stephen Woodworth, Tory MP

Stephen Woodworth is a Tory MP who sits on the Justice Committee. When I testified on Bill C-10, he asked me a question and refused to let me provide a full answer...we got into a bit of a shouting match. I wanted to ensure he and all the members had a more fullsome answer than the one I was permitted to give so I sent him, and all the committee members, this email:

Dear Mr. Woodworth:

During my appearance before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, you asked me a question towards the end of the meeting. Your preamble was rather lengthy and you refused to allow me the opportunity to fully answer your question. I will paraphrase what I understood to be your question: “Over the past 2.5 years that you have spent on the Committee, every crime victim that has testified has said they want tougher sentences so how is it I do not hear this same message?” I summarized a rather lengthy preamble so I hope I have captured the essence of your question.

My answer, had you allowed to me to provide it, would have been that over the last 18 years, I have met with, spoken to, communicated with, cried with, supported and advocated for hundreds of individuals and their families. They have been families of homicide victims, people left with severe disabilities from impaired driving crashes, women who were abused by their partners, men who were abused as children, sexual assault survivors, victims of terrorism, victims of hate crimes, victims of robbery, and the list goes on.

I appreciate the committee hears from crime victims and would encourage the committee to hear from immigrant women who have experienced partner abuse, women who have been terrorized in their homes by husbands who owned guns, Aboriginals who have been repeatedly victimized, people with disabilities who were sexually abused and other vulnerable Canadians who are often at a much higher risk of being victimized than you or I. My guess is that your committee has not heard these voices.

Your suggestion that victims speak with one voice about tougher penalties does not reflect my experience or the research. One cannot reduce the experiences of unique individuals with different life experiences and who experience victimization individually to a single minded focus on punishment. It simply does not address the complex needs of those victimized by violence and does them a disservice.

The reality is Bill C-10 will not impact most victims of crime because most do not report. There is no evidence Bill C-10 will increase reporting rates. As I mentioned, a small minority of women who have experienced sexual violence report the crimes but when asked why not, light sentences are not a common reason. When survivors are asked why they did report, only a minority say it was to see the offender punished. Most children who are abused will not report; most exploited street youth will not report; most abused women will not report; etc. Bill C-10 will address none of their needs.

When I said that sentencing is not identified as an issue for many victims, it is because most of their needs are not addressed by how much the offender is or is not punished - financial issues, the need for counseling, the treatment they received in the criminal justice system, long term safety, etc. are often more pressing needs. Even for those that do place more importance on sentencing, Bill C-10 offers false hope because the evidence of the Crown Attorney's Association suggests there will be more plea bargaining and more stays.

Sentencing is more important for some victims than others, but the problem with Bill C-10 is that is all they are being offered and the public is being told this will enhance justice for victims. You are asking victims if they support Bill C-10 but if the question was different, say should the government spend 5 times more on healing child victims or punishing offenders , some may have a different answer. I submit to you that the government's priority of spending five times as much money on punishing offenders than it does on healing children does not put victims first.

There is so much more I could say, but I felt it important to clarify my position because your synopsis of my position was misleading. I would also ask you to carefully review the statement of Wilma Derksen who testified before the committee today, and would refer you to some of the editorials written by those who have been affected by violence which are part of CSC"s Basic Toolkit on National Restorative Justice Week (which can be found on their website) for more differing views on what justice means.

Posted by Steve Sullivan at 9:43 AM 0 comments

EMAIL EXCHANGE: KIM PATE, MYSELF, AND MP RATHGEBER

After reading the following article where MP Rathgeber was embarrassingly disrespectful to Kim Pate of the Elizabeth Fry Society.  He objected to language Ms. Pate used in describing the impacts of excessive strip searches currently forced on the female prisoners at Kitchener's prison for women.  This particular story struck home.  Not only have I been subjected to multiple strip searches but I am also aware of the deeper issues which can surround them.

Prisoners are subjected to multiple strip searches during any period of incarceration as a matter of routine and under special circumstances such as a suspected presence of drugs in the institution.
 Some guards really detest carrying out these searches, especially those which are done as a matter of routine rather than the safety of the institution.  These state employees have been known to only pretend to carry out a strip searches at these times.  Simply handing prisoners clean clothing and standing in such a way as not to be watching them dress.  At the other end of this spectrum are those guards who get off on the "power over" dynamic of such searches.  These state sanctioned abusers take their time stipping inmates, sometimes carry out the proceedure in open walkways with substantial pedestrian traffic, arrange surprise searches at odd hours with women pushed and hurded into line ups with their hands kept atop their heads or cuffed behind their backs, orders to bend, turn, and lift are carried on much more thoroughly than normal or than called for in regards to the stated purpose of locating restricted weapons and drugs..  

Most prisoners will be subjected to both ends of this spectrum and everything in between during even a minimum sentence.  Many of us cope by transforming the process into a normal routine in our minds.  Oh well, whatever kinda situation.  But its not.  Especially for those men and women who have histories of sexual abuse.

Below is the email exchange between Kim Pate, myself and MP Rathgeber, below that is the article referred to.       by sheryl jarvis
 

 

Email Exchange,Re: Supreme Court Selection Committee Work

‏

 From: SHERYL JARVIS [mailto:j-sheryl@hotmail.com]
Sent: October 8, 2011 3:08 PM
To: Cotler, Irwin - M.P.; Rathgeber, Brent - M.P.; Comartin, Joe - M.P.; Hoeppner, Candice - M.P.
Subject: re: Supreme Court Selection Committee Work

 Dear Members of Parliament

I would like thank each of you for your  dedication to Canadians through the work each of you are doing on this most important panel, the election of new members to the Supreme Court of Canada.

I would like to believe that each and every portion of this process would be given ample thought and consideration with all those present provided his or her own space to speak from their personal and professional experiences.  This after all is a fundamental aspect of what constitutes a thriving democracy.  It also happens to be included in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

"(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;"

I read about an incident which occurred recently where an invited guest and presenter(Kim Pate) from the Elizabeth Fry Society was disrespected for having discussed openly what is the reality for most women in prison - that is, being subjected to unnecessary strip searches which are experienced by those female prisoners as a form of sexual assault and a continuation of what has for over 80% of incarcerated women been a life time of sexual, physical, and emotional abuse.

Mr. Rathgeber how dare you claim to be speaking for survivors of sexual predators when you stated that Ms. Pate's comments were an affront to victims of such predators.  When it is common knowledge that women in prison are as a group those most often victimized sexually, emotionally and physically.

All Canadians including those imprisoned have the same fundamental rights and freedoms, especially those which necessarily protect human rights.  This of course is contrary to what you and your party would have Canadians believe when you continue to repeat media sound bites such as  “putting the rights of criminals against the rights of law-abiding Canadians”

Ms. Hoeppener, shame on you as a woman for putting the process of state sanctioned abuse of the most vulnerable women ahead of their individual Human Rights.  How very cruel!

Sincerely

sheryl jarvis
Woman, Mother, Survivor

From: brent.rathgeber.a1@parl.gc.ca
To: j-sheryl@hotmail.com
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 15:23:10 -0400
Subject: RE: Supreme Court Selection Committee Work

Dear Ms. Jarvis,

 Thank-you for your correspondence with regard to comments I made in the House of Commons regarding the Elizabeth Fry Society.

 Ms. Kim Pate recently appeared before the Public Safety Committee as a witness for the Elizabeth Fry Society.  In the course of her comments, Ms. Pate stated that strip searching inmates is tantamount to “sexual assault by the state”.  She used this phrase throughout her opening statement and in the rounds of questioning that followed. 

 I am concerned by Ms. Pate’s characterization, especially because it has no basis in fact or in law.  The Criminal Code clearly defines an assault as a non-consensual application of force and sexual assault as having an added aspect of sexual need, gratification, or sexual degradation. I only take issue with the characterization of these situations as having a “sexual” aspect. 

 While I have the utmost respect for the work the Elizabeth Fry Society and its members carry out on behalf of incarcerated women, I stand by the statements I made in the House of Commons. 

 Regards,

  Brent Rathgeber, Q.C.

Member of Parliament

Edmonton-St. Albert

Subject: Re: Supreme Court Selection Committee Work
To: j-sheryl@hotmail.com
CC: kpate@web.ca
From: caefs@web.ca
Date: Sat, 8 Oct 2011 22:26:05 +0000

Dear Ms Jarvis,

Thank you so much for copying us on this. I am preparing some information for the Committee. Please let me know if you would also like to receive it. 
Thanks again and all the best, 
KimSent wirelessly from my BlackBerry device on the Bell network.
Envoyé sans fil par mon terminal mobile BlackBerry sur le réseau de Bell.

From: SHERYL JARVIS <j-sheryl@hotmail.com>

Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 17:48:30 -0400

To: <brent.rathgeber.a1@parl.gc.ca>

Cc: <kpate@web.ca>

Subject: RE: Supreme Court Selection Committee Work

Dear Honourable Rathgeber

The newspapers quote an MP who said that you are usually more reserved and respectful, that he was surprised to find out it was you who had made the comments to Kim Pate.  The tone of your email seems to bear that out.  However its tough to tell if you wrote it or one of your assistants did.....

You point to specific acts of law regarding the definition of sexual assault.  The problem with relying entirely on the law books is that peoples life experience's and thus their reactions to situations such as prison strip searches can not be accounted for.

The purpose of a strip search is to maintain the safety of prisoners and staff.  Tobacco is not a weapon.  The possibility of tobacco being smuggled into prison is not nearly reason enough to put prisoners, women in this case through what is for some a highly traumatic event. 

In the case of women's federal institutions these strip searches are happening regularly and persistently.  The staff are not required to strip search prisoners in order to address the question of tobacco but they do it anyways.

It is common knowledge that many prison guards chose their professions because they enjoy the "power over" dynamic.  There is for some a perverse sort of pleasure in degrading and humiliating others.

Most women who end up in prison have been sexually assaulted in their life times.  A strip search can cause a woman to relive feelings of degradation and humiliation.  Whether this is the staffs intention or not and whether it is written into law or not assault is the woman's experience.  Here again she is being ordered against her will to remove her clothing and to stand, bend, lift, and stretch her body on command for no good reason.

The truth is that many female prisoners find a way to cope with this by dissociating themselves from their bodies.  They may pretend it isn't happening, or that it is someone else standing there, or they may simply pretend to themselves that it doesn't matter, that they don't care.  In any case it does have an adverse impact on the woman's mental health.  This is just the opposite of what we should be aiming for.  

I know you may not believe these statements to be accurate or you may dismiss them as the babble of a "bleeding heart liberal", but I hope you will at least consider that perhaps there is some merit to what I say. 

Human beings, human relationships are all so very complex and often there is more than what meets the eye.  I'm sure you will at least agree with that last statement. 

thank you for continuing the conversation on this topic

sheryl
Mother, Advocate, Survivor 

---

27/10/2011

Reply  ▼

 kpate@web.​ca

To SHERYL JARVIS

Many thanks for your compelling confirmation and correspondence with Mr. Rathgeber, Sheryl. Thanks, too, for being such an articulate ally. All the best, Kim

Sent wirelessly from my BlackBerry device on the Bell network.
Envoyé sans fil par mon terminal mobile BlackBerry sur le réseau de Bell.

---

Tory MP Rathgeber refuses to apologize for criticizing director of national group devoted to helping women in prison

Democrat MP Peter Stoffer calls for Conservative MP's apology, but Brent Rathgeber says NDP 'putting the rights of criminals against the rights of law-abiding Canadians.'

Veterans Affairs Minister Steven Blaney, Defence Minister Peter MacKay and Status of Women Minister Rona Ambrose launch Women's History Month on Monday before a Tory MP crticized the Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies. (Photograph by Jake Wright)

By TIM NAUMETZ October 5, 2011

PARLIAMENT HILL—A Conservative MP who sat on a Commons advisory panel screening candidates for nomination to the Supreme Court of Canada is under fire for making a formal statement in the House sharply criticizing the director of a nationwide group devoted to helping women in prison.

Brent Rathgeber (Edmonton-St. Albert, Alberta) slammed Kim Pate, executive director of the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies, for comments she made opposing a rise in strip searches of female Corrections Canada prisoners, describing the naked searches as “sexual assault by the state.”

Ms. Pate made the comment during testimony at the Commons Public Safety Committee the previous day, when she told MPs the strip searches are so invasive and prevalent that some women inmates have refused to have their children visit them in prison out of fear they would also be strip-searched.

She said the searches are for contraband of all kinds, including jewellery and cigarettes, and “virtually no drugs” have been found and no weapons in the searches of female prisoners, which Ms. Pate said have increased “massively” because of a recent ban on cigarettes in federal prisons.

Conservative MP Candice Hoeppner (Portage-Lisgar, Manitoba), who chaired the advisory panel screening nominees for two Supreme Court vacancies and is also a member of the Public Safety committee, also criticized Ms. Pate, after she made the comments in the committee.

Coincidentally, the third government MP on the Supreme Court panel, Robert Dechert (Mississauga-Erindale, Ontario) was recently the subject of lengthy controversy after he admitted to a series of romantic email exchanges with a Toronto-based journalist with China’s Xinhua state news agency, often accused of spying for the Chinese government.

NDP MP Peter Stoffer (Sackville-Eastern Shore, Nova Scotia) asked Mr. Rathgeber to apologize in the Commons to Ms. Pate but the Edmonton MP refused. A lawyer, Mr. Rathgeber and the other members of the panel took part in one of the most sensitive phases of the Supreme Court nomination process.

He accused Mr. Stoffer and the NDP, which had invited the Elizabeth Fry Societies to send a representative to the Public Safety Committee as part of a review of the use of drugs and alcohol in prisons, of “putting the rights of criminals against the rights of law-abiding Canadians.”

The phrase has been used repeatedly by the government and Conservative MPs to attack opposition MPs who have challenged a string of government crime bills over the past three years.

The Conservative members of the Supreme Court appointment advisory panel were all named by Prime Minister Stephen Harper (Calgary Southwest, Alberta) as he and Justice Minister Rob Nicholson (Niagara Falls, Ontario) began the reviews of candidates who will sit on the court as it braces for expected cases that could be among the most important it has heard in years.

Human rights lawyers say challenges against the omnibus crime bill, Bill C-10, the Safe Streets and Communities Bill, that the Conservative majority is currently rushing through Parliament are inevitable. They also say provincial challenges of legislation proposing to limit Senate terms severely and allow provinces to hold consultative elections on Senate appointments are also expected.

Mr. Hoeppner’s appointment as chair of the advisory panel came under scrutiny earlier because of the notoriety she won as the champion of the Conservative drive to dismantle the federal long-gun registry. Although a private member’s bill Ms. Hoeppner sponsored in the last Parliament to end the registry died in the Commons, her position on the panel was seen as a reward for the cross-country campaign she mounted.

Mr. Stoffer told The Hill Times he was astonished by Mr. Rathgeber’s attack against Ms. Pate, not only because of the group’s longstanding advocacy for women in prison, but because Mr. Rathgeber made the statement only four days into the internationally recognized Women’s History Month.

“We all have statements and if the Conservatives wish to attack the NDP or anyone else, in terms of political things, we don’t really care,” Mr. Stoffer said. “But if you’re going to attack the Elizabeth Fry Society and impugn their evidence, and impugn their motives, I think it is simply wrong.”

In the House, Mr. Stoffer said that the organization has been protecting womens' interests in the country and Mr. Rathgeber "goes after the Elizabeth Fry Society when it cannot defend itself. ... For many years it has been protecting the interests of women in this country, it has been protecting women who are incarcerated, many of whom are mentally ill and should not be in prison.”

In refusing to retract his statement, Mr. Rathgeber told the Commons: “The record from yesterday’s committee will reflect that I quoted the said society accurately and correctly, and I stand by those statements.”

Page 2 of 2

Ms. Pate told the committee the strip searches are a particularly traumatic experience for women inmates who have experienced sexual abuse and assault.

" Going back to the history of sexual abuse and physical abuse that many women have, many women find those kinds of invasive searches not just humiliating, but they become additionally punitive in terms of their histories of post traumatic stress, their histories of abuse,” she said.

NDP MP Joe Comartin (Windsor-Tecumseh, Ontario), his party’s representative on the panel, said he was surprised by what he had heard about Mr. Rathgeber’s statement.

“I’m a bit surprised it’s him, because as much as he is fairly mainstream conservative on these issues, he usually has more of a diplomatic approach,” Mr. Comartin said, suggesting it is possible the government directed Mr. Rathgeber to say what he did.

Liberal MP Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Quebec) cited his oath of secrecy for the panel and said he has not commented on any topic or MP associated with it.

Mr. Rathgeber told the Commons Ms. Pate’s description of strip searches as sexual assault by the state were “a slap in the face to our correctional officers, and legally dubious, it is absolutely insulting to those who have actually been victimized by a sexual predator.”

Mr. Comartin said the panel of MPs, which interviewed prospective candidates and reduced the field to a short list of six, reported the list of six to Mr. Nicholson last week. Mr. Nicholson and Mr. Harper are expected to announce the final two nominees next week.

tnaumetz@hilltimes.com

 A Little Known Expert on the Harper Crime Agenda?

Paula Mallea didn't make it to the short list for the recent speakers forum at Church of the Redemmer in Toronto.  But not for lack of trying.  People on the organizing committee simply had not heard of her.  I hope to contribute to changing that in whatever small way this blog may be able.  Paula is an expert around criminal justice having worked for 15+ years as a lawyer in Canada.  Paula is also an expert on the conservative governments crime agenda.  Included here is a copy of an article posted on Rabble, but originally written for the Centre for Policy Alternatives(CFPA).  It was while visiting the web site at CFPA that I first discovered Paula and her writing. She had several articles and one longer study published at that time in 2009.  I was inspired to contact her and asked if she could come to Toronto to speak on ideas for how people could oppose the crime agenda.  She agreed, but the pieces just havn't come together so far.  If the CFPA, Rabble, and I couldn't get Paula Mallea's name out there maybe her new book, Fearmonger can.    sheryl jarvis                                                                                                                                                                   For a summary and where to buy the book see: http://canadianbookshelf.com/Books/F/Fearmonger                                                                                                                                             To read her earlier work at the CFPA follow: http://www.policyalternatives.ca/search/apachesolr_search/paula%20mallea

Omnibus crime bill won't reduce victimization rates

By Paula Mallea

October 27, 2011

Harper, Nicholson and Toews are selling their snake-oil crime bill by presuming to speak on behalf of victims. When told that the crime rate has been declining for 20 years, they reply that one victim is one too many. When advised that statistics do not support their approach, they say most crimes go unreported by their victims. When criticized for the cost of their simplistic and counterproductive legislation, they reply that crimes cost victims $99 billion per year.

Let's be clear. One victim is too many, and whatever we can do to reduce victimization rates should be done. However, the omnibus crime bill will not achieve that objective. It will contribute mightily to a continuing structural deficit because of the colossal costs involved. And paying for this crime bill means programs that effectively prevent crime and rehabilitate offenders will never be funded.
Victims are not all made the same. They do not all support the strictly punishment-oriented approach of the Harper government. Why not let them speak for themselves?

Arlène Gaudreault, President of the Association québécoise Plaidoyer-Victimes, objects to the way politicians are usurping the legitimate voices of victims. She says victims are "increasingly exploited and used as a tool for partisan purposes by political parties of all stripes. Victims' rights are used to legitimize more crime control, but that discourse does not express the position of all victims. . . . It does not serve the cause of victims, and we reject Canada's decision to take this path." She says that "measures to help parents and families reduce poverty and inequality are essential to combat and reduce criminal victimization."

Lorraine Berzins worked in federal penitentiaries for 14 years and was the victim of a hostage-taking. As spokesperson for the Church Council on Justice and Corrections, she says the Harper tough-on-crime agenda "goes so much against all the evidence about what keeps communities safe, and it does so much harm, and they are going to spend so much money, that it's really surprising that there isn't more opposition."
Steve Sullivan of Ottawa Victim Services (and erstwhile Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime) says "victims understand, better than most, that nearly all offenders will eventually be released from prison. . . . The best protection victims, their families, and the community will have is if the offender can learn to modify negative behaviour before he or she is released." In other words, rehabilitation programs are key.
In spite of eloquent pleas by victims' advocates, the Harper government forges ahead with a retrograde, antediluvian and discredited approach to criminal justice. Its only "solution" for any and all crimes is a long prison sentence.

There is virtually no hope that the omnibus crime bill can be defeated now that Mr. Harper has his majority. So we turn to Steve Sullivan, who recently sent a desperate crie de coeur to the Conservative caucus:
I believe the ministers when they say they care about victims. . . . Here is what they should do -- at the next cabinet meeting, tell the Prime Minister he should abandon his crime agenda and put the bulk of those resources into programs for victims and prevention. When the Prime Minister says no, and we all know he will, then they should stand up for victims and walk out.

Paula Mallea, B.A., M.A., Ll.B, practised criminal law for 15 years in Toronto, Kingston, and Manitoba. She acted mainly as defence counsel, with a part-time stint as prosecutor, and spent hundreds of hours in penitentiaries representing inmates. She is a Research Associate with the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. She is the author of The Fear Factor: Stephen Harper's Tough On Crime Agenda. Her book, Fearmonger, a detailed critique of the Harper tough-on-crime agenda, published by Lorimer, is available in bookstores and online.

This article first appeared on Behind the Numbers.

Punishment vs. Restorative Measures

PUNISHMENT V.S. RESTORATIVE MEASURES

One of the biggest problems with the sheer size of this bill is that all the various illegal activities and subsequent punishments get rolled into one.  It disallows proper critique.  And anyone brave enough to speak out against it is seen as soft on "crime" or as an apple from the same tree as the sex offenders and violent persons some of this act claims to target.

The simple fact of the matter is prison is good for only one thing and that is keeping those who are completely anti-social, so violent, and dangerous that they simply must be kept off the streets.  Those folks are few and far between and don't reflect the average person caged in Canada today.  That is an unemployed, poor, drug using abuse survivor, a person of colour, often a young man or a single mother.  Locking her up instead of seeking out community based alternatives means her children end up in the system.   

sheryl jarvis, Sept 2011

See what some Canadian's think about using community based alternatives such as restorative justice in the article below.

Emphasis on punishment shuns healing. Feds ignore power of restorative justice, critics charge

By Douglas Quan

There was a time when Manjit Virk would have liked nothing more than to wring the neck of Warren Glowatski, one of two teens convicted of murdering his daughter, Reena, "as if he were a chicken."
But in the fall of 2005, when the two came face to face in a semicircle of chairs in the basement of a church, something very different happened.
"It was the most unusual experience I had encountered in my life," the Victoria father later recounted in his book, Reena: A Father's Story.
"My daughter's killer was shaking hands with me."
This remarkable act of reconciliation is often cited as an example of the potential of restorative justice - the concept that true healing after a crime doesn't necessarily come from harsher punishments but rather from the coming together of criminal and victim, giving them a chance to understand one another and work to repair the harm done.
But despite the existence of programs across the country to facilitate such meetings, restorative justice has never gained mainstream traction, and now some victims' advocates say they worry such programs will be further marginalized because of the federal government's tough on crime agenda and its emphasis on incarceration.
"In reality, there's no interest from this government [in restorative justice]," said Steve Sullivan, executive director of Ottawa Victim Services and former federal ombudsman for victims of crime.
"It doesn't jive with their view of what victims want - punishment."
Some advocates say they are troubled by the government's new crime bill, particularly mandatory minimum sentences for certain drug and sex offences, because they interfere with judges' abilities to tailor their sentences and consider restorativejustice options.
"If they're locked in to mandatory minimums, it doesn't allow restorative justice to take place," said Catherine Latimer of the John Howard Society of Canada.
Not all victims' advocates feel the same way, however.
Sharon Rosenfeldt, whose 16-yearold son Daryn Johnsrude was a victim of serial killer Clifford Olson, stood alongside the justice minister in announcing the crime bill.
While she and her group Victims of Violence believe there is a role for restorative justice, she said in an interview there is a need to toughen up penalties to deal with repeat violent offenders. With longer sentences, "maybe" some lives can be turned around within prisons, she said.
Justice Ministry spokeswoman Pamela Stephens said in an email that "while restorative-justice approaches complement other criminal justice system responses to criminal behaviour, they are not intended to replace them."
A restorative-justice approach only works if victims agree to participate, offenders accept responsibility for their actions and trained facilitators are available, she added.
That said, the government has supported restorative-justice initiatives. It invested $85 million in the Aboriginal Justice Strategy, which seeks to help young or first-time offenders in aboriginal communities.
Restorative justice referrals can come from police before a charge is laid, by Crown prosecutors after a charge is laid, by a judge after a conviction or by correctional officials after a sentence has been imposed.

Studies have shown that victims who go through the process often come out more satisfied than those who go through the regular criminal justice system, and are more likely to receive restitution from offenders. Offenders are also less likely to reoffend.
The perception that participating in such a process is a cakewalk for offenders "couldn't be further from the truth," said Evelyn Zellerer, a criminology instructor at Kwantlen Polytechnic University and a restorative-justice consultant.
"It's a very rigorous process. It's not easy for someone to face their victim and their families, face what they've done and listen to the impact of what their behaviour has been."
Rather than "get tough" on crime, Canada needs to "get smart" about it, she said.
The authors of a review of the Stanley Cup riot seem to agree, saying the first responders and business people affected by the riot could teach the rioters "real lessons a judge can only lecture them about."
The report said: "Far from being a slap on the wrist this is, for many, a deeply troubling experience. But it can also be a transforming experience."
A victim of John Horace Oughton, the "Paper Bag Rapist" convicted in the 1980s of a string of sex offences in Vancouver, counts herself among those concerned about the rhetoric.
Laura, who requested that her last name not be used, said there was a time when she wanted Oughton dead - "preferably at my hands."
But she said her attitude evolved, especially after she met Oughton's brother through a restorative-justice mediator. She was able to gain a "deeper understanding" of Oughton and his family and see that they were suffering as well, erasing the "us versus them" mentality that had framed her thinking for so long.
She worries the strides the program has made could be "undermined" by Ottawa's tough on crime strategies.
"Public safety is more complex than punishment and incarceration," she said.
WHAT DO YOU THINK?
Comment on this story online at theprovince.com or email us at provletters@theprovince.com. Include your name and address.

© Copyright (c) The Province

Read more: http://www.theprovince.com/sports/Emphasis+punishment+shuns+healing/5458093/story.html#ixzz1Z6Jj4hMY

Read more: http://www.theprovince.com/sports/Emphasis+punishment+shuns+healing/5458093/story.html#ixzz1Z6JEap6v