Community Action for Families - Our Issues Our Work

Community Action for Families Workshop: Telling Our Stories (Child Protection Intrusion)

Community Action for Families: Who We Are

Women Captured by the Prison Industrial Complex: Chicago Collective

 CAF Next Meeting: May 9, 2014

PRISONER WRITES FROM THE PROVINCIAL PRISON FOR WOMEN

Recently my life has taken some interesting turns to places I really thought were long behind me forever.  I was arrested and held for 25 days at Vanier (provincial jail for women in Milton) before an amazing and true friend who lives what she believes in, bailed me out.  I wrote a little about my experience below.

Woman Asks Judge for Federal Time

Robber wants federal prison time to get treatment

Too common a scenario in Canada's courtrooms - where those being sentenced ask for more time than they would likely get in order to acquire treatment not available at the provincial level.  This is a particularly pressing issue for women who are provided far fewer "treatment" options in either provincial or federal prisons.

It sounds like Camille is encountering a particular form of violence at the facility which is currently holding her.  Again a far too common scenario for the most vulnerable of the vulnerable.  Doctors messing with the prescribed medications that a doctor or doctors outside the prison saw fit to prescribe to an individual.  Where pyschotropic medication for depression and anxiety are concerned it is extremely common for institutional doctors to ensure increased suffering by removing a prisoner (usually cold turkey) from a medication that was working well for her.  Thus increasing anxiety, hostile and aggressive behaviour and thus the stress level within the institution.  Totally unnecessary and done for the sole amusement of the perpetuator - in this case, institutional doctors.  

It does look as though the courts in St. Johns have seen fit to investigate this particular doctor and good for the brave women who spoke out from the inside!

Note:  if anyone has additional info. about this investigation I would love to hear more and write about it here!  j-sheryl@hotmail.com  or comment here

• 
  Camille Strickland-Murphy in provincial court in St. John's on May 24.

A surprise twist in the case of a 19-year-old who was to be sentenced Friday for a knife-point robbery she committed in April.

Camille Strickland-Murphy has asked Judge Pamela Goulding to give her more than two years in prison so she can go to a federal facility in Nova Scotia because she and her family fear she won't get the medical treatment she needs in her home province.
In May her lawyer, Peter Ralph, had suggested she be given a sentence of less than two years so she could serve her time in this province and be near her supportive family.
Crown lawyer Bill Carigan said Strickland-Murphy, who used a knife to rob another woman at a St. John's bank machine, should be sentenced to three years in prison.
Strickland-Murphy has dealt with mental illness most of her life.
The last time she appeared in court Ralph raised concerns that the psychiatrist at Her Majesty's Penitentiary, Dr. David Craig, would change her medication.
"I've been advised that Dr. Craig intends on changing my client's prescription while she is in custody, which is disturbing. Certainly, there is a number of psychiatrists who thought that a prescription for anxiety is important for her and she has been advised by Dr. Craig that he is going to stop that medication when she is in custody," he said on May 25.
On Friday, Ralph said that's exactly what has happened to Strickland-Murphy who has been in custody since her arrest.
Other inmates have complained in the past about Craig's prescribing practices.
His approach to medicating prisoners is currently under review.
In March 2011, the provincial justice minister ordered a peer review of Craig's work at the penitentiary but it hasn't reported yet.

Giving Birth in Shackles

Note from author: If anyone has knowledge of cases where this practice has taken place in Canada, women who want to speak out, news articles, or access to policy or practice documents where this practice is mandated could you please pass it along.  Though I read of the specific case below in the Toronto Star, the article itself seems to have disappeared and I can find no other references to this horror in Canada.
 
The shackling of women who are in labour and giving birth is positively medieval, and exceptionally cruel.  Only a monster could come up with such a practice.  Anyone who has given birth or supported a mother during this time in her life, knows that women in labour pose no security or escape risk.  It is for the benefit of both mom and baby that labouring mothers be able to move around, shift their weight, stand up, and walk around the birthing room if they feel the need to.  Restricting the womans movement can be dangerous for her and her baby.  Not to mention the egregious emotional harm being done to the woman - harm which is sure to last as long as her memories of the birth.

Though the below article is an American story, this is a practice which takes place in Canada as well.  It just happens to be much less reported on by mainstream or social justice media.  2 years ago in Toronto, a woman was shackled and cuffed while giving birth.  While she laboured cuffed to the bed and feet shackled together, the guard with the keys decided to go for a walk.  While he was gone the woman gave birth, the doctors were unable to find the guard to remove the shackles from her ankles and thus unable to put the woman's legs in stirups or to otherwise allow her to position herself to allow a normal birthing position.  It was difficult for the doctor to catch the baby and further endangered both lives.

Birthing Behind Bars: Fighting for Reproductive Justice for Women in Prison

This Mother's Day, take a few minutes to find out how you can help shape a society where no woman ever has to give birth while in shackles and chains.

May 10, 2012  |  

LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?

Join our mailing list:

Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Activism headlines via email.

"I never thought of advocating outside of prison. I just wanted to have some semblance of a normal life once I was released," statedTina Reynolds, a mother and formerly incarcerated woman. Then she gave birth to her son while in prison for a parole violation:

"When I went into labor, my water broke. The van came to pick me up, I was shackled. Once I was in the van, I was handcuffed. I was taken to the hospital. The handcuffs were taken off, but the shackles weren’t. I walked to the wheelchair that they brought over to me and I sat in the wheelchair with shackles on me. They re-handcuffed me once I was in the wheelchair and took me up to the floor where women had their children. 

"When I got there, I was handcuffed with one hand. At the last minute, before I gave birth, I was unshackled so that my feet were free. Then after I gave birth to him, the shackles went back on and the handcuffs stayed on while I held my son on my chest."

That treatment, she recalled later, was "the most egregious, dehumanizing, oppressive practice that I ever experienced while in prison." Her experience is standard procedure for the hundreds of women who enter jail or prison while pregnant each year.

Upon her release, Reynolds started WORTH, an organization of currently and formerly incarcerated women based in New York City, to give currently and formerly incarcerated women both a voice and a support system.

In 2009, Reynolds and other WORTH members took up the challenge of fighting for legislation to end the practice of shackling women while in labor in New York State. At rallies and other public events, formerly incarcerated women spoke about being pregnant while in jail and prison, being handcuffed and shackled while in labor, and being separated from their newborn babies almost immediately. Their stories drew public attention to the issue and put human faces to the pending legislation. That year, New York became the seventh state to limit the shackling of incarcerated women during birth and delivery.

Recognizing the power of women's individual stories to enact change, WORTH is launching Birthing Behind Bars, a project that not only collects stories from women nationwide who have experienced pregnancy while incarcerated, but also strengthens their capacity and ability to share their stories. Too often, issues of reproductive justice are separated from issues of incarceration. Birthing Behind Bars ties women's individual experiences to the broader issues of reproductive justice (or injustice) behind prison walls and helps push a state-by-state analysis of the intersections of reproductive justice and incarceration.

This past March, Arizona became the sixteenth state to pass anti-shackling legislation. Thirty-four states still have no legal protection for women who give birth while behind bars. In Georgia and inMassachusetts, formerly and currently incarcerated women, their advocates, and reproductive rights activists are currently pushing for legislation to prohibit the practice of shackling of incarcerated pregnant women during transport, labor, delivery and recovery. Stories of incarcerated women's pregnancies and birth experiences have proven to be powerful tools when educating the general public and confronting legislators to support such a bill.

In 1870, Julia Ward Howe, a feminist, abolitionist and author of The Battle Hymn of the Republic, issued a proclamation urging women to celebrate Mother's Day in the United States. For Howe, Mother's Day was not a holiday simply for breakfast in bed, cards and flowers—it was a call for women to shape their societies at the political level.

This Mother's Day, take a few minutes to reflect on the reality of women who give birth behind bars. Then take a few more minutes to find out how you can help shape a society where no woman ever has to give birth while in shackles and chains.

Victoria Law is a writer, photographer and mother. She is the author of "Resistance Behind Bars: The Struggles of Incarcerated Women" (PM Press 2009), the editor of the zine Tenacious: Art and Writings from Women in Prison and a co-founder of Books Through Bars - NYC. Her latest book, "Don't Leave Your Friends Behind" (PM Press, Fall 2012) addresses how social justice movements and communities can support the families in their midst.Tina Reynolds is co-founder and co-chair of Women on the Rise Telling Her Story (WORTH) and an adjunct lecturer at York College/CUNY. She is a co-editor of "Interrupted Life: Experiences of Incarcerated Women in the United States" (UC Press 2010).

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.

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

BY KIM PATE:

Why are women Canada's fastest growing prison population; and, why should you care?

University of Western Ontario – Faculty of Law

Distinguished Speaker Series

March 18, 2011

Before I begin my comments, I want to acknowledge and thank the traditional custodians of this land that we now know as London.  The last time I was here, in November, it was to bury my dear friend, Trish Monture.  Trish was a proud Haudenosaunee woman, a Mohawk woman, mother, sister, auntie, friend, ally, scholar, writer, advocate, activist, woman of immense integrity, incredible courage and a brilliant schemer!  She left us too early and we miss her terribly, as we continue the work she inspired. May we all continue to be motivated and compelled to continue this work.  

As a non-Indigenous woman who lives in Algonquin territory and has the privilege and responsibility of walking with many Indigenous women, men and young people, I consider it a duty to name the negative impact of colonization on all of us – for we see the consequences in very stark and profound ways when we enter our prisons and see firsthand the over-representation of Aboriginal men, boys, girls, and  -- most especially -- women.  Indigenous women are more than one third (34%) of women serving federal sentences and more than 50%, 70%, 80%, even 100%, in some provincial and territorial jails and remand centres.

Our association has 25 members spread throughout Canada, providing services to marginalized, victimized, criminalized and institutionalized women, especially those who are imprisoned.  We also undertake policy and law reform initiatives, most of which, these days, are aimed at trying to undo the outrageous injustices being perpetrated at breakneck pace in Ottawa.  We also make every effort to address the interconnectedness of economic, social, legal and political decisions that contribute to women being the fastest growing prison population. 

As we see the further erosion of the substantive equality of women, especially those most vulnerable because of multiple intersections of marginalization and discrimination, be it race, sexual orientation, ability – particularly disabling mental health issues -- or those escaping violence, we are witnessing the exponential growth of women in prison.  Women are the fastest growing prison population worldwide. 

The fact that women are the fastest growing prison population is not accidental.  In Canada, we recognize that our links to the United States have meant that we were amongst the first countries to be impacted by the regressive, so-called, law and order agenda, which are making prisons the default option for those most significantly impacted by the destruction of social safety nets, and the evisceration of medical, economic and education standards and services. 

In too many communities and contexts, prisons are the only “service” that cannot turn people away because of waiting lists, a lack of beds or resources, change in mandate, et cetera.  Imagine if, instead of continuing to cram more people into over-crowded prisons, we limited the number of bed days available for judges to impose as sentences, or if we turned women away and would not allow them access to prisons when they really need housing, a shelter to escape violence, treatment to deal with past sexual abuse and other forms of trauma, drug and/or alcohol detoxification and treatment to address mental health and/or addiction issues.

In our organization, at the national level and amongst our members, we have recognized this reality very concretely by the change of our mission to articulate that we work with women who are criminalized versus the historic orientation of working with women who come into conflict with the law.  With this reality, we recognize that it is the laws and policies that are increasingly coming into conflict with peoples’ lives, resulting in the virtual inevitability of criminalization; rather than the notion that people are the full and consenting authors of their own circumstances. 

In Canada, in 1996, we decided to follow the U.S. lead when the federal government eliminated the Canada Assistance Plan and therefore the essential nature of Canadian standards of social, medical and educational resourcing.  We have now experienced the same sorts of cuts and knee-jerk band-aid responses – all of which norm crime and criminal justice and penal responses, thereby presuming criminality and perpetuating the problems of the past, be they crime prevention, homelessness, restorative justice or other responses. 

Canada is rushing to follow the U.S. race to incarcerate the most dispossessed for longer and more brutalizing periods.  Ironically, this is occurring at a time when many US jurisdictions are retreating from regressive ‘law and order’ agenda.  Moreover, in 2008, a panel of federal judges ordered California to reduce its prison population by 40,000 over the next two years – which reflects a roughly 27% cut from the current population of 150,000. Until very recently, Canadian politicians were ignoring their social and fiduciary responsibilities to Canadians by passing laws, seemingly without concern as to the human and fiscal costs associated with them. The long list of new criminal justice reforms, will raise incarceration rates out and suck resources out of the community.  Although, as I speak, today, the government’s refusal to reveal the costs of the current crime agenda, means that Parliament is in the midst of deciding whether the government is in contempt of Parliament.  

By creating criminally low social assistance – formerly known as welfare -- rates throughout Canada and even bans on receipt of state resources in some jurisdictions, many poor people are immediately relegated to the criminalized underclass.  Rather than resulting in the criminalization of poor women for welfare fraud, prostitution, drug trafficking or whatever other survival strategies are employed, if we were truly interested in addressing fraudulent transactions that harm others, then criminally low welfare rates might result in the criminalization of those who craft, those who pass, and those who enforce, the laws and policies, not those subjected to them.

We are also seeing the increased feminization and criminalization of poverty.   Welfare fraud is one example of how poor women are increasingly likely to be criminalized.  Their attempts to survive poverty too often results in charges ranging from fraud (including welfare fraud), soliciting, pimping, living off the avails, or, importing and trafficking.  As we learned via the Hamilton and Brown cases, African Canadian single mothers are literally recruited to traffic narcotics as they exit meetings with their assistance workers.  Women who are trying to make the rent and/or feed their children/families are especially vulnerable.  It used to be that we might see women resorting to such means to address extraordinary expenses such as birthdays, Christmas and/or other holidays, child care, summer camp expenses, et cetera.  It is increasingly the manner in which sole support moms are attempting to cover basic living costs.

In Ontario, we have the tragic reality of the life and death of Kim Rogers.  Kim was criminalized in the first place because she attended school, while she was receiving ‘Ontario works’ funding.  She was charged and convicted of "welfare fraud".  This label and resulting punishment were applied because Kim attempted to return to school as an adult in order to obtain an education while still on social assistance.  As part of the process, she also sought and received student loans.  Although everyone knows that it is impossible to live on welfare without some supplemental income/support, to be “caught” doing so means the near certainty of criminal prosecution.  We question why those responsible for the development of such harmful social policies and legislation are not held legally responsible for the human and social costs of criminalizing the most marginalized, vulnerable and oppressed. 

In Kim Rogers’ circumstances, her death was a result of criminal negligence and complicit political, economic, legal and social policy decisions, yet only she was held accountable. Moreover, after her death, we discovered that she could have been attending school and receiving additional benefits, had she or, more to the point, her worker known. She was eligible for disability benefits. Her usual work was waitressing and bar tending, but her knee surgery made it impossible for her to continue in that work, so she went back to school. 

We should all examine the realities regarding who benefits from the discrepancy in monitoring, charging, prosecuting and sentencing of tax evasion, unemployment fraud, OHIP/doctors’ over-billing, lawyers dipping in to their trust funds, GST fraud, versus the demonization of the poor exemplified by the criminalization and pursuit of welfare recipients.  We should also question why some behaviour is characterized as almost benign omission versus purposeful, criminally intended, fraud? 

During the mid-1990s, here in Canada, all of the provincial, territorial and federal heads of corrections met and agreed that we needed to reduce reliance on prisons.  They opined that as many as 75% of those in prison, either serving sentences or awaiting trial, could be released to the community, without any corresponding increase in risk to public safety.  The Correctional Investigator has repeatedly called on the government to address the needs of those with mental health issues in the community, rather than continuing to abandon them to prisons. 

In the United Kingdom, noted policy leaders such as Pat Carlen and the Howard League are amongst those calling for the criminal justice system to refuse to proceed with criminalizing the young, those escaping violence, those with intellectual disabilities and mental health issues; they are also amongst those calling for more decarceration, community development, and social (re)investment.  Indeed, many academics, professionals and practitioners on the front lines have also characterized the push to criminalize the most dispossessed as the present manifestation of race, ability, class and gender bias, and argue that this demands we examine our fundamental beliefs and notions of whose interests and biases are privileged, and at whose expense? 

When we know the histories of abuse, poverty and extreme marginalization that is the reality of most of the young women and girls with whom we work, it seems quite ludicrous that we continue to pretend that telling women and girls not to take drugs to dull the pain of abuse, hunger or other devastation, or tell them that they must stop the behaviour that allowed them to survive poverty, abuse, disabling health -- especially mental health -- issues, et cetera, in the face of no current or future prospect of any income, housing, medical, educational or other supports.  Surely none of us thinks it of benefit to anyone to continue to imprison women and girls, and then release them to the street with little more than psycho-social, cognitive skills or drug abstinence programming, along with the implicit judgment that they are in control of and therefore responsible for their situations, including their own criminalization.  We all must rethink, resist and reject such notions.

Indigenous women continue to suffer the shameful and devastating impact of colonization.  From residential school, to child welfare seizure, to juvenile and adult detention, Aboriginal women and girls are vastly over-represented in institutions under state control.  Although Aboriginal women make up 1-2% of the Canadian population, they make up 34% of the federal prison population, and too often represent the majority of the women classified as maximum-security prisoners.  Indeed, even as we work to deinstitutionalize and decarcerate, we are seeing that “treatment” is increasingly the colonial control mechanism of choice.  Indeed, we are already seeing this, as we first saw exemplified in the case of G, the pregnant young Indigenous woman who was institutionalized for forced treatment. 

The focus on fetal alcohol spectrum syndromes and disorders are gendered, classed and racist in approach and we must venture forth very carefully.  Consider for a moment the reality that such alphabet soup diagnoses of FAS, FAE, FASD, ARND [alcohol-related neurological disorders] et cetera, are most prevalent in countries that have high rates of criminalized Indigenous populations.  Even although the shopping lists of symptoms or characteristics of foetal alcohol labels overlap significantly with other conditions ranging from inadequate nutrition, oxygen deprivation, learning disabilities, attention deficit, et cetera, the labels are persistently utilized in places such as Canada, New Zealand, Australia and the United States.  It is not coincidental that these are also countries with high rates of criminalization of racialized Indigenous peoples. 

In the European Union, on the other hand, this approach is not seen as particularly helpful – they consider the symptoms and impact of other toxins, be they pollution, bad water, insufficient nutrients, lack of prenatal and postnatal supports, accidental brain injuries, lack of oxygen, et cetera, as equally important.  After all, despite the rhetoric that it is 100% preventable, since many women do not know they are pregnant before the apparently crucial day 17 of gestation, the only way to make it so would be to prohibit the consumption of alcohol by all women of child-bearing age. 

Moreover, since we don’t really know what the impact of alcohol is on male sperm, then likely it should also be illegal for men to drink too.  Obviously, we all want to limit the impact of alcohol and other toxins on foetal development, but we know that criminalizing behaviour is only likely to end up with a focus on those least able to defend themselves against it.  Current access to justice issues being what they are, a focus on fetal alcohol exposure, in isolation, is likely to continue to result in the disproportionate application of the law and societal judgment against poor and racialized women.

How many fewer diagnoses of FASD (fetal alcohol spectrum disorders), et cetera would there be if that label meant that the recipients thereof could not be relegated to the most isolating prison conditions?  If such a label meant that someone could not be criminalized but must be found to be in need of community supports because their disability renders them incapable of forming criminal intent, we predict that the diagnoses might virtually evaporate. Courageous jurists, like Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond (as she then was) have tried to take on this issue in individual cases. We applaud and encourage such efforts and continue to push for broader, systemic change.  

It is no accident who is criminalized, nor who is imprisoned; and, nor is it an accident who is not!  What if, instead of denying and defending abuse of power and force by police and prison personnel, as well as the neglect and abuse of institutionalized persons, we collectively condemned and stopped such practices. 

I used to meet most women with significant mental health issues kneeling on a cement floor, or institutionally linoleum tiled floor, peering through a meal slot in a solid metal door.  For almost three years following the publicity surrounding the death of Ashley Smith, I was denied access to the segregation unit where she died.  In order to meet with the women in the circumstances Ashley faced before she died, they and I must “agree” to them being fully shackled, usually handcuffed to the back too, and isolated behind bullet-proof glass, monitored by 2-5 correctional officers.

In our attempts to address these issues, we have met with judges, prosecutors, the defence bar, correctional authorities and mental health professionals.  Mental health and youth workers, in particular, have lamented the reality that the evisceration of their resources, combined with the advent of zero tolerance to violence policies, have resulted in policy directives that instruct them to call the police and urge the pursuit of criminal prosecution in cases where those with mental health and/or intellectual disabilities are assaultive or abusive.  Behaviour that might previously have been considered to be symptomatic of the psychiatric or mental health label attached to the individual is treated as criminal or “bad” behaviour in the criminal justice context.  Reduced resources and priorities mean that they are usually without the requisite supports to handle the most challenging folk.  There is a long line-up of others in the community who are not criminalized awaiting treatment options, so they are seen as legally and ethically justified in making such decisions. 

The reflex of corrections to develop mental health service in prisons sounds positive to many, yet, in reality, it is only serving to exacerbate the trend to increasingly criminalize women with mental health issues and intellectual disabilities.  Developing such services in prisons at a time when they are increasingly non-existent in the community is resulting in more women receiving federal sentences because of a presumption that there is an ability to access services in prison that are not available in community settings.  It is vital that we recognize, however, that prisons are not, and cannot be, treatment or healing centres. 

In fact, those subject to federal terms of imprisonment are too often relegated to the most isolating conditions, almost inevitably accumulating additional charges and usually ending up serving many more years in prison, as a result of behaviour and charges arising in prison, largely in response to the conditions of confinement to which they are subjected.  For further insight into this phenomenon, I encourage you to read an article by Marian Botsford, entitled, “Life on the Instalment Plan”, in the March 2009 volume of The Walrus.

Unlike the sentiment expressed by mental health workers, corrections staff  necessarily categorize the mental health considerations as secondary.  Because they are dealing with people who have been criminalized, the behaviour is generally labelled as bad – manipulative, attention-getting, capable of control, [indeed, within the control of the individual] -- and mental health issues almost always take a back seat to security and punitive responses. 

We need to continually question who benefits from such approaches.  The off-loading of responsibility without requisite resources, the lack of appreciation by many of the impact of resource cuts, and the apparent belief that someone else will address issues, is resulting in the reality that increasingly, we are witnessing the abandonment of social issues to the criminal courts and penal systems to rectify.

The pre-existing lack of trust, connection and communication (too often further exacerbated by literacy and English as a second language issues) between ‘client’ and ‘counsel’ will only serve to further isolate the most marginalized.  Similarly, limited access to justice, especially as a result of cuts to legal aid, and the concurrent vilification of those left standing and/or advocating with and on behalf of the most marginalized, means that the last ones left standing with the women and girls we know, are generally without adequate supports or resources, so they also continue to be vilified for their inadequacy to make things work.

So, to sum up, according to Statistics Canada, there has been a steady increase in the numbers of people remanded in custody, and with the exception of a slight increase two years ago, the imprisonment rate for men has been falling for much of the last two decades.  It is appropriate that sentences reflect the credited time for pre-trial custody; pre-trial custody is generally warehousing in a maximum security – often very isolated – setting.  The lack of community-based resources and resulting increase in homeless people, those with mental health and addiction issues, as well as those escaping violence, is directly contributing to the increased numbers remanded in custody.

Women account for 10-15% of those charged with violent offences, and 45.5% of all property related charges against women, are for “shoplifting”.  85% of women in federal custody are serving their first federal term of imprisonment, 47.9% are between 21 and 34 years of age; 17% are serving life sentences. 

It currently costs between $185,000 and upwards of $350,000-500,000 per annum to jail a woman in the federal system, compared to approximately $35,000 for residency in a funded, supervised community-based setting.  Even a few weeks remanded in custody can interfere with housing, employment, social assistance, child custody, et cetera.  As such, it is not surprising that relative few women receive conditional sentences.  As the Parliamentary Budget Officer reported in June of last year, one new law alone – of the many already passed or in the works – will cost tax payers between 7 and 10 billion dollars.  Rather than addressing the egregious conditions in local lock-ups and remand centres, the government passed a law to eliminate judicial discretion to credit time served for those awaiting trial.   

Current and proposed legislation will promote the on-going construction of new federal, as well as provincial and territorial prisons across the country.  It is estimated that the expanded capacity of 6,000 spaces will cost of over $2 billion for construction and $310 million a year in operating costs.  These figures are considered to be conservative estimates.  Unfortunately, despite having campaigned on a platform of accountability and transparency, the government refused to disclose what its new criminal law and penal reforms will cost Canadians.  Although yesterday, they signaled they might retreat from their mantra that such information is protected by Cabinet confidence, there is still a paucity of accurate information regarding the cost of current criminal justice reforms.  As such, the breach of  fiduciary obligations to Canadian taxpayers continues.

So, where do we go from here?         

Where to -                               We want to continue to challenge lawyers and judges to throw out cases that bring the administration of justice into disrepute.  How can this not be the case for welfare fraud for instance?  Why have those responsible for the regressive legislative and policy decisions not been called to account?  Why do the provincial and federal governments routinely intervene to restrict access to justice by the oppressed, rather than assist them by intervening on behalf and in support of progressive laws and policies, for example, cases involving breaches of section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

We also need to challenge current definitions of mens rea and theories regarding definitions of what is a crime?  The opportunity for this was explored by the Law Commission of Canada – before they were obliterated -- regarding the definition of what is considered to be a crime.  Resources are always an issue when it comes to matters of equality and social justice, so we also need to ensure that adequate and flexible resources exist to assist women’s, Aboriginal, anti-poverty, and other grassroots groups and those living the oppression to alleviate – indeed eliminate -- the structural inequity occasioned by current social, economic and legal policies and law reforms. 

We need to breath life into the initiatives proposed by true leaders, women like Louise Arbour, who have called on us to demand a Canada that pushes for human rights that equate with freedom from want.  We must push municipal, provincial and federal governments to restore or develop sorely needed housing, social assistance, supportive women-directed counseling, educational and advocacy services, and facilitating access to them is another. 

Encouraging and facilitating the access of advocacy groups like ours and others doing feminist, anti-racist, anti-poverty and human rights work, to provide women and girls with accurate and accessible information and tools as to how to advocate individually and collectively, is yet another strategy.  Currently, our Elizabeth Fry Societies in Ontario are being denied access to women in provincial jails and information booklets regarding their rights are being seized and being labeled as “contraband” within the prisons.

Affordable academic and vocational training opportunities for women and girls is another vital need for women in and from prison. In a time where governments will be cutting social services in an attempt to balance their books, such spending is not only fiscally disastrous for all of us, but the diversion of funds into prison systems will further erode the social fabric of Canada.  It is more than disingenuous of our Parliamentarians of all political stripes to not challenge this rise in penal expenditure at a time when Canada is described as having a stable 'crime' rate.  Most of us do not want to have our tax dollars spent on building prisons instead of on social services, schools, and hospitals.

It costs substantially less to host and maintain community programs, than it does to build more prisons.  Furthermore, community-based prevention and sentencing options are more effective than prison in promoting public safety.

Members of Parliament and Senators have a fiduciary responsibility to exercise due diligence and cost benefit analysis before they spend taxpayer dollars. By passing the current crime bills without any idea as to how much they will cost Canadians, they have abdicated their fiduciary responsibility.  Moreover, by expecting taxpayers to write the government a blank cheque, they are further violating this relationship of trust.

We applaud recent efforts of Members of Parliament to exercise their public offices more responsibly. We must stand up and object to the current trend to send more people to prison instead of college and university.  Penal expansion has far reaching consequences beyond prison walls which are extremely damaging to all of us.

Much is possible, right now, if we merely have the will to stand together, to collaborate and confront the myths, misconceptions as well as the realities that are out current challenges. 

Crime is a theory. 

Name any behaviour and we will be able to identify times when it is considered legal and times when it is not.  Law and criminalization are theories and choices made by those who we give the authority, as well as those who take power. 

Who among us does not already acknowledge that jails are not the shelters battered women need, that they are not treatment centres or places of healing, that they are not an appropriate substitution for adequate and affordable housing, education or skills development.  We know who is and who is not in prison.  With few exceptions, the wealthy and most privileged are not jailed.  Crime is a theory -- defined, monitored and enforced for specific identifiable purposes. 

Rather than personalizing the various legal, human rights and social justice struggles and uprisings of prisoners, we are hopeful that increasingly, all will recognize that it is always in our collective interest when the oppressed resist and challenge their oppression.  Increasing prisoner access to the justice and equality occasioned by social inclusion will benefit all of us and all of our communities of interest. 

We encourage you to join the growing world-wide political, economic, and social coalition to stop the increased intrusion of the state in terms of surveillance and social control as well as the retreat of the state in terms of the provision of supportive social, health and educational services. 

And, as Lilla Watson, an Aboriginal woman in Australia has stressed, we need to work together to correct current injustice.  I will conclude with her words, shared with me more than 19 years ago by a woman inside.

If you have come here to help me,

you are wasting our time.

If you have come here because your liberation is bound up with mine,

then let us work together.

I dedicate these words to the memory of Trish Monture, her daughter Kate, as well as to Ashley Smith and the far too numerous other men, women and children who have died unnatural and preventable deaths in our prisons…

Thank you to all of you for the part you do now and will do, when you use your legal and other training and life experience to change the world, and try to prevent harm befalling others.  And, to women with the lived experience who are my constant allies, agitators, mentors and friends, your strength, courage and perseverance continue to inspire and drive me.

Thank you