Capitalism is Repsonsible for Problematic Substance Use

Capitalism Responsible Problematic Substance Use...Gabor Mate

Neo-Conservative Crime and Cruelty

The Safe Streets and Communities Act: Neo-Conservative Crime and Cruelty

sheryl jarvis

[People] fight for freedom, then they begin to accumulate laws to take it away from themselves.  ~Author Unknown

Summary

Demonstrates the relationships between the corporate elite, right wing governments and the structuring of public policy designed to support corporate interests, including tactics of criminalisation such as Bill C10. Will explore the riddle between conservative claims that tougher sanctions equal increased public safety, and the research which shows the opposite is more likely to be true. Also considering the reasons that could be behind this brand of dishonesty and our means for seeking out the truth. 

 Law and Order

According to Statistics Canada, 2010 closed with the 33rd consecutive drop in both the rate and the severity of crime across Canada.  Despite this, Prime Minister Stephen Harper's conservative government has reintroduced the much anticipated law and order agenda in the form of one enormous crime Bill.  Bill C10, the “Safe Streets and Communities Act” combines nine of the former Bills which had failed to pass into law previously due to opposition and repeated prorogues of parliament. 

Safe Streets and Communities: Who Wouldn’t Want That?

If locking more people up for longer periods of time made us safer this Bill would be great.  However legislating changes to behaviour has never been a successful tactic.  Despite these facts and despite how widespread resistance to Bill C10 has been, it has thus far been futile.  Sandra Chu, Senior Policy Analyst for the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network spoke with me recently about the problem with trying to legislate behaviour changes.  She said “...we know many aspects of Bill C-10 will not work to “fight crime”, and in fact, [will] worsen prison conditions, violate prisoners’ human rights (including their right to health), destroy families and communities, and cost significant money without actually achieving public safety.”  It seems that there is no bridging the gap between conservative ideology and the truth behind community harm.  The truth is that most lawbreaking has its creation in poverty, unemployment, inequality, and trauma.  Addressing these issues requires thoughtfulness and a commitment to evidence-based practices which reflect a human rights framework.    

Precisely because Bill C10 ignores evidence and human rights, all manner of people have resisted it.  Including opposition parties, the 37,000 members of the Canadian Bar Association, 563 doctors who signed the Urban Health Research Initiative’s letter opposing Bill S10 (an earlier version of and now a portion of C10 making changes to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act), the union representing prison guards, NUPGE, the Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy, the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, NORML Canada, the Toronto Harm Reduction Task Force, Pivot Legal Society, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, and the list goes on.  Represented are thousands of social workers, healthcare providers, teachers, law enforcement, and clergy who recognize the hyperbole for what it is, partisan ideology, greed, and fear. 

Neo-Conservative Ideology and Greed

Harper's political base doesn’t care much about sound statistics and proven best practices.  Especially not if these are competing with the satisfaction obtained through retribution and high profit margins.  The hang ‘em high approach has been used successfully in the past by the Harris government in Ontario.  During the 90’s they made “war on the poor”, demonizing us (as in no more free rides for lazy, drug addicted, criminals) while simultaneously cutting the services and welfare rates that could have prevented many from becoming addicted and criminalised in the first place.  Ms. Chu spoke to me about the outcome of such attitudes.  She said “[they]lead to increasing numbers of people without access to crucial care, treatment and support, increasing numbers of people feeling marginalized by society, and increasing numbers of people who will be incarcerated as a result.”

Harris’ tactics were successful because he was seen by many to be demanding nothing more than the revered traits of self-sufficiency and hard work, held dear by many Canadians.  However its important to remember that the majority of the poor, including those on social assistance would rather not be in that situation.  The same holds true for those with problematic substance use issues and those cycling in and out of our jails.  Ms. Chu suggests that in order to resist tactics that demonize the vulnerable we need to hear from the vulnerable directly. “I think it’s important to create a space for the vulnerable to speak, so they are not dehumanized.  Support them in doing so, by ensuring people who use drugs and other marginalized communities are telling their stories at media events, conferences... etc.”

Neo-Conservative Agenda Equals Increased Crime and Less Safety

Stephen Harper has claimed that Canadians are unsafe and that only by restricting our freedoms further will we achieve safety.  In fact what the Harper conservatives will likely achieve is not increased safety but an increase in that which we refer to as crime.  As our freedoms are increasingly made illegal, and social programs which stave off desperation are defunded, our “crime” rates will soar, thus justifying the prison building boom and tough on crime rhetoric.  The people of the USA have learned these lessons the hard way. 

Decades of tough on crime, war on drugs ideology translated into programs of mass incarceration.  Studies found that those communities who are most impacted, suffer increasing, as opposed to decreasing rates of “crime”.  Those left behind are forced more often to make choices between seeing their children do without necessities or engaging in “crime” in order to provide for them.  The US Drug Policy Alliance, which promotes alternatives to drug prohibition explains the US situation, "Mass arrests and incarceration of people of color, largely due to drug law violations have hobbled families and communities by stigmatizing and removing substantial numbers of men and women.”  If criminalizing and incarcerating people are known to make us less safe then why is the conservative government doing it?

Privatized Prisons

Those warehoused under the new regime will become the raw material for a profitable industry popular in the U.S., privatized, for profit prisons.  “Crime” must be increased to keep the bodies flowing on a pay per capita basis.  One of the largest prison privatization companies in the USA, the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) noted this last point as a problem of concern in their 2010 annual report. ‘The demand for our facilities and services could be adversely affected by leniency in conviction or parole standards and sentencing practices…” CCA is the same US corporation which lobbied our Canadian government in support of Bill C10.  

Once locked up, prisoner bodies can be transformed into even more profit in the form of prisoner labour, a common practice in the US, but not yet widely used in Canada.  Free labour will be sold to 3^rd parties at discounted and very profitable rates.  Corporations able to win prison contracts will gain an unfair advantage over the competition while the larger market wages are driven down.  Not to mention the impacts on the mental well being of prisoners who are treated as commodities. 

The History of Privatized Prisons in Canada

For profit prisons were attempted briefly by the Harris government in the form of a comparison experiment between two of the then newly constructed super-jails.  These new jails were devised by the Harris government to warehouse human beings as sparingly as possible.  The contract to run the Penetang jail was awarded to the US based Management and Training Corp.  While they were indeed able to save the province money on the front end, in 2006 the CBC reported that the facility had been transferred back to the state because of “inferior security”, “health care”, and an increase in rates of repeat lawbreaking.  The idea of prison privatization in Ontario has remained quite ever since.

British Columbia's P3 (Public/Private Partnerships) Craze

However BC has picked up the torch and is running with it full steam ahead.  With the creation of Partnerships BC, one of a series of such organizations operated at all levels of government across Canada, the doors to public service privatization have been flung open wide.  In BC everything from public healthcare services and utilities to longterm care facilities and prisons have been privatized or converted to a P3. 

Stephanie Seaton, a British Colombian researcher and the creator of summerlandbc.wordpress, and thieverycorp.wordpress, confirms that there is currently one finalized P3 prison contract  in the works in BC.  It involves the building and operation of a remand centre by Brookfield Properties Corporation in Surrey, BC.  

Contracts awarded to build and run prisons are not the only ones allowing firms to profit from mass criminalisation.  According to Stark Raven News, a prisoner support and education service in British Columbia there are currently P3 contracts within the provincial jail system that focus on service and supply contracts rather than prison building and maintenance.  These include for profit contracts to supply inmate canteens, food, and telephone services, healthcare, and even substance abuse programs. 

Additional prison building and maintenance P3's are being considered in Summerland and Peniticton, BC.  Both have been met with substantial opposition from the local communities, who are mainly specifying safety concerns.  Ms. Seaton is herself a Summerland, BC resident and she spoke with me by phone recently.  She raised a number of potential concerns with these kinds of partnerships including:

ñ Profit to shareholders their top priority

ñ Cost cutting to increase profits (ex: hiring fewer and less experienced staff)

ñ   For-profit facilities have a financial stake to ensure facilities operate at capacity

The problem raised here of course is that prison privatization creates an entire industry which benefits directly from the increased criminalisation and incarceration of ever expanding populations.  In the US these industries have produced powerful lobby groups which advocate for and in some cases even assist in drafting tougher crime legislation.  It has become a runaway train and very difficult to stop.

Exploitative Discrimination in Canada: Then and Now

The 21^st century effort to privatize public services is not the first time we have seen a push to put public responsibilities into the hands of private institutions.  Historic policies of capitalism and colonisation resulted in the long term, mass criminalisation and marginalisation of vulnerable, aboriginal populations in Canada. 

I asked Doug King, a lawyer with Pivot Legal Society in BC what he thought about the following quote:

“Giving corporations powers over prisoners is a different matter, I would argue, much like giving churches power over residential schools” (as quoted by Keith Reynolds in a blog for the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives)

Mr. King feels that there are “parallels” between what church and state did to aboriginal families (and continue to do to this day) and what state and corporation conspire to do to vulnerable populations today.  King stated that with residential schools, the government had contracted out its policies to non-governmental institutions for the purpose of “changing behaviours.”  And that in the residential school system it had “resulted in the physical and sexual abuse of children.  He went on to say that “Prison privatization may not manifest in that form specifically, but it may show up in other forms” [of abuse].  Such as conditions related to“overcrowding”. 

Stephanie Seaton has a theory around the politics that can lead to these kinds of policies in the first place, “A capitalist society is based on the idolization of people, power, and things that represent money. The marginalised represent the opposite, which is perhaps why society condemns them. They are deemed to be unimportant by those in power....”

Neo-Conservative Fear

Privatization of prisons and expansion of Harper's law and order agenda is but one small piece of a larger picture.  The neo-conservative agenda has long been to privatize public resources, slash social services, and provide complete freedom for corporations while simultaneously increasing social control over individuals.  Because there are substantial disadvantages to most of us in these methods and because of the potential for resistance on the grandest of scales, the neo-conservatives fear us – that is we the 99%.  Because of this we are seeing greater restrictions to civil freedoms including our right to dissent, the erosion of worker rights, a focus on law and order, and prison expansion on a scale unprecedented in Canadian history. 

More Canadians Criminalized

One in ten Canadians currently has a criminal record (Canadian Criminal Justice Association, 2010).  The majority of whom suffer the consequent and ongoing emotional, social, familial, and financial impacts related to criminalisation.  As more Canadians are criminalised and experience encroachments on freedoms, expanded cuts to social services, and diminished hope for the future, the more desperate and angry people will become and consequently, the more ready to resist.  There is no reason why this government should feel a need to push people to such a brink of desperation.  Far more effective means exist, such as ensuring basic needs are met first and foremost.  Ms. Chu agrees, “Wouldn’t resources be better spent on education, health and social supports that have been proven to actually address the root causes of crime?” 

To ensure conservative plans for fortune and greed are not thwarted, social control must be continuously ramped up.  Judicial and prison expansion agendas, accompanied by deregulation ensure that profits through prison privatization are freer to flow.  Prison privatization is attractive to corporations because they are able to attain certain freedoms they could only dream of elsewhere in “free” society.  Prisoners often don’t have to be paid, nor are they permitted to form unions, and further many are restricted politically, forbidden to vote.  These are gifts to those who wish to see capitalism entirely unrestrained by “irritating” controls like progressive taxation, good wages, and human rights.

Capitalism, Government, and the News Media in Canada  

The major media outlets are owned and operated by just a few large corporations in Canada, which greatly restricts the diversity of news we receive.  These news conglomerates are often but one piece of a much larger pie. They are mostly owned by huge multinationals and used by their owners to influence public opinion in their own favour.  Ish Theilheimer, Publisher of the “Straight Goods”, an independent Canadian news provider, talked with me about these issues.  He said,“Traditional media tends to be dominated in their perspective by the corporations that own the outlets and conservative orthodoxy. ...too often Big Media offers the spin and lies of the wealthy interests that run the world.”  Our government like most governments is also adept in the art of spin.  Members of parliament often attend the same functions and benefits, and run in the same business circles as multinational and corporate media owners.  Their interests are the same and one supports the other.

As democratic populace we are wise to question and monitor our governments through independent news sources.  Whether they are selling off public assets, locking up those with addictions, or allowing warrant-less searches into our online activities.  We are wise to ask ourselves who stands to benefit and who stands to lose.

Taking Freedom Away from Ourselves?

Is it wise to assume that new laws or greater restrictions (regarding online privacy for example) won’t affect us personally?  Insisting that intrusions into our personal sphere are OK because as law abiding citizens we have “nothing to hide” is rather short sighted.  Where do these encroachments end?  How far can we allow our government and police forces to expand into the private realms of others before we too are affected?  The rights we now enjoy freely could suddenly be removed and made illegal.  New invasions on our freedoms when not challenged have a way of gradually intensifying until it becomes clear that we are no longer free. 

Update on Bill C10

Though the conservatives insisted they would have Bill C10 passed into law within the first 100 sitting days of parliament, it seems suddenly to have become less of a priority.  The Bill passed the final of three readings in the house of commons this past December.  Despite pressure from the Tories to have it also sail through the Senate, our Senators have insisted the Bill be given more time for research and investigation.  This may have had as much to do with political pressure from voters as with stated democratic and moral obligation.  The Safe Streets and Communities Act (C10) has passed second reading in Senate and is expected to pass into law sometime in February 2012.

There have been many campaigns, rallies, and petitions against Bill C10 and all of its earlier incarnations.  Current initiatives at  Lead Now (http://leadnow.ca/keep-canada-safe) involved rally's at offices of MP's across the country, and a letter writing campaign directed at Senators and asking them to give appropriate and fair consideration to the Bill.  Check out what others are doing to oppose C10 and other anti-prison expansion work at the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, www.itcouldgetworse.com, and www.avaaz.org/en/stop_harpers_cruel_crime_bill/.

More Bill C10 Information

http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Docid=5124131&file=4 – Full wording of Bill C10

http://www.parl.gc.ca/LegisInfo/BillDetails.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&billId=5120829 – Updates C10

Alternatives to Law and Order Approaches

Tracking the Politics of Crime and Punishment

http://tpcp-canada.blogspot.com/

Rittenhouse – A prison education organization for the public

http://joanr73.wordpress.com/

Urban Health Research Initiative – Drug Policy in Canada

http://uhri.cfenet.ubc.ca/content/view/68/82/

Author's Biography

Sheryl Jarvis is a white, single parent, woman with a history entrenched in poverty and violence.  She has first hand knowledge of the issues surrounding problematic drug use and imprisonment, having survived both.  She is a recent college graduate, and studied social work within a philosophy of critical feminist theory and anti-oppression.  Issues important to her are harm reduction and prisoner rights for which she advocates through community organizing, committee work, and critical writing.

http://prisonstatecanada.blogspot.com/

“Locking people in cages can never make a healthier, nor safer place for any of us. Thankfully there are many smarter alternatives” sheryl jarvis, 2011

War on Drugs Film: The House I Live In, Wins at Sundance

Judging from the trailers, pre-views, and reviews, Eugene has put together a really terrific documentary which takes a fair and realistic look at the war on drugs begun by US president Nixon.  While a significant amount of damage caused by the war on drugs has taken place in the US, its impacts have been felt worldwide and sometimes the impacts outside the US have been worse than those inside the US.
Eugene interviews mostly people from the US but also includes researchers, social workers, and doctors from around the world.  Included is Gabor Mate.  A downtown, eastside addictions and methadone doctor in Vancouver, world renowned for his work.
See what SOROS Open Society Foundation, an organization which supports action defending human rights, had to say about Eugene's film and then follow the link to see a pre-view of the film and interview with Eugene hosted by Democracy Now.

Soros Justice Fellow Eugene Jarecki recently won the top documentary prize at the 2012 Sundance Film Festival for his work The House I Live In. The film offers a range of perspectives on the failed war on drugs, fostering a more informed and honest dialogue about drug use, addiction, race, and incarceration in the United States.

 http://blog.soros.org/2012/02/an-honest-look-at-the-war-on-drugs-wins-at-sundance/?utm_source=Open+Society+Institute&utm_campaign=c7bf5dceed-news-20120209&utm_medium=email

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.

Insite, The Early Years Journey

Serving Vancouver and the Downtown East Side Since 2003.....

Controversial since first opening its doors, Insite has provided injection drug users with a safe place to use.  Insite is operated under an umbrella of services provided by Vancouver Coastal Health with respect to vulnerable populations.  It began as a pilot project allowed by the Liberal government, under an exemption to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.  It was to run for 3 years and expired in 2006.  The program was so successful in reducing deaths and injury, as well as providing much relied upon counselling, detox and point of entry to addiction treatment programs that an extension was requested. This marked the beginning of a long and arduous battle, fought with old and familiar weapons.  

The moralizing, judging, and demonizing of those without power by those in power.
    See "Drugs Policy" page for full article
 

Canadian Students for Sensible Drug Policy - Conference 2012

PROGRESS, NOT PRISONS

CSSDP National Conference 2012

Hosted by: University of Calgary CSSDP chapter

March 2 - 4, 2012 Calgary, Alberta

JOIN US at Canada's only national drug policy reform conference! Join students, young people, researchers, social workers, policy makers, activists, academics, curious onlookers, and more for an exciting weekend! The conference will feature panel discussions on pressing topics in drug policy, interactive workshops, student research presentations, chances to hang out with inspiring people, and more.  As Canada continues to increase the role of prisons and punishment in our society, we will come together to ask what 'progress' means for the current Canadian drug policy movement.

 http://cssdp.org/index.php/our-campaigns/80-conference2012/339-conference2012

Safe Streets and Communities Act - Speaker's Forum Summary

Organizing with Anti-Oppression in Mind

As organizers for the event we were cognizant of the fact that our speakers should be representative of those most likely to be impacted by the conservative crime agenda. We wanted to ensure that we heard from women, aboriginal peoples, and other people of colour, as well as those who have already been criminalized and have “done time”.

While I had my concerns along the way about how successful we would be in this part of our endeavour. Tuesday was a testament to, I believe, our success.

Tuesday night was a success. All our speakers turned up, had important points to make and engaged the audience (of 225 people) by answering their questions directly. In this way our format was a little different than many speakers forums I have attended. The audience had a chance to submit written questions which were then passed to our moderator and put directly to the speakers.

Gladue

We heard from a really lovely, intelligent, young, aboriginal woman named Krysta Williams from the Native Youth Sexual Health Network. Krysta reminded us about the optimism many felt when we as a society made the progressive and extremely warranted move to institute what became known as Gladue courts. Gladue was intended to ensure that sentencing judges take the context of vulnerable, usually minority persons lives into account. One of the main intentions for its use is to reflect the ongoing effects of colonization in sentencing aboriginal men and women.

Unfortunately Gladue is not being used nearly as frequently as it should be and only a few cities have instituted separate Gladue courts. Krysta warned that Bill C10 will be at serious conflict with Gladue particularly where mandatory minimums are concerned. If a judge must give a minimum sentence that fact in and of itself conflicts with the stipulations in Gladue and how they are to be considered.

The Native Youth Sexual Health Network  www.nativeyouthsexualhealth.com

For Information on Gladue: http://www.turtleisland.org/news/news-gladue.htm

The Native Women's Association of Canada at www.nwac.ca

National Film Board Native Canadian Projects http://www3.nfb.ca/enclasse/doclens/visau/index.php?mode=theme&language=english&theme=30662&film=16933&excerpt=612109&submode=about&expmode=2

The Revolving Door of the Drug War

Greg Simmons has spent 14 years of his life traversing the dark corridor's of Canada's prisons. He is a survivor of the drug war. Greg like most of us who have used drugs in a manner disruptive to our lives, did what many of us do to support our habits...he sold drugs to other drug users. Greg had an interesting take on the effects of longer, tougher sentences on the choices law breakers will make. He suggested that many will become more reckless. This is not the first time I have heard this refrain from so called career criminals. My ex of 13 years spent many years in and out of the system as well. I recall hearing that sediment from him and from other guys with similar histories as his. “If the sentence is going to be harsh then I will avoid it at all costs and if they are to take me out, I will go down with a vengeance.”

Greg also expressed repeatedly his concern for victims of violent crime and championed restorative justice programs as opposed to prison or in addition to at sentencing. He spoke of the need for healing on both sides of the equation. The victim or survivor and the prisoner.

Greg is both client and volunteer at PASAN – the Prisoner HIV/AIDS Support Action Network. www.pasan.org

Giving Victims a Voice?

We also heard from Steve Sullivan, the inaugural Federal Victims Ombudsman from 2007-2010. Steve began by noting the unlikeliness of the panelists sitting together Tuesday evening. He went on to say that in beginning the ombudsman position he felt the way many Canadians do – lock em up and throw away the key – Restorative programs are soft on crime and have no place in addressing violence. If the conservatives had their way we would all believe that victims and their advocates want nothing more than to see law breakers, especially those committing violent acts locked away forever with no rehabilitation or treatment. However many victims feel excluded, even silenced by traditional justice practices. Many don't want to see anyone jailed in their name, particularly without any voice in the matter. And most victims are never provided the support they need to move forward.

What changed Steve's mind was what he was hearing from the victims who had gone through a program of restoration. They were talking about healing. This was far different from what he was accustomed to hearing from those who had gone through a traditional court process. Many of those victims felt unheard and when they did feel included it was satisfying that someone was being held to account but healing was never mentioned.

Despite what some believe, restorative justice unlike traditional justice, promotes the need in people to accept true responsibility and to hold themselves to account. In fact what could be more real than facing the person you have hurt. One to one, face to face, confronting how you have impacted their life.

While I don't agree with everything Steve has to say about what we must do to stop victimization I do believe he is on the right track. Most importantly he uses his brain and seeks the truth as opposed to ideology.

Steve's blog can be found here. http://advocateforvictims.blogspot.com/

To learn more about restorative programs in Canada go to http://www.sfu.ca/cfrj/

HIV and HCV - Coerced Contraction

We also heard from Pat Allard, Deputy Director of Research and Policy at the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network. The Network has long championed the plight of those with HIV/AIDS or at risk of contracting the virus. This includes those drug users who in Canada are sentenced to jails and prisons which refuse to provide harm reduction services and equipment. This stance ignores the fact that people are addicted and not in complete control of addictive compulsions. These two pieces combined leave people in a position where they are vulnerable to sharing scarce injection paraphernalia and more likely to contract HIV and/or HCV.

This in fact was my situation. I have HCV and am lucky not to have contracted HIV. There are everyday consequences which are ongoing in my life and that of my children. From health to financial to emotional.

Prisoners and Family

Pat reminded us to remember that those people we lock away are assets to their families, both financially and emotionally. The vast majority of them are parents, whose children also need to be considered.

I would ask you to consider too that most children which to remain with their parents. Separating them causes the most severe trauma. And later consequences often far outweigh any harm the parent may have caused society initially.

Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network: www.aidslaw.ca

Families and Corrections Canada Resource http://www.cfcn-rcafd.org/text/cfcn.html#story1

Sensible Drug Policy - Youth

We also heard from Caleb Chepesiuk from Canadian Students for Sensible Drug Policy. Caleb and I have collaborated and/or run into one another around a number of similar events which seek to educate others around drug policy, harm reduction, and this crazy conservative law and order agenda. I've come to know Caleb as a thoughtful and intelligent activist who is quick to realize the connections between the anti drug war, and anti poverty movements.

Caleb is a true advocate for the young. He knows many are at risk of being caught up in certain elements of this Bill C10. The conservatives claim that C10 will protect our kids from drug dealers but in reality it will actually transform the act of sharing a joint or passing a pill into trafficking, thus transforming our kids into drug dealers. Convictions of this sort will see them doing prison time.

Canadian Students for Sensible Drug Policy http://www.cssdp.org/

Sensible Drug Policy – Expert Analyst’s

Eugene Oscapella, a lawyer, professor, and founder of the Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy agreed with Caleb about the effects this Bill will have on students. Eugenie’s expertise is in policy around issues such as privacy, human rights, illicit drugs, national security, and criminal justice. Eugene told us that Bill C10 will potentially see as many as 80% of his students criminalized, with 10-20% of them at risk for imprisonment.

He used the example of a group of college kids at a party. He told us that those who share a tab of Ecstasy or Ketamine (special K) could see up to two years in prison under provisions targeting those who “traffic” (which includes sharing or passing drugs). Particularly if this occurs near a school, or in a place normally frequented by youth. Those most likely to be targeted by these provisions which could in some cases see mandatory prison terms of 3-5 years are other youth. Youth associate with youth. The dark stranger on the corner wont be the guy dealing to our kids, the best friend from grade school very well could be.

Canadian Foundation for Drug Policy. www.cfdp.ca

MEDICAL MARIJUANA UNDER THE CONSERVATIVES

Health Canada has recently released a series of proposed changes to the Federal Medical Marijuana program.  The proposed changes do nothing to address issues identified in the many successful court challenges of the program.  In fact the proposed changes promise to worsen program quality and access for patients.  Please see the below update provided by the Canadian Students for Sensible Drug Policy:

Health Canada's proposal includes removing Personal Production Licenses (PPL) for patients, reform of the application for exemption procedures, and the creation of 'licensed commercial distributors', among other changes.  Make your opinion heard.  How do you want to see the federal medical cannabis program improved?

Health Canada's proposed changes are available here:  http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/consultation/marihuana/_2011/program/index-eng.php

You can send comments to Health Canada here:
Email - consultations-marihuana@hc-sc.gc.ca
Fax - 613-946-4224
Mail -
Marihuana Consultations
Controlled Substances and Tobacco Directorate
Health Canada
Mail Room, Federal Records Centre - Bldg 18
1st Floor, 161 Goldenrod Driveway, Tunney's Pasture
Ottawa ON K1A 0K9

After medical cannabis dispensaries were ignored in the  proposed changes, the Canadian Association of Medical Cannabis Dispensaries launched their ‘Dispensaries are Indispensable’ endorsement campaign to show how important medical cannabis dispensaries are for people who use cannabis medically.  If you use cannabis medically and believe that ‘Dispensaries are Indispensable’ please check out this campaign: http://www.camcd-acdcm.ca/2011/07/jendorsement-campaign/

Also troubled with Health Canada’s proposals, WhyProhibition has created an online petition laying out their concerns with the changes.  The petition describes how the changes will not increase or promote improved patient access, and that Health Canada needs to “return to the drawing board”.  The petition is available here: http://whyprohibition.ca/civicrm/petition/sign?sid=4&reset=1


It is time Canadian policies recognize that cannabis is safe and effective medicine.  Please take a look at Health Canada’s proposed changes and have your voice heard before the July 31 consultation deadline.


Caleb Chepesiuk
Canadian Students for Sensible Drug Policy
caleb@cssdp.org
www.cssdp.org