 |
| "ENOUGH!" Added to the screenshot of Huffington Post's Front Page June 19th. 2012 (click on photo to enlarge) Third pipeline leak in Alberta in three weeks Franke James' most awesome Visual Essay "What is Harper afraid of?" posted on Dogwood Initiative. Above is the animated version, go read the original and all of the other awesomeness on Franke's website My Green Conscience, Canada is lucky to have her! Although, the Harper Government doesn't think so! Banned on the Hill (and in Europe!) Harper government targeted artist for her green conscience, internal documents reveal Anti-Gateway comic gathering steam Activist Artist vs. Pipeline Meanwhile...
Hemp is our answer to depend less on Big Oil, save our trees
and forests, use less water and reduce use of
pesticides.
Hemp has been decriminalized in Canada since 1997, there
is no excuse to not utilize this plant
for the benefit of our
ecosystems and environmental health. I know we've come a
long way since '97 but there's
still much work to do!
I hope you signed Franke James' letter to your Member of
Parliament at the bottom of her Visual Essay regarding Bill C-38.
Also, don't be afraid to ask
your MP: "What about Industrial Hemp?" UPDATE: Ecocide in Arkansas! Huffington Post
Arkansas Oil Spill:
|
Showing posts with label Activism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Activism. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 20, 2012
ENOUGH! Forget Oil - Plant In the Soil!
LABELS -
Activism,
Bill C-38,
Canada,
Cannabis,
Eco-Friendly,
Economy,
Environment,
Franke James,
Hemp,
Human Rights,
Industrial Hemp,
Jobs,
Marijuana,
Omnibusted,
Politics,
Tar Sands
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
"Women On A Mission to End Prohibition!" NORML Women's Alliance of Canada at the 2012 Global Marijuana March
As I wrote about in my last post - "Women Will End Prohibition (Again!)" - The NORML Women's Alliance of Canada was selected to be the Grand Marshals of the 14th. Toronto Global Marijuana March. Held on the first Saturday of May every year, the peaceful protest is attended by upwards of 20, 000 anti-prohibitionists and people celebrating the Cannabis plant and all of Hemp's wonderful benefits and uses.
It was an absolutely beautiful day, after a week of heavy rain throughout Southern Ontario it was quite a relief that the bright and shining Sun had come out to greet us! Preparing to begin our trek throughout the streets of downtown T.O. and before our group had a chance to completely assemble, our Alliance was split up at the launch point - the energy of the growing crowd pushed forward and the marchers were raring to get started! Fortunately it all worked out as those of us not right at the front remained to accompany our Prohibition-era Ford from Good Fellas Limo. Complete with our very own "Al Capone" Chauffeur, the sweet ride was able to idle throughout the parade route and catch the eye of interested onlookers.
 |
| Michelle our Belle - the most photographed woman of the day! And our very own "Al Capone" - Thanks Harold! |
The Torontoist reports:
The day’s most creative protest was staged by the National Organization for Reforming Marijuana Laws (NORML) Women’s Alliance. The NORML women dressed up in 1920s costumes and were followed by a car of a similar vintage, driven by a man dressed as Al Capone. According to NORML media spokesperson Andrea Matrosovs, the Women’s Alliance wanted to make plain the connection between the prohibition of alcohol in the 1920s and ’30s—which was a boon to organized crime—and marijuana prohibition today.
“When women gathered together in the ’20s and ’30s, they made things happen,” she said. “And it was to the benefit of families, and the dis-benefit of organized criminals.”
Matrosovs was somewhat unique among Saturday’s demonstrators. She doesn’t smoke marijuana at all. Her interest in legalization comes purely as a result of her social-science background and the time she spent as a high school teacher.
“If we could legalize, regulate, and tax, then we could take those revenues that are currently going to organized crime and direct them to good things,” she said. “My background is as an educator…and it bothered me that our youth were being funneled into alcohol, because that’s legal in our society at age 19, where marijuana isn’t.”
*****
MyETVmedia
interview with Jodie Emery of Cannabis Culture and the NORML's Women's
Alliance at the 14th. annual Toronto Global Marijuana March @ Queen's
Park.
The Grid covers the Global Marijuana March:.
The Grid covers the Global Marijuana March:.
"An estimated 15,000 people gathered at Queen’s Park on Saturday afternoon for the Toronto Global Marijuana March, and The Grid was there to find out why the event is so popular.
"Along the way, we encountered members of the NORML Women’s Alliance of Canada, who gathered in elegant 1920s costumes to protest the current prohibition of marijuana..."
 |
| Our very own 1920-30's Nurse - On Duty! |
 |
 |
| Got a giggle... |
 |
| Pretty pot leaf/CN Tower flying foam |
 |
 |
| Yes we do! That's our Twitter handle: @NORML_CWA |
 |
| "Dads for Marijuana" was also there. |
 |
| The awesome black and neon signs were made by Jack Skidd. |
 |
| NORML MariJane GanjaGirl, her smile can light up a room. |
 |
| Kelly, our fearless leader! |
 |
| Puff Mama with the Killin' Time Band |
 |
 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
NORML Women getting approval from the growing crowds and passing motorists.
|
 | ||
|
 | ||
|
.jpg) |
Leading the way! |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 | ||||
Alison's Photos .jpg) |
 |
 Alison and the NORML Woman's Alliance marching alongside Jodie Emery. |
 |
| Cannabis = Zero deaths. Ever. |
 |
Kelly and Alison - NORML Women inspiring us all!
It
was a privilege to gather
with such an incredible group of people who honestly care about
our fellow human beings and Mother Earth. Kudos to you, my fellow
NORML
Women, I'm glad to have marched alongside every single one of you.
Just like the Sabine's contributed to end the Noble Experiment all those
decades ago, NORML Women will campaign** to bring about an end to the unjust Drug War today. We're "Women On a Mission to End Prohibition" - take that, Steve!
**What's up next for the NORML Women's Alliance of Canada?
The Treating Yourself Expo in Toronto May 25, 26, and 27th. - See you there! Also, don't forget to LIKE our new Facebook Page and follow us on Twitter.
The Treating Yourself Expo in Toronto May 25, 26, and 27th. - See you there! Also, don't forget to LIKE our new Facebook Page and follow us on Twitter.
*For more than 300 great photos from the event see the2012 Global Marijuana March Flickr page by Cannabis Culture Editor Jeremiah Vandermeer.
LABELS -
#420,
Activism,
Canada,
Cannabis,
Drug War,
Global Marijuana March,
Hemp,
Human Rights,
Jodie Emery,
Marijuana,
Norml,
NORML Women,
Pot,
Prohibition,
Toronto,
Weed
Friday, May 4, 2012
Women Will End Prohibition (Again!)
For anyone who didn't get a chance to watch "Prohibition" - the phenomenal 3 part documentary by Ken Burns and Kim Novick - you're in luck! PBS has gone all out and created an absolutely amazing web experience worthy of sharing so go check it out, and tell your friends!
Watch Women of PROHIBITION Pauline Sabin on PBS. (Click text if video is not displaying) See more from Ken Burns.
NORML reports: "In May 1929, Pauline Sabin founded the Women's Organization for National Prohibition Reform (WONPR). It was a platform for women who were demanding the repeal of the 18th amendment forbidding the manufacture and sale of alcohol. Known as the Sabin women, the leadership of the WONPR consisted primarily of the nonpartisan wives of leaders of American industry. In a little over a year, almost 1.5 million Sabin Women were publicly calling for an end to prohibition-inspired violence and political malfeasance related to the illegal production of alcohol." ~
The parallels between The Noble Experiment and The War on Drugs are glaringly apparent. The NORML Women's Alliance of Canada has been chosen* to lead Toronto's 2012 Global Marijuana March and would like to bring attention to the obvious by dressing in attire reminiscent of the 1920's and 30's prohibition era. Women were paramount to the success of repealing Alcohol Prohibition, and we are going to do it again regarding the Prohibition of Marijuana! It's time.
Jodie Emery is one of the strongest leaders in the cannabis legalization movement. Wife to imprisoned activist Marc Emery, Jodie has become a voice to be reckoned with in her own right. Mrs. Emery will also be at the front leading the Global Marijuana March alongside the NORML Women's Alliance of Canada.
Watch Women of PROHIBITION Pauline Sabin on PBS. (Click text if video is not displaying) See more from Ken Burns.
NORML reports: "In May 1929, Pauline Sabin founded the Women's Organization for National Prohibition Reform (WONPR). It was a platform for women who were demanding the repeal of the 18th amendment forbidding the manufacture and sale of alcohol. Known as the Sabin women, the leadership of the WONPR consisted primarily of the nonpartisan wives of leaders of American industry. In a little over a year, almost 1.5 million Sabin Women were publicly calling for an end to prohibition-inspired violence and political malfeasance related to the illegal production of alcohol." ~
The parallels between The Noble Experiment and The War on Drugs are glaringly apparent. The NORML Women's Alliance of Canada has been chosen* to lead Toronto's 2012 Global Marijuana March and would like to bring attention to the obvious by dressing in attire reminiscent of the 1920's and 30's prohibition era. Women were paramount to the success of repealing Alcohol Prohibition, and we are going to do it again regarding the Prohibition of Marijuana! It's time.
Jodie Emery is one of the strongest leaders in the cannabis legalization movement. Wife to imprisoned activist Marc Emery, Jodie has become a voice to be reckoned with in her own right. Mrs. Emery will also be at the front leading the Global Marijuana March alongside the NORML Women's Alliance of Canada.
*****
Follow the NORML Women's Alliance on Twitter: NORMLWomen'sAlliance - @NORML_CWA Join and "LIKE" the new Facebook Page for the NORML Women's Alliance of Canada.
* - FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - APRIL 27, 2012 The NORML Women’s Alliance of Canada Leads The 14th Global Marijuana March The NORML Women’s Alliance of Canada is pleased to announce we have been chosen to lead the 14th Toronto Global Marijuana March (GMM) throughout the city on Saturday, May 5, 2012. The GMM takes place annually in over 100 cities across the globe and will attract upwards of 20,000 cannabis enthusiasts and anti-prohibitionists to downtown Toronto alone. We believe that women will once again be a successful, driving force towards ending prohibition. In the spirit of the day the NORML Women's Alliance of Canada has chosen to honour those women who bravely campaigned for an end to alcohol prohibition in the 1920s and ‘30s by dressing in attire reminiscent of this era. The peaceful protest will assemble at 11 a.m. and launch at 12 p.m., north of Queen's Park North at Charles Street. It will traverse north to Bloor Street, east to Yonge Street, south to Gerrard Street and east to Church Street. After the march, the crowd will disperse to several marijuana-friendly events across the city. Members of the NORML Women's Alliance of Canada are mothers, grandmothers, daughters, sisters, and caregivers of this nation. We are calling on the Canadian Government to end cannabis prohibition, re-prioritize spending to focus on our families, education, health care and a mandate to protect Canadians from being damaged any further by this harmful, tried and failed government policy. The NORML Women’s Alliance of Canada is a non-partisan coalition of socially and geographically diverse women from coast to coast to coast who believe that marijuana prohibition is a destructive and hypocritical policy that undermines the Canadian people, sends a mixed and false message to our youth, and destroys the cherished principles of personal liberty, freedom and sovereignty belonging to all Canadians. NORML Women’s Alliance of Canada
LABELS -
Activism,
Canada,
Cannabis,
Democracy,
Drug War,
Global Marijuana March,
History,
Jodie Emery,
Law,
Marijuana,
NORML Women,
Politics,
Prohibition,
Toronto,
USA,
Weed
Thursday, April 26, 2012
The Smarter Brand of Justice - Actor Russell Brand Solves the Failed War on Drugs in 1 Minute & 35 Seconds
Via George Stroumboulopoulos:
Russell Brand's Latest Role: A Defender Of Harm Reduction Drug Strategies
"Addressing members of the House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee in the U.K., Brand argued bluntly that treating drug addiction as an illness rather than as a criminal activity is not only a humane approach, but a sensible one that will "prevent people from committing crimes." (Seriously, go read the whole Strombo Health post.)
Forty years after Nixon's War on (People Who Use Certain) Drugs infected countries the world over, the truth is being recognized and shared everywhere; prohibition has failed and government cannot incarcerate people out of addiction.
Four Decades of overly punitive criminal convictions haven't achieved their goal of reducing recidivism and an ever-expanding mountain of expert research and evidence correlates that Harm Reduction programs like Rehab, Therapy and even Yoga, trumps imprisonment significantly in terms of reaching and maintaining sobriety. Plus, these Harm Reduction strategies also cost less than keeping (primarily non-violent) drug offenders locked up where they are less likely to have access to adequate therapeutic and job skills programs.
Also worth discussing, what will become of us now with the passing of Bill C-10? I hope Canadians are prepared for the influx of recreational cannabis users, small time pot growers, and illegal substance abusers (some who are sadly victims of mental illness and childhood abuse) into our taxpayer supported penal institutions. Rehab spots behind bars were scarce before, and I'm afraid we ain't seen nothin' yet! Correctional Service of Canada and the Justice Department might as well change their names to Punishment Disservice of Harperland and the "Tough on Crime!" Ministry respectively.
Drug abuse, whether it is for illegal drugs, alcohol, prescription drugs, etc. is uniquely personal. Treat the person as a patient and they have a fighting chance to manage and successfully beat their addiction(s). Criminalize and convict them, and it further damages their mental state and exponentially hinders their potential for recovery.
Just because a person uses drugs does not mean they are undeserving of compassion, and realistically our drug policies must reflect that truth. So Thank You, Mr. Brand, for bringing even more attention to the failure of the War on Drugs, your passionate testimony is much appreciated by those of us campaigning for the reform of our national and global drug laws.
Monday, December 5, 2011
"INCARCEREX" - Do Not Mix With The Charter Or Common Sense
Tonight was so very sad, justice in Canada has suffered a terrible blow!
Ottawa mum on cost to provinces as crime bill clears House
Because we all know, the Conservatives are “Tough on Crime!“
"INCARCEREX" - Do Not Mix With The Charter or Common Sense - Made before the second last election but still spot on relevant today.
The Liberals have already officially responded:
Please also visit It Could Get Worse for different ways you can still help "Kill the Bill".
The disappointment in the MP's who voted for this "Everything plus the kitchen sink" Bill has me cranky, up late, and tired. *sigh*.......
UPDATE: March 12, 2012: As expected, the Conservatives ignore experience, evidence and experts, they have their ideology, Damnit!
Harper’s promise fulfilled as House passes crime bill
Sad days ahead for Canada, indeed....
Ottawa mum on cost to provinces as crime bill clears House
Because we all know, the Conservatives are “Tough on Crime!“
"INCARCEREX" - Do Not Mix With The Charter or Common Sense - Made before the second last election but still spot on relevant today.
OTTAWA – Liberal Leader Bob Rae made the following statement today on Bill C-10, the omnibus crime bill:
“I want to salute the hard work of our friend and colleague Irwin Cotler, the Liberal Justice and Human Rights critic, who has worked tirelessly to try to improve this legislation for the benefit of all Canadians. He introduced amendments to get tougher on terrorists. He introduced amendments to incorporate the needs and views of Quebec. Unfortunately, his expert advice and work were almost completely ignored – the only exception being when the Conservatives tried to re-introduce Mr. Cotler’s sensible amendments on terrorism as their own, despite having first rejected them without explanation.
Mr. Cotler continued:
“The Conservatives’ bundling together of 9 bills that warranted independent discussion, their shutting down of debate in committee, and their rejection of all amendments while arrogantly labeling others as supporters of criminals and not victims, undermines Parliament and democratic process. They have rammed through the House of Commons a law and order agenda that is poorly thought-out, rushed and demonstrates the Conservative commitment to governing by ideology instead of facts and evidence.
This bill will impose mandatory minimums that will turn young offenders into hardened criminals. It fails the mentally ill, aboriginal people, visible minorities and the poor. It repeats the mistakes of failed, expensive and discredited American crime policy. Police and prisons officials from states like Texas are telling Mr. Harper very clearly: We tried what you are doing but it drained the public coffers and made our communities less safe. Do not go down our failed path.
At the end of the day we will have more crime, less justice, skyrocketing costs, prison overcrowding, less rehabilitation for the offenders, less protection for victims and less protection for the public. Liberals are committed to pursuing a crime and justice approach that is evidence-based, cost effective and focused on preventing crime and victimization.”
Please also visit It Could Get Worse for different ways you can still help "Kill the Bill".
The disappointment in the MP's who voted for this "Everything plus the kitchen sink" Bill has me cranky, up late, and tired. *sigh*.......
UPDATE: March 12, 2012: As expected, the Conservatives ignore experience, evidence and experts, they have their ideology, Damnit!
Harper’s promise fulfilled as House passes crime bill
Sad days ahead for Canada, indeed....
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Please Stand By......
The landscape has changed, we need to regroup on Saturday and figure out a new game plan.
And hey, at least there's a One Seat Bright Side to this head-shaking turn of events.
From: http://blog.cgpgrey.com/the-problems-with-first-past-the-post-voting-explained/ Watch part two: http://blog.cgpgrey.com/the-alternative-vote-instant-runoff-explained/
And hey, at least there's a One Seat Bright Side to this head-shaking turn of events.
From: http://blog.cgpgrey.com/the-problems-with-first-past-the-post-voting-explained/ Watch part two: http://blog.cgpgrey.com/the-alternative-vote-instant-runoff-explained/
In the meantime....
We're Canadian, we'll keep fighting, this just makes us stronger and more determined!
We'll be alright....
We're Canadian, we'll keep fighting, this just makes us stronger and more determined!We'll be alright....
Sunday, April 10, 2011
Departing Harperland
"Whoever controls the media,
controls the mind."
~ Jim Morrison
First, READ THIS.
And then THIS.
Now, can anyone please tell me where Canada went? Does Stephen Harper ^NOT realize that Section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees freedom of the press, along with the right to freedom of expression? Or maybe the query should be, "Does he even care?".
You know, at first I wasn't quite sure about it when the other parties started to refer to the Tories as the "Conservative Regime", but now I'm certain that the label fits. This is not the Canada I was born and raised in, and it's certainly not the political, social and undemocratic environment I wish for my sons to grow up in.
For the love of every single Canadian* and our beautiful country, please realize that May 2nd. is a gift to all Canadian citizens of voting age. On this day each one of our voices are equal, in the basic yet effective form of a checkmark on a paper ballot.
We have the opportunity to oust the Guilty of Contempt Harper led Conservatives from Parliament. Then, we can begin to repair and mend the damage the Tories have thrust upon us, I know collectively we are strong and we can achieve this goal together!
In our National Anthem we sing "O Canada, we stand on guard for thee", so let's honour that pledge and defend this most awesome land from coast to coast to coast.
I'm tired of living in Harperland, I need my True North Strong and Free!
Don't let Parliamentary crime pay! Peter Russell, constitutional expert, talks about the Harper Government's contempt for parliamentary democracy and what is at stake in the Canadian Election 2011.
2007 From CBC's "The Hour." Stephen Harper and Media Control
Sing it!!!
By therealg8g20: "This is a song that was performed by Richard Underhill in Kensington Market in 2008. I found the raw video on Youtube and asked the author if I could make a new remix with the footage. Perhaps this can become the theme song for those of us who are concerned about the direction this government is taking our country in. I'm hoping that it will inspire those who are not happy with the leadership of the Harper government, but haven't gotten involved yet, to get active, get organized and get involved! Maybe we can make this video go viral!" Vimeo Version: http://vimeo.com/13803436
for the love of every single Canadian* - Seriously. Read it. Please.
UPDATE 4/14/2011: Check out more at http://shitharperdid.ca/
http://www.leadnow.ca
and http://sowhatdidimiss.blogspot.com/
LABELS -
Activism,
Canada,
Conservatives,
Election 41,
FAIL,
Freedom of the Press,
Harper,
Human Rights,
Media,
Politics,
Propaganda,
Spin,
Vote
Friday, February 11, 2011
Con Job! Tories Ignore Justice Department Reports
CON JOB: verb-transitive ~ To swindle (a victim) by first winning his or her confidence; dupe.–noun ~ A swindle. –adjective ~ Of, relating to, or involving a swindle or fraud: a con artist.
ALARMIST: person or group/organization who needlessly alarms or attempts to alarm others, as by inventing or spreading false or exaggerated rumors of impending danger or catastrophe.
Are you scared yet?
In a cheap attempt to sway uninformed Canadians into voting for them, the Conservatives continue to be alarmist, trying to convince you that Canada is bursting at the seams with dangerous criminals lurking on every corner like a Boogeyman in your closet. Harper, Toews, Nicholson, Glover et al want you quivering, believing that no one can save you and your family from becoming victims except for the "Tough on Crime!" party! The kicker? Crime has actually been declining in Canada, in fact, crime rates fell by about about 3% in 2009 — 17% lower than a decade ago. Joseph Neuberger puts some context to this: "The last time Canada's crime rates were as low as Statistics Canada says they are now, The Sting and American Graffiti played at the movies; Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon ruled the airwaves and M*A*S*H was tops on TV." (Please read the whole awesome article Tough on Crime Bill Is Tough on Us All)
The following is from a previous post I wrote called "Calling the Tories Out on Bill C-15 - "The Politics of Fear". This information is applicable to Bill S-10 and deserves to be highlighted as the Conservatives continue to attempt to label the opposition as *soft on crime and pull one over on Canadians who are unfamiliar with the consequences of Mandatory Minimum Sentencing from drug offenses:
On the Canadian Department of Justice website you can find the report: "Mandatory Sentences of Imprisonment in Common Law Jurisdictions: Some Representative Models" by Julian V. Roberts With the assistance of Rafal Morek and Mihael Cole. Report prepared for the Department of Justice Canada © GOVERNMENT OF CANADA, 2006-11-09
Highlights from the 55 page report include:
The judiciary in Canada and elsewhere are opposed to mandatory sentences of imprisonment. The Canadian Sentencing Commission (1987) found in their survey of judges that slightly over half felt that minimum sentences impinged on their ability to impose a just sentence and that inappropriate agreement between defense and Crown counsel may result.
The future of mandatory minimum sentences in Canada remains unclear. There is some indication that minimum sentences are not an effective sentencing tool: that is, they constrain judicial discretion without offering any increased crime prevention benefits. Nevertheless, mandatory sentences remain popular with some Canadian politicians.
Where mandatory sentences do exist, they have been the object of considerable (and growing) opposition from a variety of parties, including advocacy groups, judges, academics and criminal justice professionals. This opposition has led to a number of Bills to amend or repeal the mandatory sentences legislation. While a number of countries have passed mandatory sentencing legislation within the last decade, there is evidence that jurisdictions with the most severe mandatory sentencing laws are beginning to repeal, or consider repealing, the most punitive sentences of imprisonment.
Trends in Mandatory Sentencing Legislation - After a decade in which a number of common law countries enacted mandatory sentencing legislation, there is clear evidence that several jurisdictions are now either repealing or amending these punitive laws. For example, in 2002 the Michigan mandatory sentencing laws were significantly amended. The effects of these amendments include the following:
• elimination of mandatory minimum sentencing for certain controlled substance
violations;
• creation of provisions that permit courts to consider important mitigating factors; and
• revision of the quantities of drug that trigger certain sentences.
This movement towards a more flexible, judge-determined sentencing scheme is a result of several factors with international repercussions including:
• a shift in public opinion away from supporting strict mandatory minimum sentencing (see above);
• the impact of Advocacy groups such as
Families Against Mandatory Minimums Foundation (FAMM);
• growing public disenchantment with the “War on Drugs” that initially triggered many of the most punitive mandatory sentencing laws (see Eagleton Institute of Politics Center for Public Interest Polling, 2004);
• news media coverage of “three-strikes” cases in which offenders whose “third strike” consisted of a less serious felony and stories of offenders receiving lengthy prison terms for offenses such as stealing a bicycle from a garage have undermined public support for this kind of sentencing; and
• growing concern among criminal justice professionals that mandatory sentences have played an important role in keeping prison populations from declining, even in an era of falling crime rates.
Mandatory Sentencing and Public Opinion - Although this report deals only with the statutory regimes with respect to mandatory sentences of imprisonment, it is worth noting that there is evidence from a number of jurisdictions that public support for mandatory sentencing has declined over the past decade. Mandatory sentences of imprisonment represent the most punitive sentencing reforms of recent years and are found in many western nations. Often justified by reference to public opinion, they have proved highly controversial in practice. Where do members of the public stand with respect to the issue? Few studies have addressed public knowledge of statutory minimum penalties; fortunately, the surveys that exist on this issue have generated the same findings: the general public has little knowledge of the offenses that carry a mandatory minimum penalty, or of the magnitude of the statutory minima. For example, in 1998, members of the public responding to the British Crime Survey (BCS) were asked if they were aware of the mandatory minimum prison term of three years for offenders convicted of burglary (see Roberts, 2003).
Even though this mandatory sentence had been the object of considerable media attention, less than one quarter of the sample responded affirmatively. This finding is consistent with earlier research in Canada that found that very few members of the public had any idea which offenses carried a mandatory sentence (Roberts, 1988 - It should not be surprising that public knowledge of mandatory sentences is poor. Opinion surveys conducted in several jurisdictions have shown that the public knows little about maximum sentences, sentencing options, alternatives to imprisonment, sentencing patterns, recidivism rates, or many other elements of the sentencing process (see Roberts and Hough, 2005, for a review). For example, respondents may overlook the fact that mandatory sentences of imprisonment violate important sentencing principles such as proportionality in sentencing. In addition, mandatory sentences of imprisonment may prove expensive by increasing the costs of the correctional system as more offenders are admitted to custody (and for longer periods of time).)
There is clear evidence that even in the United States, where support is stronger for mandatory sentences, public support for the concept is declining. For example, in 1995 over half of the sampled public in the US held the view that mandatory sentences were a good idea (Roberts, 2003). In 2001, this percentage had declined to slightly more than one-third of respondents (Peter D. Hart Research Associates, 2002; Roberts, 2003). In fact, over half the polled public in the US now favour the elimination of “three-strikes” mandatory sentences (Peter D. Hart Research Associates, 2002). The most recent polling on the issue of mandatory sentencing comes from the state of New Jersey. When asked whether mandatory jail or mandatory drug treatment was the more effective approach to non-violent offenders, respondents chose treatment over imprisonment by a three to one ratio (Eagleton Institute of Politics Center for Public Interest Polling, 2004). Three-quarters of the sample favoured allowing judges to set aside mandatory sentences “if another sentence would be more appropriate” (Eagleton Institute of Politics Center for Public Interest Polling, 2004).
The Future of Mandatory Sentencing - It would be overstating the case to say that the pendulum has swung away from mandatory sentencing to a model of sentencing that privileges judicial discretion. However, it is clear that public and legislative interest in mandatory sentencing laws has declined, and is likely to continue to decline in the near future. Although the public supports tough sentencing measures for violent offenders, the experience with mandatory sentencing legislation in a number of countries has shown that these laws do little to promote public confidence in the sentencing process.
This report has demonstrated that while mandatory sentences of imprisonment proved popular in the 1990s across a number of common law jurisdictions, closer examination of the laws reveals that many countries allow courts the discretion to sentence below the minimum when exceptional circumstances exist. This usually means that courts are permitted to consider mitigating factors relating to the offense or the offender, in some cases, as long as the judge provides written reasons for doing so. In addition, while the general public appears to favour the use of mandatory sentences for offenders convicted of the *most serious offenses and repeat offenders, there are important limits on public support for strict mandatory sentencing laws. When the public is provided with more information regarding the law and the circumstances surrounding the offense and the offender, the tendency is not to favour punitive sanctions such as mandatory minimum sentences.
*most serious offenses ~ s. 718.1 of the Criminal Code of Canada states: "sentences should be proportionate to the offense and reflect the degree of responsibility of the offender."
Another report on the Canadian Department of Justice Website is:
MANDATORY MINIMUM PENALTIES:
Their Effects on Crime, Sentencing Disparities, and Justice System Expenditures
Thomas Gabor, Professor
Department of Criminology
University of Ottawa
Nicole Crutcher
Carleton University
Research and
Statistics Division
January2002
An excerpt from section 5.4 Mandatory Sentences for Drug Offenses states:
Some of the most sophisticated research in this area has
been undertaken at the Rand Corporation (Caulkins et
al., 1997). Through various mathematical models, Rand
researchers compared the cost effectiveness of various
drug prevention/control strategies, including lengthy
MMS. Their analysis considered the cost of each
strategy and the expected yield in terms of both drug
consumption and crime reductions. Their conclusion
was that conventional sentences imposed on dealers are
more cost effective than long MMS reserved for fewer
offenders and that treating heavy users is more cost
effective than either approach in lowering drug use or
drug-related crime. MMS were found to be the most
cost effective strategy only in the case of the highest level
dealers; however, the low thresholds at which MMS
tend to kick in means that these laws are more likely to
ensnare low-level offenders. Also, high-level dealers are
more likely to avoid MMS, as they are in a better position
to have information to trade for an exemption from
these penalties. Finally, these investigators note that the
time horizon of evaluations is critical, as MMS become
less cost effective over time.
Hansen (1999) asserts that the tide is turning against
MMS for drug infractions. He notes that they have done
little to reduce crime or to put large-scale dealers out of
business. Rather, they have filled prisons with young.
low-level, non-violent individuals at great cost to
taxpayers. Hansen points out that, in Massachusetts,
84% of inmates serving mandatory drug sentences are
first-time offenders.
...MMS fail to discriminate between these hardcore drug
dealers and those who feel compelled to sell due to an
addiction or difficulties encountered in participating
steadily in the work force. The implication is that
employment opportunities, more accessible drug
treatment, and alternative sentences would be
preferable to the “iron fist of the war on drugs.”
Harsh MMS and the “drug war” approach in general
show little effect in relation to drug offense. Judges
routinely circumvent the “mandatory” death sentences
for drug trafficking in Malaysia and the tough MMS in
the US have imprisoned mostly low-level, nonviolent
offenders. MMS do not appear to influence drug
consumption or drug-related crime in any measurable
way. A variety of research methods concludes that
treatment-based approaches are more cost effective
than lengthy prison terms. MMS are blunt instruments
that fail to distinguish between low and high-level, as
well as hardcore versus transient drug dealers.
Optimally, it would appear that tough sentences should
be reserved for hardcore, high-level dealers, while
treatment may be more appropriate for addicted dealers
and employment opportunities may be more cost
effective in relation to part-time dealers who are
underemployed.
Conclusion: 9.5 Mandatory Sentences for Drug Offenses
Severe MMS seem to be least effective in relation to drug
offenses. Studies using a variety of methodologies
seriously question the value of the “drug war” approach.
The draconian penalties in Malaysia are routinely
circumvented by the judiciary and the tough MMS in the
US (both at the state and federal levels) have imprisoned
mostly low-level, nonviolent offenders. Drug
consumption and drug-related crime seem to be
unaffected, in any measurable way, by severe MMS.
Both mathematical modeling techniques and field work
arrive at the conclusion that treatment-oriented
approaches are more cost effective than harsh prison
terms.
9.9 Concluding Remarks
From a utilitarian point of view,
incarcerating occasional, non-violent offenders, for
substantial periods, constitutes a colossal waste of
justice system resources.
...Therefore, MMS should not be
introduced merely to placate a political constituency or
without regard to a thorough understanding of the
infractions or offenders for whom they are intended. ~ Fin
What purpose does it serve the Conservatives to quash judicial discretion? To disregard evidence and research that clearly demonstrates that Mandatory Minimum Sentencing is ineffective, expensive and a fallacious approach regarding drug policy and criminal legislation? I ask my fellow Canadians, "Are YOU comfortable with the knowledge that your government blatantly ignores the findings of our very own Justice Department?"
Please also be aware that the Conservatives keep cost of crime measures a secret and these ideologically driven bills will criminalize and imprison large numbers of young Canadians. The legislation is also opposed to by all other Canadian political parties, (Liberals, NDP, Bloc, and Green) the Church Council on Justice and Corrections, a 39-year-old coalition for justice reform that represents 11 of the largest Christian denominations, the Canadian Bar Association and well over 500 Health researchers slam Tory mandatory-minimum-sentence proposal for drug crimes.
Prevention. It's worth more than a pound of Tory rhetoric for Canadian families and hard working taxpayers. Lets ignore the Con Job, Canadians, of course we are all concerned about crime, but lets be brave and approach solutions to keeping our kids and communities safer by being smart, logical and realistic about crime policy.
Ignoring evidence that clearly proves that Mandatory Minimum Sentences escalate crime and violence in our neighbourhoods? Now that's scary!
Fortunately, we can see what has happened in the
United States when a government is "Stupid on Crime"
because they don't want to be labeled "Soft on Crime".
ALARMIST: person or group/organization who needlessly alarms or attempts to alarm others, as by inventing or spreading false or exaggerated rumors of impending danger or catastrophe.
In a cheap attempt to sway uninformed Canadians into voting for them, the Conservatives continue to be alarmist, trying to convince you that Canada is bursting at the seams with dangerous criminals lurking on every corner like a Boogeyman in your closet. Harper, Toews, Nicholson, Glover et al want you quivering, believing that no one can save you and your family from becoming victims except for the "Tough on Crime!" party! The kicker? Crime has actually been declining in Canada, in fact, crime rates fell by about about 3% in 2009 — 17% lower than a decade ago. Joseph Neuberger puts some context to this: "The last time Canada's crime rates were as low as Statistics Canada says they are now, The Sting and American Graffiti played at the movies; Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon ruled the airwaves and M*A*S*H was tops on TV." (Please read the whole awesome article Tough on Crime Bill Is Tough on Us All)
The following is from a previous post I wrote called "Calling the Tories Out on Bill C-15 - "The Politics of Fear". This information is applicable to Bill S-10 and deserves to be highlighted as the Conservatives continue to attempt to label the opposition as *soft on crime and pull one over on Canadians who are unfamiliar with the consequences of Mandatory Minimum Sentencing from drug offenses:
On the Canadian Department of Justice website you can find the report: "Mandatory Sentences of Imprisonment in Common Law Jurisdictions: Some Representative Models" by Julian V. Roberts With the assistance of Rafal Morek and Mihael Cole. Report prepared for the Department of Justice Canada © GOVERNMENT OF CANADA, 2006-11-09
Highlights from the 55 page report include:
The judiciary in Canada and elsewhere are opposed to mandatory sentences of imprisonment. The Canadian Sentencing Commission (1987) found in their survey of judges that slightly over half felt that minimum sentences impinged on their ability to impose a just sentence and that inappropriate agreement between defense and Crown counsel may result.
The future of mandatory minimum sentences in Canada remains unclear. There is some indication that minimum sentences are not an effective sentencing tool: that is, they constrain judicial discretion without offering any increased crime prevention benefits. Nevertheless, mandatory sentences remain popular with some Canadian politicians.
Where mandatory sentences do exist, they have been the object of considerable (and growing) opposition from a variety of parties, including advocacy groups, judges, academics and criminal justice professionals. This opposition has led to a number of Bills to amend or repeal the mandatory sentences legislation. While a number of countries have passed mandatory sentencing legislation within the last decade, there is evidence that jurisdictions with the most severe mandatory sentencing laws are beginning to repeal, or consider repealing, the most punitive sentences of imprisonment.
Trends in Mandatory Sentencing Legislation - After a decade in which a number of common law countries enacted mandatory sentencing legislation, there is clear evidence that several jurisdictions are now either repealing or amending these punitive laws. For example, in 2002 the Michigan mandatory sentencing laws were significantly amended. The effects of these amendments include the following:
• elimination of mandatory minimum sentencing for certain controlled substance
violations;
• creation of provisions that permit courts to consider important mitigating factors; and
• revision of the quantities of drug that trigger certain sentences.
This movement towards a more flexible, judge-determined sentencing scheme is a result of several factors with international repercussions including:
• a shift in public opinion away from supporting strict mandatory minimum sentencing (see above);
• the impact of Advocacy groups such as
Families Against Mandatory Minimums Foundation (FAMM);
• growing public disenchantment with the “War on Drugs” that initially triggered many of the most punitive mandatory sentencing laws (see Eagleton Institute of Politics Center for Public Interest Polling, 2004);
• news media coverage of “three-strikes” cases in which offenders whose “third strike” consisted of a less serious felony and stories of offenders receiving lengthy prison terms for offenses such as stealing a bicycle from a garage have undermined public support for this kind of sentencing; and
• growing concern among criminal justice professionals that mandatory sentences have played an important role in keeping prison populations from declining, even in an era of falling crime rates.
Mandatory Sentencing and Public Opinion - Although this report deals only with the statutory regimes with respect to mandatory sentences of imprisonment, it is worth noting that there is evidence from a number of jurisdictions that public support for mandatory sentencing has declined over the past decade. Mandatory sentences of imprisonment represent the most punitive sentencing reforms of recent years and are found in many western nations. Often justified by reference to public opinion, they have proved highly controversial in practice. Where do members of the public stand with respect to the issue? Few studies have addressed public knowledge of statutory minimum penalties; fortunately, the surveys that exist on this issue have generated the same findings: the general public has little knowledge of the offenses that carry a mandatory minimum penalty, or of the magnitude of the statutory minima. For example, in 1998, members of the public responding to the British Crime Survey (BCS) were asked if they were aware of the mandatory minimum prison term of three years for offenders convicted of burglary (see Roberts, 2003).
Even though this mandatory sentence had been the object of considerable media attention, less than one quarter of the sample responded affirmatively. This finding is consistent with earlier research in Canada that found that very few members of the public had any idea which offenses carried a mandatory sentence (Roberts, 1988 - It should not be surprising that public knowledge of mandatory sentences is poor. Opinion surveys conducted in several jurisdictions have shown that the public knows little about maximum sentences, sentencing options, alternatives to imprisonment, sentencing patterns, recidivism rates, or many other elements of the sentencing process (see Roberts and Hough, 2005, for a review). For example, respondents may overlook the fact that mandatory sentences of imprisonment violate important sentencing principles such as proportionality in sentencing. In addition, mandatory sentences of imprisonment may prove expensive by increasing the costs of the correctional system as more offenders are admitted to custody (and for longer periods of time).)
There is clear evidence that even in the United States, where support is stronger for mandatory sentences, public support for the concept is declining. For example, in 1995 over half of the sampled public in the US held the view that mandatory sentences were a good idea (Roberts, 2003). In 2001, this percentage had declined to slightly more than one-third of respondents (Peter D. Hart Research Associates, 2002; Roberts, 2003). In fact, over half the polled public in the US now favour the elimination of “three-strikes” mandatory sentences (Peter D. Hart Research Associates, 2002). The most recent polling on the issue of mandatory sentencing comes from the state of New Jersey. When asked whether mandatory jail or mandatory drug treatment was the more effective approach to non-violent offenders, respondents chose treatment over imprisonment by a three to one ratio (Eagleton Institute of Politics Center for Public Interest Polling, 2004). Three-quarters of the sample favoured allowing judges to set aside mandatory sentences “if another sentence would be more appropriate” (Eagleton Institute of Politics Center for Public Interest Polling, 2004).
The Future of Mandatory Sentencing - It would be overstating the case to say that the pendulum has swung away from mandatory sentencing to a model of sentencing that privileges judicial discretion. However, it is clear that public and legislative interest in mandatory sentencing laws has declined, and is likely to continue to decline in the near future. Although the public supports tough sentencing measures for violent offenders, the experience with mandatory sentencing legislation in a number of countries has shown that these laws do little to promote public confidence in the sentencing process.
This report has demonstrated that while mandatory sentences of imprisonment proved popular in the 1990s across a number of common law jurisdictions, closer examination of the laws reveals that many countries allow courts the discretion to sentence below the minimum when exceptional circumstances exist. This usually means that courts are permitted to consider mitigating factors relating to the offense or the offender, in some cases, as long as the judge provides written reasons for doing so. In addition, while the general public appears to favour the use of mandatory sentences for offenders convicted of the *most serious offenses and repeat offenders, there are important limits on public support for strict mandatory sentencing laws. When the public is provided with more information regarding the law and the circumstances surrounding the offense and the offender, the tendency is not to favour punitive sanctions such as mandatory minimum sentences.
*most serious offenses ~ s. 718.1 of the Criminal Code of Canada states: "sentences should be proportionate to the offense and reflect the degree of responsibility of the offender."
Another report on the Canadian Department of Justice Website is:
MANDATORY MINIMUM PENALTIES:
Their Effects on Crime, Sentencing Disparities, and Justice System Expenditures
Thomas Gabor, Professor
Department of Criminology
University of Ottawa
Nicole Crutcher
Carleton University
Research and
Statistics Division
January2002
An excerpt from section 5.4 Mandatory Sentences for Drug Offenses states:
Some of the most sophisticated research in this area has
been undertaken at the Rand Corporation (Caulkins et
al., 1997). Through various mathematical models, Rand
researchers compared the cost effectiveness of various
drug prevention/control strategies, including lengthy
MMS. Their analysis considered the cost of each
strategy and the expected yield in terms of both drug
consumption and crime reductions. Their conclusion
was that conventional sentences imposed on dealers are
more cost effective than long MMS reserved for fewer
offenders and that treating heavy users is more cost
effective than either approach in lowering drug use or
drug-related crime. MMS were found to be the most
cost effective strategy only in the case of the highest level
dealers; however, the low thresholds at which MMS
tend to kick in means that these laws are more likely to
ensnare low-level offenders. Also, high-level dealers are
more likely to avoid MMS, as they are in a better position
to have information to trade for an exemption from
these penalties. Finally, these investigators note that the
time horizon of evaluations is critical, as MMS become
less cost effective over time.
Hansen (1999) asserts that the tide is turning against
MMS for drug infractions. He notes that they have done
little to reduce crime or to put large-scale dealers out of
business. Rather, they have filled prisons with young.
low-level, non-violent individuals at great cost to
taxpayers. Hansen points out that, in Massachusetts,
84% of inmates serving mandatory drug sentences are
first-time offenders.
...MMS fail to discriminate between these hardcore drug
dealers and those who feel compelled to sell due to an
addiction or difficulties encountered in participating
steadily in the work force. The implication is that
employment opportunities, more accessible drug
treatment, and alternative sentences would be
preferable to the “iron fist of the war on drugs.”
Harsh MMS and the “drug war” approach in general
show little effect in relation to drug offense. Judges
routinely circumvent the “mandatory” death sentences
for drug trafficking in Malaysia and the tough MMS in
the US have imprisoned mostly low-level, nonviolent
offenders. MMS do not appear to influence drug
consumption or drug-related crime in any measurable
way. A variety of research methods concludes that
treatment-based approaches are more cost effective
than lengthy prison terms. MMS are blunt instruments
that fail to distinguish between low and high-level, as
well as hardcore versus transient drug dealers.
Optimally, it would appear that tough sentences should
be reserved for hardcore, high-level dealers, while
treatment may be more appropriate for addicted dealers
and employment opportunities may be more cost
effective in relation to part-time dealers who are
underemployed.
Conclusion: 9.5 Mandatory Sentences for Drug Offenses
Severe MMS seem to be least effective in relation to drug
offenses. Studies using a variety of methodologies
seriously question the value of the “drug war” approach.
The draconian penalties in Malaysia are routinely
circumvented by the judiciary and the tough MMS in the
US (both at the state and federal levels) have imprisoned
mostly low-level, nonviolent offenders. Drug
consumption and drug-related crime seem to be
unaffected, in any measurable way, by severe MMS.
Both mathematical modeling techniques and field work
arrive at the conclusion that treatment-oriented
approaches are more cost effective than harsh prison
terms.
9.9 Concluding Remarks
From a utilitarian point of view,
incarcerating occasional, non-violent offenders, for
substantial periods, constitutes a colossal waste of
justice system resources.
...Therefore, MMS should not be
introduced merely to placate a political constituency or
without regard to a thorough understanding of the
infractions or offenders for whom they are intended. ~ Fin
*****
"Discretion is a science of understanding, to discern between falsity and truth, between wrong and right, between shadows and substance, between equity and colourable glosses and pretenses, and not to do according to their men's will and private affections." ~ Justice Edward Coke
*****
"Discretion is a science of understanding, to discern between falsity and truth, between wrong and right, between shadows and substance, between equity and colourable glosses and pretenses, and not to do according to their men's will and private affections." ~ Justice Edward Coke
*****
What purpose does it serve the Conservatives to quash judicial discretion? To disregard evidence and research that clearly demonstrates that Mandatory Minimum Sentencing is ineffective, expensive and a fallacious approach regarding drug policy and criminal legislation? I ask my fellow Canadians, "Are YOU comfortable with the knowledge that your government blatantly ignores the findings of our very own Justice Department?"
Please also be aware that the Conservatives keep cost of crime measures a secret and these ideologically driven bills will criminalize and imprison large numbers of young Canadians. The legislation is also opposed to by all other Canadian political parties, (Liberals, NDP, Bloc, and Green) the Church Council on Justice and Corrections, a 39-year-old coalition for justice reform that represents 11 of the largest Christian denominations, the Canadian Bar Association and well over 500 Health researchers slam Tory mandatory-minimum-sentence proposal for drug crimes.
Prevention. It's worth more than a pound of Tory rhetoric for Canadian families and hard working taxpayers. Lets ignore the Con Job, Canadians, of course we are all concerned about crime, but lets be brave and approach solutions to keeping our kids and communities safer by being smart, logical and realistic about crime policy.
Ignoring evidence that clearly proves that Mandatory Minimum Sentences escalate crime and violence in our neighbourhoods? Now that's scary!
Fortunately, we can see what has happened in the
United States when a government is "Stupid on Crime"
because they don't want to be labeled "Soft on Crime".
*****
“Still, my own personal view is that it’s a mistake to take away discretion from judges, In the last couple of decades, the U.S. has gone the way of mandatory sentencing for a whole bunch of crimes and the result is their prisons are jammed.
I find it hard to understand how the richest country in the world has one of - if not the - highest prison population in the world. There’s something wrong there, and the problem is mandatory sentences. I’m disappointed to see Canada drifting in that direction.” ~ Retired Quebec judge John Gomery
I find it hard to understand how the richest country in the world has one of - if not the - highest prison population in the world. There’s something wrong there, and the problem is mandatory sentences. I’m disappointed to see Canada drifting in that direction.” ~ Retired Quebec judge John Gomery
*****
*soft on crime ~ From: It's a 'myth' Canada is soft on crime
It is a myth that Canadian courts are soft on crime and that the Charter of Rights is responsible for criminals escaping conviction or receiving light jail terms, says Canada's chief justice, Beverley McLachlin.
The Charter of Rights, signed on April 17, 1982, as part of the repatriated Constitution, gave judges the power to not merely interpret laws, but to strike them down if they were found to violate any of the established rights.
They include freedom of religion, expression and association, the legal right to life, liberty and security of the person, and the right against unreasonable search and seizure. Equality guarantees, including freedom from discrimination based on age, sex, race, or disability, came into effect in 1985.
It is a myth that Canadian courts are soft on crime and that the Charter of Rights is responsible for criminals escaping conviction or receiving light jail terms, says Canada's chief justice, Beverley McLachlin.
The Charter of Rights, signed on April 17, 1982, as part of the repatriated Constitution, gave judges the power to not merely interpret laws, but to strike them down if they were found to violate any of the established rights.
They include freedom of religion, expression and association, the legal right to life, liberty and security of the person, and the right against unreasonable search and seizure. Equality guarantees, including freedom from discrimination based on age, sex, race, or disability, came into effect in 1985.
LABELS -
Activism,
Bill S-10,
Canada,
Cannabis,
Conservatives,
Drug War,
Fear-Mongering,
Harper,
Justice,
Law,
Marijuana,
Politics,
Pot,
Prison Industrial Complex,
Prohibition,
Spin,
Weed
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
