Category: All

  • Thinking outside the box in Mexico City

    Thinking outside the box in Mexico City

    “There’s a crack in everything, that’s how the light gets in”

    Leonard Cohen

    That is how I started my presentation at the most amazing drug policy reform conference in Mexico City, organized by Mexico Unido Contra la Delincuencia (Mexico United Against Crime) February 12 – 14th, 2012. I played a song from Canada’s most famous poet, Leonard Cohen, which included the words, “There’s a crack in everything, that’s how the light gets in.” Mexico is certainly in need of some light. The long dark tunnel that is their present war on drug cartels continues to see death and despair permeate their news on a daily basis.

    Gillian Maxwell, CDPC’s Executive Committee member and I attended this important drug policy dialogue together in Mexico. The conference brought some of the leading thinkers in drug policy reform globally, NGOs from Mexico, academics from Mexican universities and members of the business community from Monterrey and Mexico City.

    The organizers were determined to “think outside the box,” and search for alternatives to the war on drugs that their government is waging on the cartels that is literally killing thousands of people in their country.

    Over 53,000 have died since 2006, others put the figure closer to 60,000.

    Held in the magnificent Museo Nacional de Antropología the conference had an historic air to it. Surrounded by thousands of years of Mexican history the intractable problem currently facing the country was put into perspective by centuries of history, energy and artifacts in the Museo.  One can feel the frustration with the continuing violence of the drug war. But Mexico is at a tipping point. The country may be getting close to breaking away from its historic path and taking a major leadership role in charting a new way forward with its Latin American allies.

    Those who attended the conference heard many reasons to take a new direction and consider alternative approaches to drug policy in Mexico. Ethan Nadelmann, Executive Director at the Drug Policy Alliance in the US, urged Mexican participants to do what is best for Mexico and not to wait for the United States to change its direction. He spoke of the historic leadership position that Mexico has in the region and the opportunity to lead other Latin American countries as they question the prevailing ideology of the war on drugs. This was echoed by other speakers from the US including Jack Cole from Law Enforcement Against Prohibition and former Judge, James Gray from California.

    As a citizen of a US border state I had to admit that Canadians often have the same discussion  – how can we change any of our drug policies independently of the Americans? But in fact, it was our good sense that lit the way for the US to abandon alcohol prohibition in the 1930s. And I believe we can do it again by designing an exit strategy for the war on drugs.

    Mexico is in the strongest of moral positions to call for an end to the drug war.

    There is movement afoot.  Two weeks before the conference in Mexico, Guatemalan President, Otto Perez Molina called for all Central American leaders to consider decriminalising drugs in an upcoming regional meeting. Cesar Gaviria, Colombia’s former President then presented at the conference and clearly called for legalization of drugs as a new way forward in the region.

    Steve Rolles, from the Transform Drug Policy Foundation laid out Transforms’ prize winning strategy paper, A Blueprint for Regulation that is one of the most well thought-out arguments for moving to a legally regulated regime for all psychoactive drugs.

    Nuno Capaz, a Sociologist at Instituto da Droga e da Toxicodepencia in Portugal outlined how Portugal decided to decriminalize all drugs for personal possession some 10 years ago and how that has been a success in terms of overdose prevention, HIV prevention and access to treatment. In addition, drug use itself has not increased and across many demographics has actually decreased.

    The second morning of the conference, Javier Sicilia came into the room and was graciously received by the conference organizers. Sicilia, a poet and journalist who lost his son to drug war violence has been leading a movement for peace and dignity in Mexico convening marches in the street and calling for the Mexican population to join him to protest the violence that is the daily reality in Mexico today.

    Sicilia attended the conference to learn how drug policy might have some answers to his questions. We met and hugged each other and conversed with rudimentary bits and pieces of language and many gestures and agreed to meet again to work on a plan for peace. Very cool!

    There were many other speakers from the Netherlands, Australia, the US, and the indefatigable Senator Larry Campbell from Canada. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime also gave an incredibly uninspiring, formulaic presentation that could only be called “maintain the status quo propaganda” and actually defended the drug war effort with its collateral damage of 50,000+ deaths.

    At the end of the three days in the Anthropology Museum, the directors of the MUCD pronounced the conclusions of the conference from their perspective. They were indeed a radical departure from the status quo.

    Among the eight key points, they called for Mexico to take a public health approach to drugs, and they asserted that countries must be allowed to take a sovereign approach to addressing drug problems that are in the best interests of their people. They also called for Mexico to move gradually towards a model of regulation and control of currently illegal drugs. Sound familiar? This is the same discussion that many Canadians and Americans are having.

    The movement for change is growing. If countries like Mexico can begin to move towards their own made-in-Mexico plan then surely Canadians can figure out a way out of the war on drugs. As with alcohol prohibition, perhaps the US needs Canadian ingenuity and leadership once again to lead the way.  Let’s be those leaders.

     

     

  • Bill C-10: The work has just begun

    Bill C-10: The work has just begun

    Last Thursday at midnight, the Senate approved the Conservative Omnibus Bill C-10, The Safe Streets and Communities Act, with only minor amendments. This marked a very sad day for Canadians, and for our sense of justice and fairness for all people.

    Bill C-10 was never really intended to be a piece of legislation that represented a direction that was well thought out or designed to build on what is arguably one of the better criminal justice systems in the world. No, instead Bill C-10 was designed as a regressive, punitive, highly political, and ill conceived amalgamation of crime legislation that will set the country back in ways that we will only come to discover over the next decade or two. We assume the legislation will be passed by the House of Commons in the coming days. That will be another sad day.

    But, in the midst of all of the madness, there have been some remarkable activities over the past few months, as organizations and individuals placed Bill C-10 under a microscope.

    For one, a coalition of Canadians has evolved to occupy the discussion and speak out against this legislation. What we have learned from these people over the past month during the Senate hearings into C-10 has been profound. Canadians are deeply concerned about this legislation and how it will impact our youth, Aboriginal peoples, those with mental health and addictions and other vulnerable populations.

    National Chief Shawn A-in-chut Atleo of the Assembly of First Nations and the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs eloquently articulated their knowledge that Bill C-10 will accelerate the over-incarceration of Aboriginal Peoples. Politicians, researchers, service providers, criminal justice veterans and ordinary Canadians have all come out in increasing numbers to voice their concern that Canada is taking the wrong path with this legislation.

    And we have also learned that the world is watching in disbelief as our government takes us down this path. Veterans of the drug war from Law Enforcement Against Prohibition , some who actually drafted the legislation that brought mandatory minimum sentencing to the U.S. like Eric Sterling from the Criminal Justice Policy Foundation in Washington DC, have spoken out loudly to warn Canadians not to go down the road that Americans took some 30 years ago with this form of legislation for drug offences.The Global Commission on Drug Policy also added their voice sending a letter directly to the Senate asking them to reconsider the direction Bill C-10 would take drug policy in Canada.

    The community that is forming around issues of justice, drug policy, fairness and a concern that we develop effective, evidence-based responses to problems related to drugs in Canada is growing at an amazing rate.

    We want to keep this momentum going, for all of us.

    The work of the Smart Justice Network,

    John Howard and Elizabeth Fry Societies of Canada, Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, Canadian Harm Reduction Network, the TRIP! Project, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association , and so many others needs to continue. Together we can build a vision, and an evidence-based drug policy for the future.

    We have been working with our partners, Leadnow.ca and others to accelerate this process. How can we keep this movement going, building strength and capacity? We’d love to hear your thoughts.

    Bill C-10 has caused thousands of Canadians to pause and think about the choice the federal government has made to use the criminal law to address what are really complex health, social and economic issues in Canada. The Safe Streets and Communities Act will not help us build healthy, vibrant and inclusive communities. But we know together, we can.

    Won’t you join us in this work? We want to hear from you.

     

     

  • The Global Commission on Drug Policy salutes Stop the Violence BC and sends a message to the Senate

    The Global Commission on Drug Policy salutes Stop the Violence BC and sends a message to the Senate

    The Global Commission on Drug Policy is comprised of significant world leaders that are calling for change in the way we approach problem drug use and the war on drugs. Today the Global Commission appealed, in an open letter to the Canadian Senate to reject the introduction of mandatory minimum sentences for minor marijuana offenses as proposed in Bill C-10, which is being debated by the Canadian Senate. In addition, the Commission recommends Canadians evaluate possibilities around taxing and regulating cannabis as an alternative strategy to undermine organized crime and improve community health and safety.

    “The Global Commission supports Stop the Violence BC’s suggested approach of regulating marijuana under a public health framework,” said Ilona Szabo, spokesperson for the Secretariat of the Global Commission on Drug Policy.

    “Mandatory minimum sentences and further reinforcement of prohibition are not rational or prudent solutions.”

    Kudos to Stop the Violence BC (STVBC), a coalition of health professionals who have been consistently pointing out the absurdity of criminalizing the production, sale and possession of cannabis in British Columbia.The evidence clearly shows that cannabis prohibition actually increases harms to individuals and communities across Canada. STVBC is calling for a rational process of change that would see cannabis become a regulated and controlled substance and taken out of the unregulated illegal drug market. The Canadian Drug Policy Coalition is a member of the STVBC Coalition and is also calling for the end to the criminalization of people who use drugs.

    Throwing people in jail does nothing to help communities address problematic substance use or help individuals access health services should they need them.

    The winds of change are blowing and public opinion supports this change. Keep in touch with us and check out STVBC.organd see what you can do to work towards a drug policy for Canada that is based on principles of public health and human rights and scientific evidence.

     

  • No crime problem in Canada? We’ll just make one!

    No crime problem in Canada? We’ll just make one!

    Today the Senate Committee looking into Bill C-10 heard from two very different panels.The first represented Corrections Service Canada (CSC) and the Parole Board of Canada. The second had representatives from the John Howard Society of Canada and the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies.

    Both of these latter organizations work towards reforming the justice system and helping offenders—many of whom are themselves victims. Given such mandates, it was no surprise when Kim Pate, Executive Director of Elizabeth Fry, and Catherine Latimer, Executive Eirector of John Howard, both came out against the bill.

    This opposition met with incomprehension from Senator Lang, who demanded to know how the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies could not support this bill given that it included mandatory minimum sentences (MMS) for a variety of sexual crimes. He went so far as to accuse Ms. Pate of not sharing all of the information on the bill with her member societies.

    Ms. Pate had a very interesting and nuanced response: according to her, when it comes to sex offences, MMS can actually dissuade a victim from coming forward. Victims of these crimes are already under immense pressure; often their abusers are in positions of authority, or are the breadwinners in their household. Lengthier prison terms means that an accused who may have pled guilty will instead choose to go to trial, putting more pressure on the victim to recant. Ms. Pate brought up cases of women of colour in the United States advising one another not to report domestic abuse because of the disastrous effects MMS can have on their communities.

    Furthermore, testimony from Jan Looman, Psychologist and Program Director of the high intensity sex offender treatment program at CSC, showed that recidivism among sex offenders is very low. According to his data, “90-95% of sex offences are first time offences, and the vast majority don’t reoffend.”

    Effectively C-10 will mean that more victims will be less likely to come forward, and sex offenders who are already at a very low risk of reoffending will be locked up for longer.

    But, you may ask, shouldn’t they be locked up? That’s where they will receive their treatment, right? Not necessarily.

    Pointed questions from Senators Runciman, Fraser and Cowan to the CSC made it clear that treatment for sex offenders and others requiring psychiatric intervention was imperiled by lack of funding and the CSC’s difficulty in retaining professionals within their ranks.

    Senator Runciman argued that in cases where correctional officers were replaced with healthcare professionals, such as in St. Lawrence Valley Correctional and Treatment Centre in Brockville, Ontario there are excellent results in terms of decreased recidivism and improved prison life in general. However, as Senator Fraser pointed out, in Howard Sapers’ preliminary evaluation of CSC’s new “Integrated Correctional Programming Model,” many programs for specific groups, including Aboriginal offenders, had been removed, resulting in the programs offered being decreased by up to a factor of 3. This “one size fits all” approach at CSC is commensurate with Bill C10’s approach to justice. However, with so many mentally ill people in prison, it is clear that cookie cutter approaches, to both sentencing and programming, will not work.

    As witness after witness points to the high effectiveness of prevention measures, community justice initiatives, andalternative sentencing, one has to wonder why anyone would think that solving Canada’s crime problems should involve putting more people in prison.

    Though, perhaps we actually have an answer looking for a question; C-10’s myopic approach to criminal justice is sure to create more recidivists through lack of programming and over-incarceration. So Stephen Harper will soon get a chance to be tough on crime—the crime that his own legislation will have created.

  • Bill C-10: Making judges the enemies of justice?

    Bill C-10: Making judges the enemies of justice?

    According to some Conservative senators and many victims’ groups appearing at the committee hearings into Bill C-10, Canadians have lost confidence in the judiciary. Mandatory minimum sentences (MMS) are supposed to restore this confidence by forcing judges to hand down stiffer sentences. To this end, Senator Lang stated today that Parliament must provide a “moral compass” not only to offenders, but to the judiciary, regarding sex offences “so that they know that this is a very serious offense.”

    There are two glaring problems with claiming C-10 somehow represents the popular will. The first is that it’s false.

    Citing the Department of Justice’s own report, Graham Stewart, former executive director of the John Howard Society, told the senators that for Canadians, the number one principle of sentencing should be rehabilitation. Furthermore, the same report states that over 75% of Canadians are confident in our criminal justice system.

    This brings us to the second problem; justifying legislation with Bill C-10’s purported popularity. To illustrate this problem, Graham Stewart reminded us of the disastrous effects of another popular policy: Aboriginal residential schools.

    Mr. Stewart characterized residential schools as the worst crime in Canadian history. Senator Frum countered, acknowledging that residential schools were indeed horrific, but that “the government didn’t rape anyone,” and that it will not be the government raping anyone with Bill C-10 either; rather, the government will simply be ensuring that convicted offenders receive jail time.

    The problem with Senator Frum’s view of the matter is that both residential schools and Bill C-10 set up an institutional capacity for the abuse of authority. C-10 will force judges to dole out arbitrary sentences, as well as giving the Correctional Service of Canada more latitude to administer unjust punishments to those in custody.

    With such horrific, long-lasting results, why were residential schools so popular for the Canadian public at the time? They promised to educate the residents and improve their lives. They couldn’t know the intergenerational trauma that would result.

    But in the case of MMS, we do have experience to draw on that should prevent us from committing such a mistake again. As Mr. Stewart submitted to the committee, in 1974 prior to implementing MMS, the US had a prison population of 149 per 100,000 people. In Canada it was 89 per 100,000. The difference was significant then; however, 40 years later that difference is staggering. After implementing MMS, the US prison population jumped over 400% to 730 per 100,000. In Canada 118 people per 100,000 are currently incarcerated, an increase of 33% since 1974 according to Mr. Stewart’s figures.

    The result of MMS in the US is a human rights nightmare, with entire generations of people being consigned to the equivalent of a human garbage bin. In the US, MMS has targeted the most vulnerable in society, with 1 in 9 black men between 20 and 34 incarcerated. Over half of these inmates are in prison on drug charges. Our system is already going in that direction, with a disproportionate amount of Aboriginal people, women, people with mental illness, older people, and people with addictions in prison.

    The point here, made by both Jackson and Stewart, is that the state’s powers to detain people in the service of public safety must be balanced by respect for human rights.

    And while some may not have any concern for the rights of prisoners, respecting their human rights while incarcerated is essential to public safety. There is a chain of causality from increased prison crowding—already an epidemic in Canada, with some provinces at over 200% capacity, that will only be exacerbated by C-10—through to recidivism.

    Furthermore, increasing incarceration rates, regardless of the kind of offence, increases the use of injection drugs and thus the rate of blood-borne disease among prisoners, nearly all of whom will one day be released into the population.

    Beyond MMS, the legislation imperils democracy by undermining human rights in prison. The bill replaces the requirement that corrections officers use “least restrictive measures” to control inmates with “appropriate measures.” According to Professor Jackson, the requirement to use the least restrictive measures in controlling inmates is enshrined in constitutional law through the Oakes case, and was meant to amend the horrific conditions faced by prisoners in Canada in the 1970s, which itself resulted in a wave of prison riots and hostage taking. One can only wonder what decreasing standards for punishments in prison, coupled with an increase in overcrowding, will mean for the prison population.

    We have heard so much evidence put forward by legal experts that nearly every part of Bill C-10 will be the target of a constitutional challenge.

    In much the same way that this bill will create a crime problem in Canada where there was none, the unconstitutionality of these supposedly popular measures will likely result in the Conservative party spinning more rhetoric about judicial activism, thus fabricating the very lack of confidence in the judiciary they are using to justify the bill itself.

    In painting MMS as a panacea to Canada’s crime problem and ignoring the impact of prohibition on the health of Canadian society, the Conservative government has blinkered us to real alternatives and made judges somehow the enemy of justice.

  • Restorative Justice: An Alternative to Bill C-10

    Restorative Justice: An Alternative to Bill C-10

    Last night retired Yukon Judge Barry Stuart, a vocal supporter of restorative justice , held a dialogue on Bill C-10 in a Centre Block Senate Committee room on Parliament Hill in Ottawa. The gathering was attended by representatives of the John Howard Society, Salvation Army, Somali Mothers Association, Victims of Crime, Penal Reform International and a number of other organizations and individuals with personal experience with correctional facilities and the criminal justice system. Senator James Cowan , a member of the legal and constitutional affairs committee, was also in attendance.

    With over 30 people in attendance, each comment and topic brought up by attendees could have had its own discussion session. Yet there were four key themes of the night.

    Mr. Stuart and Eva Marszewski, of Peacebuilders International Canada, started the discussion off by talking about the need for community involvement in justice issues. Ms. Marszewski talked of how Peacebuilders had created a pilot program that brings offenders into discussion circles with community members. This allows the community to decide what the offender should do to make amends and be accountable. The project has been so successful that the provincial courts have fully funded an office for their work in downtown Toronto.

    Barry Stuart expanded on Ms. Marszewski’s points by arguing that 75 percent of his former workload as a judge could have been handled much more inexpensively by health experts and involved community members.

    One of the themes of the night was participatory democracy, or as Mr. Stuart referred to it, “creating a safe place to allow a community to do the work to make it a community.” There were many people at the table who openly claimed little expertise in in this approach, but Mr. Stuart repeated that this is a civil society issue, a human rights issue , and that everyone has expertise in human understanding.

    Another theme was society’s “addiction to punishment,” as one United Church representative put it. The idea of jail time equitable to a victim’s revenge seemed to be ingrained in the values and belief system of many citizens. But as some pointed out, victims are often merely seeking accountability, and see no other alternative to the criminal justice system. Yet many proponents of stronger sentencing are unaware of alternative methods, such as the Gladue Approach , which both save money and reduces recidivism.

    Overall, it was agreed that a difficult, nebulous and morally difficult conversation needed to be had focused on the purpose of the justice system. This effort would have to understand what real justice is, what the effects of crimes are and what motivates offenders.

    The largest theme of the discussion was the problems that Bill C-10 will create.Issues such as the fears of greater prison overcrowding, a further clogged justice system, cuts to already inadequate community funding and other preventative programs, the growing private prison lobby in Ottawa and how victims and offenders will both become further victims as funding squeezes reduce access to justice were all discussed.

    There wasn’t a whole lot of optimism here, as Bill C-10 is almost certain to pass and begin contributing directly to these problems. However, this discussion led into to the final theme of the night: unity.

    The sheer amount of problems that so many groups have with Bill C-10 has seemed to unite people. Many long-time activists felt that even five years ago, such a diverse group of individuals and organizations would not be in the same room together. Mr. Stuart described how he had grown tired of everyone meeting in a room, getting a big morale boost, and then going back to their separate communities. Mr. Stuart noted that there were many legislators and ordinary citizens who had “cracks of doubt” with Bill C-10.

    He declared it was time for a national restorative justice organization that could effectively harness this diverse movement for criminal justice alternatives and create new windows for those with second thoughts.

    The real work is just beginning.

  • Where’s the beef: does the Senate have an aversion to evidence-based policy?

    Where’s the beef: does the Senate have an aversion to evidence-based policy?

    Today’s testimony focused on part 4 of Bill C-10, which would amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act. Specifically, these amendments would allow a judge to lift the publication ban on cases involving defendants as young as 12 years old, introduce dissuasion and deterrence as principals of Canadian youth justice, and make it easier to incarcerate youth convicted of violent crimes.

    The committee heard from a number of lawyers and children’s advocates, including Marvin Bernstein of UNICEF Canada, Mary-Ellen Turpel-Lafond, President, and Sylvie Godin, Vice-President of the Canadian Council of Child and Youth Advocates, and Judge Barry Stuart, former Chief Justice of the Yukon.

    These witnesses unanimously protested nearly all of the proposed amendments to the Youth Criminal Justice Act. They claimed that allowing judges to lift publication bans would have disastrous long-term consequences for young people.

    They also argued that, in the case of young offenders, a violent crime can mean throwing a snowball, throwing water on someone, or threatening a classmate. Bernstein, Turpel-Lafond and Godin also told the committee that, in their opinion, the proposed amendments were in contravention with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which Canada is a signatory.

    Judge Barry Stuart, a pioneer in restorative justice, had particularly severe warnings for the committee, claiming that if they went down this road, and further criminalized young people, that they would never attain the goals of improving victims’ rights and engaging communities in offender rehabilitation. Rather, the “tail-end” of the criminal justice system would suck up all resources that could have far greater impact on justice and public safety if spent elsewhere.

    Many Conservative senators repeated standard responses to the testimony of these witnesses. Rather than asking questions, their cross-examination seemed more an attempt to discredit their testimony. This behaviour has seemed most often on display when the committee is hearing from academic experts and legal professionals, whereas it changes to a more conciliatory tone in the presence of law enforcement officials.

    In response to the very real problems outlined in regards to Bill C-10, Senator Wallace once again repeated his favourite line: “But when Ministers Toews and Nicholson appeared before this committee, they assured us that the bill will only target violent, repeat offenders, organized criminals, and child abusers.”

    Senator Wallace seems to believe that simply repeating this mantra will make it true, despite the mountains of evidence given by representatives of children’s advocacy groups, the Canadian Bar Association, the Assembly of First Nations, as well as independent academics and many others. Unfortunately, the CDPC was not permitted to add its voice to this overwhelming chorus.

    The comportment of these Conservative Senators—Boisvenu, Lang, Frum, Dagenais, and Wallace—seems to indicate that they don’t understand the fundamental purpose of their own position: to give a sober second thought to proposed legislation one step removed from the dictates of electoral politics. Indeed, during hearings today Senator Lang went so far as to claim that “one might argue the nuances or the details, but it’s the spirit of the law that matters.” Perhaps no one told Senator Lang that the nuances and the details of the law are precisely what a senate committee is meant to discuss.

    Perhaps this disdain for evidence is what prompted Judge Barry Stuart’s remark that the Senate, “probably spends more time weighing evidence on which military aircraft to purchase than on weighing evidence on what is best for our youth.”

  • Bill C10: Weighing emotions & evidence in sexual offenses

    Bill C10: Weighing emotions & evidence in sexual offenses

    Over sixteen witnesses appeared before the Senate Committee during another marathon session of testimony on Bill C-10. Today’s session dealt primarily with the fight against child abuse and the spread of child pornography. Witnesses represented advocacy groups, victims of sexual abuse, and experts on sexual offenders.

    Many witnesses put forth a position that mandatory minimum sentences provide adequate deterrence for sexual predators and give more leverage to police during questioning. Senators Runciman and Lang voiced their opinion that Canadian judges give sentences to convicted predators that are too low and that judges across the country gave “inconsistent sentences” . The witnesses who were victims of sexual abuse were unanimous in their feelings that they had not received justice and that their perpetrators deserved harsher sentences.

    Yet incarceration was not the only topic that the committee discussed. Senator Jaffer and Paul Gillespie, a former policeman now with Kids Internet Safety Alliance, noted that incarceration should be one step in a comprehensive strategy to fight abuse.

    All witnesses agreed that funding for prevention strategies and treatment services needed to be increased.

    Senator Fraser read a submission by a Rupert Ross, a former crown prosecutor, who found conditional sentences a very useful tool in encouraging offenders to cooperate and possibly report other abusers. He implored the committee not to legislate mandatory minimums, as he feared it would cause less cooperation and more acquittals. This directly contradicted earlier testimony from Mr. Gillespie, who stated that Crown Prosecutors are demanding mandatory minimums to help them push for tougher sentences.

    Dr. Ellerby from the Association for Treatment of Sexual Abusers added further dimensions to the debate. Ellerby voiced opposition to the notion that abusers cannot be cured and stated that treatments have proven to work in rehabilitating offenders. He went on to argue that a range of approaches can be successfully used in fighting sexual abuse including community monitoring and engagement.

    With many offenders victims of abuse themselves, having an incarceration only approach for sexual abusers is fraught with contradictions.

    A number of witnesses referenced the need for a comprehensive strategy incorporating prevention, incarceration, mental health treatment and rehabilitation. Yet government-side questioning and discussion of the Bill continued on the assumption that tougher sentences were the only strategy to deal with sexual abusers, with little research to prove this.

    Dr. Ellerby flatly stated that if the goal is the reduction of crime and recidivism mandatory minimums will not succeed.This statement seemed to fall on deaf ears.

    Despite evidence that seemed to downplay the requests of many victims of sexual abuse for tough sentences, the unanimity of their request cannot be ignored. There is real debate to be had here, one that will involve weighing emotions and evidence to create a comprehensive sexual abuse strategy for both victims and offenders. All witnesses seemed very willing to have this discussion. But with the growing combative attitude between the federal government and voices that oppose it, it’s unlikely that Ottawa will be sanctioning such a discussion anytime soon.

  • Bill C10: Implications for Aboriginal Communities

    Bill C10: Implications for Aboriginal Communities

    During a 7-hour long meeting today, the Senate Committee heard from 13 individuals speaking to various aspects of Bill C-10. While most of the witnesses addressed the Bill’s immigration-related aspects, the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) National Chief Shawn A-in-chut Atleo and AFN senior strategist,Roger Jones talked about the negative impact the Omnibus Bill will have on Aboriginal Peoples.

    Atleo spoke via video conference from his community on the west coast of the Vancouver Island. He made it clear that the AFN is very concerned about the direction Bill C-10 is headed in and that this legislation will not make Aboriginal communities safer. Unfortunately his testimony was cut short due to technical problems, so Jones fielded the Senators’ questions.

    Jones told the Committee that the AFN searched high and low for elements within Bill C-10 that would improve the situation for Aboriginal Peoples – and couldn’t find anything.

    He said the Omnibus Bill will compound the existing over-representation of Aboriginal people in the criminal justice system, such as through Mandatory Minimum Sentences (MMS) for drug offences and the removal of judicial discretion with regard to such things as the Gladue principles.

    References to the Gladue decision were frequent throughout AFN panel discussion. Gladue principles, based on a 1999 Supreme Court interpretation of Section 718.2 of the Criminal Code, provide that reasonable alternatives to imprisonment should be sought and particular attention should be given to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders.

    Senator Mobina Jaffer suggested that the Senate could recommend an exemption clause in Bill C-10 so as to preserve Gladue principles.

    Senator Fraser questioned how often these principles are applied. (Not often enough, Jones replied.) Senator Lang challenged Jones as to why MMS for such reprehensible crimes as child sexual exploitation should have exceptions for Aboriginal offenders. Jones replied that nature of the crime should never negate the need to look at the offender’s circumstances.

    In contrast to the AFN’s detailed concerns with the Omnibus Bill, University of British Colombia Law Professor, Benjamin Perrin, noted his strong support of “all” aspects of the bill, suggesting it balances criminal law by enhancing the accountability of offenders and increasing the rights of victims.

    He argued that more people charged with cultivating marijuana should be imprisoned and that 89% of marijuana production comes from organized crime groups and the majority of what is produced is destined for the United States, fueling serious border problems. This argument relies on the assumptions of supply suppression and drug probation which have actually made drugs more available and cheaper, and have undermined the public health system.

    Indeed, all criminal justice legislation relies on certain assumptions – such as incarceration as a tool of deterrence and segregation as punishment – but as the AFN repeatedly pointed out today, these assumptions and their outcomes have resulted in a sustained failure to address the systemic roots of crime or how the justice system continues to fail First Nations Peoples.