Showing posts with label Safe Streets and Communities Act. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Safe Streets and Communities Act. Show all posts

Friday, July 13, 2012

Updates on Bill C10 and Prison Privatisation - Multiple Sources

From oldest to newest;

http://www.cannabisculture.com/content/2012/03/13/Why-Crime-Bill-Should-be-Concern-Business

Cannibis culture, Marc Emery's online resource has been following the C10 saga from the beginning and have a dozen or more articles on the topic.

http://www.canadianprogressiveworld.com/2012/04/11/coming-to-canada-prison-industrial-complex-
punishment-and-profits/

http://wp.stu.ca/occupypapers/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/sauvageau_jean.pdf
"The Harper Government and the Criminal Law Agenda: When being “tough on crime” has nothing to do
with crime, justice nor public safety"
Author provides an interesting analysis from the perspective of a lawyer and criminologist.  He locates public safety squarely in the context of economic equality and makes his case through comparrisons of Canada, the US, and Scandenavian countries.

 http://www.canadianprogressiveworld.com/2012/07/05/enbridge-executives-company-awarded-first-bill-c-10-38-5-million-prison-project/

 http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-10/canada-studying-private-firms-for-prisons-as-budgets-fall.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-10/canada-studying-private-firms-for-prisons-as-budgets-fall.html

http://www.straight.com/article-732016/vancouver/spigot-circumcision-decision-germany-private-jails-canada

This last link is a humourous blog in response to some of the last articles.  Be sure to see the reader comments!


ast summer Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Conservatives demonstrated their tough stance on foreigners suspected of war crimes abroad. The suspects were rounded up, detained and deported. The sweep was the beginning of a crackdown on immigrants that also deliberately links immigration and criminality. It laid the foundation for a future powerful private prison industry in Canada.
A few weeks ago, Harper and his Conservative majority government passed a universally-condemned, ideologically-driven new crime law, deceptively christened “Safe Streets and Communities Act”. Harper used his acquiescing majorities in the House of Commons and Senator to pass the bill without any substantial debate. Indeed, the GEO Group, a major player in the private correctional services in the US, UK, Australia and South Africa, lobbied for the new law. In the video below, Al Jazeera’s Fault Lines travels to Texas and Florida to investigate the business of immigration detention in the US and to find out how a handful of companies have managed to shape US immigration laws.

ast summer Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Conservatives demonstrated their tough stance on foreigners suspected of war crimes abroad. The suspects were rounded up, detained and deported. The sweep was the beginning of a crackdown on immigrants that also deliberately links immigration and criminality. It laid the foundation for a future powerful private prison industry in Canada.
A few weeks ago, Harper and his Conservative majority government passed a universally-condemned, ideologically-driven new crime law, deceptively christened “Safe Streets and Communities Act”. Harper used his acquiescing majorities in the House of Commons and Senator to pass the bill without any substantial debate. Indeed, the GEO Group, a major player in the private correctional services in the US, UK, Australia and South Africa, lobbied for the new law. In the video below, Al Jazeera’s Fault Lines travels to Texas and Florida to investigate the business of immigration detention in the US and to find out how a handful of companies have managed to shape US immigration laws.
ast summer Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Conservatives demonstrated their tough stance on foreigners suspected of war crimes abroad. The suspects were rounded up, detained and deported. The sweep was the beginning of a crackdown on immigrants that also deliberately links immigration and criminality. It laid the foundation for a future powerful private prison industry in Canada.
A few weeks ago, Harper and his Conservative majority government passed a universally-condemned, ideologically-driven new crime law, deceptively christened “Safe Streets and Communities Act”. Harper used his acquiescing majorities in the House of Commons and Senator to pass the bill without any substantial debate. Indeed, the GEO Group, a major player in the private correctional services in the US, UK, Australia and South Africa, lobbied for the new law. In the video below, Al Jazeera’s Fault Lines travels to Texas and Florida to investigate the business of immigration detention in the US and to find out how a handful of companies have managed to shape US immigration laws.

Thursday, May 31, 2012

Harpers Creepy Crime Bill: Operation Maple



One of my favorite alternative news sources: Operation Maple is a mostly video based web site.  They go out on the street and interview Canadian residents about issues of the day and/or issues impacting those individuals directly.

Operation Maple: Mission: Take Canada Back

Sunday, April 8, 2012

3 Weeks Into the C10 Hunger Strike

Obert Modando is one brave soul!  I can't imagine what it must feel like to be without food for 3 weeks, but it must be very painful.  Clearly protecting his freedom and the freedom of all persons on Canadian soil is deeply, intensely important to Obert.  Please see below for Oberts demands to Parliament and law enforcement.  And please take some time to support Obert by spreading his message far and wide, talk about it with those in your life, on facebook, in your blogs, etc.  Maybe stop by Obert's Facebook page and express some words of support.


By Natalia Crowe
Retrieved from  http://groups.google.com/group/prisonersjusticetoronto/browse_thread/thread/7d5646357c9552f2#

Obert Modando is a Zimbabwe brother who was injured by police during his
arrest at Occupy Ottawa. More info about his demands and his open letter to
Parliament, delivered by MP Paul Dewar, below and at
http://www.canadianprogressiveworld.com/<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-mcaeD16ro&feature=player_embedded#>

Obert has 5 demands:

1. The Parliament of Canada should repeal the Safe Streets and Communities
Act in its entirety.
2. Former Ottawa Police chief and newly-appointed Senator, Vernon White,
should immediately resign.
3. The federal government should make a commitment to invest 100 times the
cost of monitoring and dismantling Occupy encampments across Canada last
fall to institute a national inquiry into the case of 600+ missing and
murdered aboriginal women and girls.
4. The House of Commons should immediately institute measures to improve
accountability and transparency. The measures should include limitations on
the governing party’s power to a) manipulate Standing Orders; b) evade
opposition scrutiny; c) shut down debate d) silence critics; and e) run
committees behind closed doors and prevent Canadians from participating.
5. The Conservative government must immediately stop its campaign against
Canadians and Canadian democracy. This campaign currently manifests through
a) the criminalization of dissent; b) promotion of a divisive agenda and
attitude; c) whipping up of unnecessary moral panic; and d) using
incendiary labels to stifle debate and criticism on its actions.

Links:
Canadian Progressive World: http://www.canadianprogressiveworld.com/
Obert's Facebook Profile: http://www.facebook.com/obie.mad
Obert on Twitter: https://twitter.com/#!/Obiemad

C10 Hunger Striker

On Day Six of Indefinite Bill C-10 Hunger Strike, Obert Madondo Addresses Canadian MPs

Monday, February 20, 2012

Friday, February 3, 2012

Bill C10: A Radical, Socialist Critique

A pretty good critique of C10 omnibus Bill by Ed Patrick of the World Socialist Web Site.  Ed talks about the bourgeois' criticisms of C10 and points out quite succinctly what is wrong with this narrow viewpoint that misses the larger and more important picture altogether.  One of my favorite paragraphs:

 "The thrust of the Conservatives’ criminal justice policy is the repudiation of any notion that crime is rooted in poverty and other social ills and the resurrection of pre-Enlightment views of crime as a product of personal evil and original sin"

 Canada: Conservatives’ reactionary “tough on crime” bill soon to become law

By Ed Patrick
31 January 2012
Stephen Harper’s new majority Conservative government has made pushing the Safe Streets and Communities Act, Bill C-10, through parliament a top priority.
Comprised of nine bills that were either defeated by the last parliament or died with its dissolution, the Conservatives’ omnibus anti-crime bill is a collection of socially regressive measures. Most of these would make the criminal justice system more arbitrary and vindictive. Some are petty. Taken together they represent a wholesale repudiation of the bourgeois liberal concept of rehabilitation, in favor of punishment and vengeance.
Among other things, Bill C-10 would:
  • Significantly erode the distinction between youth and adult offenders. Henceforth, the courts would be obliged to consider imposing adult sentences on persons as young as 14 convicted of murder, attempted murder, manslaughter or aggravated sexual assault. Judges would also have the right to impose harsher sentences in cases involving violent or repeat offenders, including those found guilty of reckless behavior.
  • Allow police to arrest without a warrant “an offender who appears to be in breach of a condition of any conditional release.”
  • Eliminate judges’ discretion to impose conditional sentences or house arrest for many crimes, including manslaughter and drug trafficking.
  • Impose new or increased mandatory minimum sentences for those in possession of even small amounts of marijuana and other illicit drugs if deemed “for the purposes of trafficking,” and for persons convicted of child sex offenses.
  • Impose longer wait-time before persons can request a pardon and bar those convicted of serious crimes from ever obtaining a pardon.
  • Introduce new hurdles for Canadian citizens jailed abroad to serve the remainder of their sentences in Canada.
Claiming that they have a popular mandate, the Conservatives brushed aside opposition reservations about Bill C-10, including some 88 proposed amendments, and invoked cloture last month to ensure its passage by the House of Commons. The bill now only needs the imprimatur of the Conservative-dominated Senate and the Governor-General’s signature to become law.
The government claims stern action is needed because for the last 20 years the criminal justice system has “worked for criminals, not victims” and ordinary Canadians feel vulnerable.
In fact, Statistics Canada polls in 2004 and 2008 found that vast majority of the populace—about 93 percent—feels very safe. Moreover, crime rates, including rates of violent crime, have steadily declined for more than a quarter century.
Even some crime victim “advocates” have spoken out against the government’s emphasis on incarceration and retribution. As Steve Sullivan of Ottawa Victim Services pointed out, “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.”
It is widely agreed among criminologists and others with expert knowledge about the criminal justice system that mandatory minimum sentences do not enhance community safety or lower crime rates. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association argues that mandatory minimum sentencing will make it impossible for the judiciary to respond to the particularities of individual crimes, resulting in prison terms way out of proportion with the crimes committed. By way of an example, it notes that under Bill C-10 a person who was coerced by a relative into participating in a marijuana grow-up would be subjected to the mandatory sixth-month minimum prison sentence.
As a result of Bill C-10’s mandatory-sentencing provisions, persons convicted of crimes will be treated less as individual human beings, responding to and operating within widely different circumstances, and more as members of a general deviant subgroup—“criminals”— all deserving of essentially the same penalty.
One of the inevitable perverse impacts of mandatory minimum sentencing will be a surge in the prison population. Bourgeois critics of Bill C-10, such as the Globe and Mail, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the Liberals and the trade-union-supported New Democrats (NDP) have made this consequence a key point of criticism. Their objections, however, have chiefly to do with the huge increased cost to the state of housing all these new prisoners and whether, in a period of austerity, the government is making the best expenditure of taxpayer dollars in embarking on a major federal prison-building program.
To be sure, it is a telling indication of the government’s priorities that the criminal justice system and the military are among the only programs that will escape massive budget cuts in the coming years.
But even more important than dollars and cents is the suffering that will be inflicted on the prison population as the result of mandatory sentencing. Cramped conditions will lead to greater violence and force reductions in already inadequate services such as libraries, psychological and substance abuse counselling, and skills programs. All the more so, as the government is much more interested in building prisons than providing prisoners with programs aimed at their rehabilitation.
The government has cavalierly dismissed its bourgeois critics. When challenged over the statistics demonstrating a long-term decrease in crime, Justice Minister Rob Nicholson retorted,
“We don’t govern on the basis of statistics. If we see a need to better protect children or send a message to drug dealers, that’s the basis upon which we’re proceeding.”
The Conservatives’ law-and-order campaign has deeply reactionary political and ideological motivations that go far beyond the common media refrain that Prime Minister Harper is pandering to the religious social conservatives who constitute an important part of the party’s activist base.
The thrust of the Conservatives’ criminal justice policy is the repudiation of any notion that crime is rooted in poverty and other social ills and the resurrection of pre-Enlightment views of crime as a product of personal evil and original sin. Likewise, the Conservatives and the bourgeois establishment as a whole more and more present unemployment and all the other social injustices of capitalism as the product of individual failings.
Nicholson has promised that Bill C-10 is only the beginning of a massive “overhaul” of the criminal justice system. The Conservatives have already announced plans to significantly expand police powers, including to spy on the Internet, and to revive two lapsed provisions of the 2001 Anti-Terrorism Act that provide for detention without charge and set aside the right to silence.
Under the cover of their “law and order” agenda, the Conservatives are building up the repressive apparatus of the state; promoting the police, along with the military, as an elite owed special respect, indeed deference, from the public; and cultivating the most base popular instincts, with their insistence that criminals must be “made to pay” through ever harsher sentences and prison conditions.
This goes alongside the criminalization of popular dissent and workers’ resistance, as in the case of the massive security mobilization and police riot during the 2010 Toronto G20 summit and the government’s use of emergency strikebreaking laws to break last year’s postal and Air Canada strikes.
While some of the measures in Bill C-10 have caused handwringing in sections of the elite, the Conservatives’ authoritarian measures against working people have been backed with enthusiasm by big business.

Thursday, January 19, 2012

Tim Hudaks Corporate Buddies Stood to Gain $ from Chain Gangs

Good work sniffing out this stinky corporate/gov criminal enterprise Operation Maple!  One of my favorite pages for factual news on issues people really care about.... http://www.operationmaple.com/

Tim Hudak’s plan for chain gangs: It finally makes sense!
This is the Key:
The GPS Anklet Monitor:

hs-gps 
hs-chaingang
First: You need a chain gang (won’t be any shortage of these with Harper’s plans for more prisons, right?)

hs-ankle

Next: You stick one of these GPS anklets on each one of the inmates and you’re good to go!

Results: It’s very expensive for the taxpayer and doesn’t create jobs BUT that’s okay because someone does benefit.
Who? Tim Hudak’s friend and supporter, Gordon Baker! Yes. Turns out the supplier of the GPS anklet monitor is none other than Gordon Baker, a Director of Jemtech Inc., a major distributor of GPS tracking devices. Baker is also a major donor to Hudak's PC Party, with over $50,000 in personal donations. And he is credited in Tim Hudak's election platform. There's a history between Hudak and Baker/Jemtech. Under the last PC government Jemtech claimed 87% of their business came from sole-sourced deals with the PC government.
“If it goes through, police say communities will be less safe. But Hudak's friends may get lucrative new business.”
Source: Canada NewsWire, Sept 14, 2011

Monday, January 16, 2012

Stephen Harper's Bad Idea: Bill C-10 and the Strategy to Fill Our Prisons

The following article by Joan Ruzsa from Rittenhouse (also posted on the New Socialist) pulls together many of the important points about the Omnibus crime Bill.  Joan provides some really sharp points and contradictions within this Bill that we should all be thinking about.                                                                                                                                                   Joan Ruzsa has been the coordinator of Rittenhouse, an abolitionist agency that advocates for alternatives to incarceration, since 2000.  She also works at PASAN (Prisoners with HIV/AIDS Support Action Network) and is studying to become a psychotherapist.






By Joan Ruzsa

I remember when the Harper government first introduced a bill (then called C-15) to create mandatory minimum sentences for drug crimes. I was struck by something when reading the parliamentary debates on the issue. Not only did the opposition parties point to numerous position papers that discounted the efficacy of mandatory minimums, but even the Conservatives' own research clearly showed that harsher sentences have no deterrent effect on crime.
Governments and corporations commission studies all the time, and are usually able to get the results massaged in a way that reinforces their position. How bad must an idea be when even the people you hand-pick to study it can't find anything worthwhile in it? I remember feeling confident that there was no way the Conservatives would be successful in getting this bill passed.

And initially C-15 died in parliament, but the federal government continued to doggedly pursue it, along with a number of other fear-based "law-and-order" initiatives. Harper and his people kept telling us that we needed to be "tough on crime" to protect our communities from increasing numbers of dangerous people. The only problem with that argument is that both the crime rate and the crime severity index have been steadily dropping in Canada since 1994.

Then, in the summer of 2010, Stockwell Day informed reporters that the government's $9 billion proposed expenditure to build new prisons was necessitated by a rise in "unreported crime." Of course he was laughed out of the room, but a week later a smug article appeared in the Toronto Sun crowing that Day's assertion had been backed up by polling data. Even if that were true, "unreported" crime, by virtue of being unreported, does not end up in the court or correctional systems, and so has no bearing on prison populations.

Self-Fulfilling Prophecy

So what do you do when you have a factually insupportable crime agenda? You create a self-fulfilling prophecy. Even before Harper won a "majority" in May 2011, his government was already putting their plan to fill the jails into action.

In November of 2009, they passed a law getting rid of the 2-for-1 credit for people in remand. Up until that point, judges had the discretion to reduce people's sentences by two days for every day they spent in pre-trial custody. This was meant in some small way to compensate for the horrible conditions people had to endure, sometimes for months at a time, while awaiting trial, mostly because they were not in a financial position to post bail. By eliminating the 2-for-1 credit, the government clearly showed its indifference to the inhumane treatment of people who have not been convicted of any crime, in a country whose judicial system has a presumption of innocence and enshrines the right to a "speedy trial."

Then in March of 2011, with the support of the Bloc Quebecois, the Conservatives passed Bill C-59, abolishing Accelerated Parole Reviews. These Parole Reviews had allowed people convicted of non-violent offences to get day parole after serving 1/6 of their sentence, and full parole after serving 1/3 of their sentence.

By eliminating the 2-for-1 credit and Accelerated Parole Reviews, the Harper government guaranteed that people would spend more time behind bars.

Creating More Criminals

And then of course there is Bill C-10, inaccurately titled "The Safe Streets and Communities Act." Introduced in parliament on September 20th, C-10 brings together nine crime bills that the government was unsuccessful in passing previously. This omnibus bill, if passed as it is written now, will ensure that our prisons are full to overflowing, thus justifying Harper's construction plans. However, the prisons will not be packed because there is more actual crime happening, but because the government is criminalizing more communities and behaviours, as well as net-widening to create more incarcerable offences. They are also trying to enact legislation that will make it harder for prisoners to get out of jail, and easier for law enforcement to throw people back into jail.

On the front end, we have mandatory minimums, changes to the youth justice act, and the elimination of house arrest (also called conditional sentencing) for many crimes. Mandatory minimums (Bill S-10) take away judicial discretion. Until now, judges have been able to look at mitigating circumstances and make decisions about sentencing based on the accused person's level of involvement in the crime, history, family or employment situation, etc. Now someone caught with as few as six marijuana plants will be charged with trafficking and receive a minimum jail sentence of 6 months. Changes to the youth justice act (Bill C-4) will result in more youth being held in pre-trial custody, more youth bring tried in adult court and sent to adult prisons, and increased custodial sentences rather than community sentences (like probation or community service). And Bill C-16, which is touted as eliminating house arrest for "serious" crimes, will result in jail time for people convicted for minor and property crimes.

Bill C-10 will also impose considerable additional hardships on people while they're in prison. Bill C-39 removes language about rehabilitation and reintegration from the purpose of federal corrections in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, focusing solely on "the protection of society" as the paramount consideration. There is already very little effective or easily available rehabilitative programming inside Canadian prisons, especially for people serving long sentences, so with this language removed federal prisoners are even less likely to receive essential programs.

This is particularly troubling in light of the bill's strengthened focus on prisoners having to complete their correctional plan before their release. It creates a Catch-22 where a prisoner's future freedom is dependent on services that are not made accessible to him/her. This bill also removes the language that the "least restrictive measures" must be used by guards to control prisoners. This will undoubtedly lead to more staff-on-prisoner violence and other potential human rights violations. It also adds new institutional charges, including "disrespecting" correctional staff, which can lead to punishments such as segregation and the restriction of family visits. C-39 also makes it significantly more difficult for prisoners to get parole.

On the back end, with Bill 23B the term "pardon" is being replaced by the term "record suspension," the waiting periods will be longer before someone can apply, and certain convictions will make one altogether ineligible for a record suspension. Without having their criminal records expunged, it will be much more difficult for ex-prisoners to find employment, and make it more likely that they will reoffend and end up back in jail.

Bill C-39 proposes another amendment that would allow police officers to arrest someone without a warrant, if the officer "feels" that the person might be breaking their parole conditions. It is often said that once people get involved in the criminal system, it is very hard for them to get out. With this legislation, the revolving door keeps picking up speed.

Meanwhile, the opposition to these draconian responses to crime has been growing. Quebec and Ontario have refused to pay the astronomical costs associated with the bill. The Canadian Bar Association came out with a list of ten reasons to oppose the bill, and an association of defence lawyers from the US wrote an open letter to the Harper government imploring them not to go down the same road of mass incarceration that has been an utter failure there.

Even Texas law enforcement officials told the Conservatives they were making a mistake. Texas is the state that uses the death penalty more than any other, and has seen fit to execute children and intellectually disabled people. If law enforcement from George W. Bush Country is telling you that your crime agenda is too harsh, you know there's a problem.

The mainstream media, which often colludes with governments to create a culture of fear in which harsh laws will be accepted by the public, has for the most part gotten on board in denouncing the bill. And from a community perspective, many individuals and groups have come together to organize demos and events to discuss the devastating consequences of Bill C-10, particularly to already marginalized communities.

"Warehouses for the Poor"

So given all of the public outcry, and the complete lack of evidence that this bill will do anything to make our communities safer, why is Harper insisting on ramming C-10 through parliament as quickly as possible? Is his party full of rabid ideologues who actually believe that they have a mandate from the people to pass this legislation? Are they mean-spirited? Contemptuous of facts? Not very bright?

While all of these things may play a part in the saga of C-10, I think there's a simpler answer. People who have stuff want to keep it, whether that stuff is money, material possessions or political power. Criminal laws were first instituted to ensure that wealthy people had their property protected, and that hasn't changed. The dominant culture has no interest in a shift in the balance of power.

While C-10 may cost billions in taxpayers' dollars, a lot of rich people are going to get richer thanks to Harper's prison expansion plan. Many corporations have contracts with Correctional Services Canada (CSC). If you go to the CSC website and click on "Proactive Disclosure" and then "Disclosure of Contracts" you will get a sense of who is benefitting from the increased prison population.

I have a sign in my office that says "Jails are warehouses for poor people." In fact, jails are warehouses for poor people; homeless people; Aboriginal people; people from racialized communities; people with physical and intellectual disabilities; survivors of physical, sexual and emotional abuse; psychiatric survivors; people who use drugs, queer and trans people; people living with HIV, and as we saw so clearly illustrated during the G20, people who express political dissent.

People in power are invested in keeping things the same, and squashing those who have the nerve to suggest that things could be, and in fact should be, different. Prison in general, and Bill C-10 in particular, is a highly effective means of exerting social control. Whether it's Aboriginal people asking to have what was stolen returned to them, or other groups looking for the considerable wealth and resources of this country to be more equitably distributed, or simply those who challenge the status quo, locking people up and removing them from their communities is an effective way of silencing those voices.

But all is not lost. The Senate refused to capitulate to Harper and pass C-10 before parliament broke for Christmas. This will give them more time to investigate the bill and hopefully make changes. And if worse comes to worse and it's passed as is … governments can be defeated, bills can be repealed, and a more compassionate, just society can be created. We just have to keep fighting.

Joan Ruzsa has been the coordinator of Rittenhouse, an abolitionist agency that advocates for alternatives to incarceration, since 2000.  She also works at PASAN (Prisoners with HIV/AIDS Support Action Network) and is studying to become a psychotherapist.

Friday, January 13, 2012

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. [...]

Thursday, December 15, 2011

The Lead Now Campaign

Lead Now has demonstrated to those within the Canadian state just how to do a mainstream, national advocacy project while also including voices with more radical ideas.  And the project seems to be having some success at the government level.

Some Updates;

Senator Percy Downe posted this to his twitter account during the Lead Now senator letter campaign.



 Lead Now goes on to restate what the media have already informed us, that Senate voting on Bill C10 will not take place before February.   A move away from "the first 100 days" initially promised by conservatives.

Then as almost an after thought, Lead Now informs us that they contacted criminologists from around Canada and asked them to sign on to the open letter addressed to Senators.  Here is the list, but I see at least one name missing who should have been invited - perhaps you notice others....  Though I applaud Lead Now in all of their initiatives, a small suggestion might have been to ask members to contribute suggestions around who to contact.  I would have suggested Eugene Oscapella.

"PS - We asked some of the country's leading criminologists to add their names to our open letter asking the Senate to provide the sober second thought we need on the Crime Bill. The response was amazing. Here's the initial list of signatories:"

  • Anthony Doob, Professor of Criminology, Centre for Criminology and Sociolegal Studies, University of Toronto
  • Frank Cormier, Criminology/Sociology Coordinator, Department of Sociology, University of Manitoba
  • Gordon Darroch, Professor of Sociology, Emeritus, Senior Scholar, York University
  • Lorna Stefanick, Associate Professor, Governance Law and Management Program, Faculty of Humanities and Social Science, Athabasca University
  • Penni Stewart, Associate Professor, Sociology, York University
  • Deborah Brock, Department of Sociology, Sociolegal Studies, Liberal Arts and Professional Studies, York University
  • John Edward Deukmedjian, Ayssociate Professor, Criminology, Department of Sociology, Anthropology & Criminology, University of Windsor
  • Margaret E. Beare, Professor, Law and Sociology, York University
  • Marc Nesca, Forensic Psychologist, Associate Professor, Criminal Justice Program, Athabasca University
  • Frederick Desroches, Professor, Sociology, Criminology, and Legal Studies, St. Jerome's University, University of Waterloo
  • Michael Weinrath, Professor & Chair, Department of Criminal Justice, University of Winnipeg
  • Joanna Pozzulo, Director, Institute of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Carleton University
  • Russell C. Smandych, Professor of Sociology and Criminology, Department of Sociology, University of Manitoba

Tuesday, November 29, 2011

It Could Get Worse - Letter From C10 Opposition...

I've taken another look at the "It Could Get Worse" campaign and find I really like some of the messages being projected out there and have concern about some others!
I'm all for average community members from a variety of social locations coming out to oppose C10!  In fact this is one piece which has been somewhat lacking over the last view years.  Those who have come out to oppose all of the incarnations of C10 have done so because their experience and background have provided them with sufficient factual based information telling of the disaster to come.when Bill is passed into law.  Average persons likely don't have backgrounds around issues like poverty, life long trauma, and criminalization and so wont have developed a thorough critique of these subjects either.


However when we speak from our hearts publicaly about a topic we know little about, one must proceed with caution.  I totally get that none of us has the time to fully study every single issue....but we should at the very least take whatever minimal time is required to investigate some of the arguments from each side and perhaps short of a fuller, more complete investigation, take our own positions within the realm of those issues we have had the time to look at...
Without appropriate caution we run the risk of perpetuating myths and stereotypes which do more harm than good and in some cases even bolster those on the opposite side of an argument.  Take a look at the following letter opposing C10 for instance.  It is immediately obvious that the author has little knowledge around issues affecting criminalization, and incarceration.  However it is probable that their approach to social issues have a left leaning.   sj, Nov 29, 2011
A note of concern re:Omnibus crime-Bill C-10.
While we can understand the need for a tougher stance on SERIOUS crime (Does not spell out what is “serious crime” or even “crime” in general) we strongly feel that minor offenses and first-time offenders shouldn’t be placed in the same category as hardened criminals.(minor offences”, “first time offenders”, “hardened criminals”??? Sounds like the right speaking here. We need to be very careful when dividing the “deserving” lawbreakers from the “undeserving” lawbreakers. Really there is no such thing as a hardened criminal, only those who have been forced to survive the most harrowing of life circumstances.)
The court/justice/incarceration costs alone would be prohibitive if this Bill is allowed to pass without alterations….i.e. both thoroughly and thoughtfully…clause by clause .We would rather that the government be more fiscally responsible . (Again focusing on arguments perceived to be from those opposing C10. The financial burden argument is the safest one against the Bill and one that some conservatives are sure to take. Though it is an important issue, its equally important to stress why.)
The societal costs could indeed be much higher ..the ‘lifelong record ‘, possible job loss, relationship ramifications etc.that our citizens might have to bear for a possibly very minor crime would make the passage of Bill C-10 “as is”  quite intolerable .  (Here the author talks of the social costs and then does go on to list some important ones. But besides cringing at the language used here I wonder at the contradiction around the notion of “hardened criminals” in the first point and then concern over a “lifelong record” in this last point. Since only those who likely fall under the author's definition of “hardened criminal” [repeat lawbreakers, violent lawbreakers] will be those refused pardons under C10. And the letter seems to imply that sanctions against the “hardened criminal” are more acceptable than those applied against first timers. Again I want to stress that the effort to learn about this issue and then to speak out against it are valiant, But please take the 30mins. required to learn about an issue, before “safely” speaking out against it, least you damage the very cause you seek to assist!)
What happened to that wonderful (or illusory!) democratic notion of  public consultation ??
Please attend to ( FIX) the problem quickly.
Regards,