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!
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." ~
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, 2012The 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
My response to this article: It's time for Canada and all nations to admit that the War On Drugs is lost, in fact, just like The Noble Experiment it could never have been won to begin with. We do not respect the laws of drug prohibition because they are unenforceable. To prohibit the use of a plant that we have used for thousands of years for medicine, relaxation, paper, food, fabric, fuel, etc. is not only unjust, but an impossible endeavor. I respect laws that are created to keep society safe from truly violent and dangerous people. As a Mother I believe a majority of police and judicial resources must be focused on those who truly pose a threat to society. But the law of Cannabis Prohibition is so ridiculous that it causes disrespect for the law and law enforcement, which is a shame because there are many great police, lawyers, judges, etc. out there who really do care about people, most notably members of L.E.A.P. ~ Law Enforcement Against Prohibition. Politicians must concede that they cannot legislate human behavior when it comes to what we eat and drink, how we medicate or what we grow in our gardens. It is the ultimate persecution of our freedom(1) of personal autonomy and wreaks of ownership! We're not perfect, we're Human, we use drugs, we always have, deal with it! The mere notion that government believes laws can stop plants from growing in the ground is ludicrous. End the Drug War that empowers and enriches cartels and organized criminals. Provide truthful facts to our children about all substances and regulate the sale of drugs to adults. Revive the farming of the Industrial and food grade Hemp plant the world over so we can help our environment and conquer famine and malnutrition. We can concentrate on more important things like our disastrous economy, health care, school boards and old and failing infrastructures. Every taxpayer dollar we spend fighting this unwinnable war is a dollar stolen from proven programs that really do help support the health and safety of all of us. When it comes to paying for helicopters flying through the air searching for plants(2) or schools and hospitals, I know without a doubt where I want my tax dollars to go!
via YouTube: David Bratzer, a police officer in British Columbia, Canada, says he has seen how marijuana prohibition and the failed "war on drugs" directly lead to the growth of organized crime and cause gruesome illegal market violence. David is a member of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, which anyone can join for free atCopsSayLegalizeDrugs.com
"The Law Makes Us Lawless" The awesome Ken Burns and Lynn Novick documentary "Prohibition" can be viewed at PBS online.
"I, as a responsible adult human being, will never concede the power to anyone to regulate my choice of what I put into my body, or where I go with my mind. From the skin inwards is my jurisdiction, is it not? I choose what may or may not cross that border. Here I am the Customs Agent. I am the Coast guard. I am the sole legal and spiritual government of this territory, and only the laws I choose to enact within myself are applicable."
One of the great things about social media is connecting with intelligent people who you'd otherwise never get the chance to "meet". Facebook and Twitter have brought thousands of new friendly voices into my realm over the past few years and they are what I lovingly refer to as my "Mad Posters" - meaning, they/we love to share news and videos and education regarding not just the Drug War, but injustice in whatever form it happens to take throughout the world.
"Posting Links" is one of the best tools that social activism has, on any given day I am gifted with personalized judicial and ecological news from Canada, the States and beyond. With the click of a mouse a daily itinerary is before me and I appreciate those who take the time to "Pass It to the Left".
While much of what we share is from news outlets and other mainstream media, what I cherish the most are contributions from everyday people passionate about making a difference. On Saturday a "Note" was posted on Facebook and it was so informative that I asked the writer, Lydie Meunier, if she would let me post it here to share with all of you and she graciously accepted.
Lydia brilliantly opens our eyes to scheming corporations and the U.S. Prison Industrial Complex coveting much sought after jobs and profiting greatly from free and cheap inmate labour. It's also a shocking glimpse of what will happen here in Canada if the Conservatives are re-elected and allowed to proceed with their fear driven crime agenda and American style prison plans.
GUEST POST U.S. Unemployment Exacerbated by the Outsourcing of Jobs to Prisons By Lydie Meunier
SLAVERY IS BACK IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Call your Congress Members and Ask them to Put a Stop to this Infamy!!!
I know that many people don't want to look into prison labor and the impact it has on unemployment figures because this is a disturbing issue. And yet, Jobs are outsourced to prisons, and slavery is being reinstated because corporations are counting on, and taking advantage of folks' apathy and disdains for prisoners... Meanwhile jobs for law abiding citizens are taken away from them to be given to cheap prison labor.
Today, prisoners are being exploited by corporations, paid more or less 40 cts/hour, more often less than more, sometimes paid nothing at all (see current situation in Georgia prisons not covered by the media), in lieu of the minimum $7.25/hour that corporations would have to pay to law abiding citizens. The difference, quite clearly, contributes to major corporate profits, while law abiding citizens are still unemployed and continue to lose their jobs.
On the FREE National market (vs. the WALLED industrial complex market), only 9% of our GDP comes from manufacturing. You can not sustain a middle class lifestyle with a service economy. To turn that 9 % into a much higher number, we need to introduce a new Bill in Congress to stop the outsourcing of manufacturing jobs to prisons (outsourcing to prisons is now called "insourcing").
When you consider the major corporations that employ prison labor (furniture factories, Microsoft, Boing, IBM, Starbuck, Victoria secret, BP, Sodexo, medical supplies, road signs, military supplies, etc.) you quickly realize that moving jobs back to law abiding citizens would surely help diminish unemployment figures!!!
The way these prison partnerships typically work is that a manufacturer wanting to increase profits moves their equipment, technology, materials and unfinished goods to a factory setting within a prison industry facility. Once up and running, the same products come off the assembly lines and are shipped as before. The difference is this, private sector employees of the company have been terminated or laid off. A handful of employees are usually kept on long enough to train inmates and prison supervisors in the manufacturing used to make the products. Once that is accomplished, they are also eliminated and their positions taken over by a prison industry supervisor.
This insourcing of labor creates quite a number of unemployed citizens. Burdens are placed on state and community social help programs, unemployment compensation, etc. So while the corporation saves lots of money in labor costs - no more unemployment insurance premiums, less expenses in lease of facilities (usually leased by the prison operators at $1.00 per year), and no more employee benefits such as medical insurance, vacations or paid time off - the communities they vacated are left to fund the unemployed left in their wake. In addition the local government loses taxes that were paid by the corporation, previous landlords of the facilities once leased to the corporations are left with vacant property and local shops and other businesses suffer a drop in sales due to the newly unemployed workers left behind.
Efforts to involve Union officials, management and labor leaders in rectifying this issue have been unsuccessful for some reason. Politicians and Union leaders are too busy arguing about outsourcing of our jobs overseas and seem to not have any interest in eliminating or addressing insourcing. The next time you or your neighbor loses your/their job; before looking toward China or India to see if you can see your job making its way there, look the other way and see if perhaps some criminal that stole your car has just as easily stolen your job and income as well.
The prison industrial complex shows the fastest growth in profits, with politicians and judges and lawyers, and the top 2% investing in its stocks, which constitutes the most corrupt conflict of interests: for each incarceration, the private prison industry is not only paid big bulks by our tax money, it also disposes of the people as private property subcontracted to corporations. Meanwhile, we keep paying for the prison industrial complex to sustain itself with our tax money, oblivious to the fact that we are also paying with the loss of our jobs!!!!
Wake up folks!!! This is not only a national disgrace, it is a national scandal!!!
The United States has the highest incarceration rate!!!! Do you want to know why? Follow the money!!!
Here are more links related to more recent news in Georgia where prisoners have been forced to work without pay for their labor, a violation of the 13th Amendment, which prohibits slavery and involuntary servitude:
Corporatocracy can best be described as: "A type of government in which huge corporations, through bribes, gifts, and the funding of ad campaigns that oppose candidates they don't like, become the driving force behind the executive, judicial and legislative branches". It explains why prison labor is ignored by politicians and main stream media!!!!!
"One might think an enterprise able to pay unskilled workers just 21 cents an hour would be able to manufacture goods it could sell at rock-bottom prices. Unfortunately, that is not so when the enterprise is Ohio's Penal Industries system." Penal Industries Costs Out of Line - February 3, 2011 - The Intelligencer
"ACLU 2010 report presents the results of a yearlong investigation into modern-day "debtors' prisons," and shows that poor defendants are being jailed at increasingly alarming rates for failing to pay legal debts they can never hope to afford." American Civil Liberties Unions - 2010 - See 2011 update
Last year, officials in McIntosh County, Okla., south of Tulsa, issued about 1,500 debt-related arrest warrants, up from about 800 a year before the crisis, according to a court clerk. More than 950 borrowers got similar warrants in Salt Lake City courts last year. Maricopa County, Ariz., officials issued 260 debt-related warrants in 2010 Welcome to Debtors' Prison, 2011 Edition
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.
The United States continues to have the largest incarcerated population and the highest per capita incarceration rate in the world. - Human Rights Watch, World Report, 2008
"If drug gangs in Mexico are successful enhancing the quality of their product, they can sell the improved marijuana for up to five times the normal price. The going rate for top quality U.S. marijuana is around $2,500 per pound, while Mexican types sell for under $500, U.S. law enforcement officials say." ~ Mexico marijuana growers learn new tricks from US
My response:
"They say its used for pain management, but drinking a bottle of Jack Daniels would have the same effect,"
Yes, but the difference is that the bottle of Jack Daniel's can kill you, while the Cannabis can't. That is, unless you can ingest approximately 1500 pounds of it within 15 minutes.
Like fine wine, people will pay good money for quality cannabis. The Mexican cartels have recognized this truth and are upping their game to compete in the black market opposite "Primo" California bud."
C'mon, we can't be surprised by this - we all know that Cannabis is worth more because it's illegal. The best solution to stop the drug war violence is re-legalization and regulation, a controlled production, quality tested, sales industry much like what already exists for the previously banned alcohol. The bonus will be tax revenue, legitimate jobs in an already booming, established market, and taxpayer savings through lower legal, court, incarceration and probation costs. Plus, Industrial Hemp is a plant mine eagerly waiting to prosper, so the environment also wins.
I left a comment on the National Post website after reading the brilliant article "Canada's inhumane prison plan" by Conrad Black in todays edition. I've extended it here though to add even more links and info.
I'm thankful that Mr. Black has addressed the Consevative "Tough on Crime!" agenda, it is a subject deserving of the attention of all Canadians. (And just an FYI - over the past 19 years crime in Canada has been declining after a spike in 1991.) As a non-violent offender in an American jail, I believe his POV is something we should take into consideration as the Tories are following down the road of US style Mandatory Minimum Sentences and are also disregarding the time people spend in the harsh conditions of Canadian Correctional Remand Centres. ( Under the newly passed Tory legislation *Bill C-25, remand time will become longer than sentenced time — though remand inmates are still considered to be innocent until proven guilty. There have been preliminary estimates that the total price tag will be between $7 billion and $10 billion over five years. A majority of the costs fall on the provinces.
The Conservatives are blatantly playing "The Fear Card" which would surely make Harry J. Anslinger proud. In Canadian politics the fear-appeal is becoming increasingly rampant and widespread. I ask you to remember the following: whenever you hear any person in a position of legislative power and that person (or party) agitates the public's fear of crime and proposes that supporting a bill will reduce the perceived threat, he or she may be using this tactic as a means to induce fear and to imply that other people or parties are not concerned with crime and community safety.
“Since the Canadian government justifies this criminalization, in part, as a means of protecting our youth, we are standing up and saying, ‘not in our name.’” ~ Canadian Students for Sensible Drug Policy
MP Mark Holland: "The Harper government claims to be "tough on crime," but their discredited U.S.-style policies on crime and punishment are making Canadians less safe.
Their ineffective and costly plan, entitled A Roadmap to Public Safety, should more accurately be entitled A Roadmap to Public Disaster.
Modelled after failed American policies even diehard Republicans now admit are an abject failure, it will result in more prisons and longer sentences, while doing nothing to reduce recidivism. When over 90% of the prison population will be released, the Harper government's failure to seriously invest in vital programming needed for rehabilitation and reintegration, including substance abuse treatment and mental illness care, is nothing short of reckless." -
I'd also like to add that the Consevatives have not produced any evidence or research that proves these "Tough on Crime" measures are effective in keeping people safer or reducing crime. Our neighbours to the South have been down this failed road.... why would Stephen Harper want to follow down the same doomed path, and at great expense to Canadian Taxpayers? (Read "House passes billions of dollars in crime bills, doesn’t know full costs")
I'm no bleeding heart either, I'm a firm believer in harsh and long punishment for criminal perpatrators that truly deserve it - for convictions of murder, rape, vehicular manslaughter, domestic and child abuse, paedophelia, child abduction, etc. - crimes that truly harm the physical and emotional well being of our fellow human beings. But the Tories are not distinguishing the difference between violent criminal acts and non-violent offenses. They are lumping all acts together 'cause you know, that "CRIME!" word is super scary and it's a great vote getter too. They are depending and praying on your fear. Please don't be fooled.
"When you come to these kinds of issues, I think a good deal of humility is in order. These reforms have stood the test of time. It was for later generations of politicians to take a more incautious, exclusive, dogmatic stand to treat other opinions as if they were, if not illegitimate at least somehow "beyond the pale," and they polarized opinion. To the extent that opinion was polarized by those, if I may put it this way, on the left, it provoked an equal and opposite reaction from those on the right — wedge issues. Then we come to a situation in which one group of politicians is pointing a finger and saying, "They are soft on crime" with another group saying, "These fellows are hangers and floggers."
It is lunacy. If one hears people saying those things in Parliament, in Canadian politics, about each other, you know you are listening to lunatics. There is no other way of putting it. It is nuts." ~ Senator Murray
Honourable senators, this issue of Bill C-25 is a serious one. Surrounding this bill there has been a lot of — I will use a word that I do not like to use on the Senate floor — "politicking," which is essentially concentrating attention on political slogans instead of looking at the merits of the bill. My intention this afternoon, in reply to Senator Wallace, is to concentrate on the merits of the bill and avoid any politicking or political slogans.
The problems I have with this bill are threefold. The first one relates to the Charter. This bill has three serious Charter implications. I am not inventing them for honourable senators this afternoon; I draw those conclusions from the testimony of five experts that we heard. I will quote from them later in my intervention this afternoon.
Second, this bill will have a serious impact on the condition prevailing in the prisons for the inmate population and the staff that is there to maintain order and serve them.
Third, this bill will affect drastically the most vulnerable in the prison system, namely, people suffering from mental disorders, Aboriginal people and women. As an aside on the bill's impact, we heard from the president of the Canadian Association of Crown Counsel that it will clog the bail courts. That is not the impact that is wanted by those who drafted the bill. I totally recognize the objectivity of their intentions, but that impact is what we heard from the expert witnesses.
Let me return to my first point: This bill will have serious impact on the Charter and will be open to challenge in the courts.
As senators, it is one of our duties, when we are called upon to support the bill, to question its implications for the Charter. In the respected intervention of our esteemed colleague, Senator Wallace, neither yesterday nor today did he answer those issues that were raised by the witnesses, which the honourable senator well knows — as do Senator Nolin, Senator Angus and Senator Carignan, who sat during the long hours that we spent studying this bill.
Honourable senators, let me report what we heard from those experts. First, we heard from Michael Spratt of the Criminal Lawyers' Association that:
Bill C-25, if passed, will result in constitutional litigation. Bill C-25 offends the Charter. It will have the real effect of doing something that we do not seek to do in sentencing. In sentencing, we seek to treat like offenders who commit like offences in similar ways.
One can imagine a number of scenarios where like offenders who commit like offences and who have like personal circumstances are punished differently. One of those punishments is spending an inordinate amount of time in remand facilities with no programming and harsh conditions, much like the individuals who did not get their bail hearing today. They are not receiving programming. . . .
Pre-sentence detention is not lenient, it is cruel.
The impact of this bill is that it will treat people who are in remand differently than people who will be sentenced, having been freed once the charge is laid. That is one side effect of the bill as it is drafted.
Mark Lapowich, from the Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers, stated:
I do not think there will be any doubt . . . that there will be Charter challenges. In terms of specific challenges, we can envision challenges under section 7, deprivation of, life, liberty . . .; and a challenge under section 11(b), undue delay. We can see stay applications being brought; and, as was mentioned previously, for cruel and unusual, in terms of your specific point that you raised with respect to how horribly we have done in the past 50 years in relation to upholding treaties that we may be part of.
In other words, there will be Charter challenges on the basis that the sentence applied to one accused will be different from the one applied to another accused with exactly similar circumstances but in a totally different context. That situation offends the natural justice principle that people who are guilty of the same offence under the same circumstances should be given the same sentences and should bear the same consequences.
Let me quote, honourable senators, from another of those representatives from the objective groups that we normally hear from. The secretary of the national criminal justice section of the Canadian Bar Association, Eric Gottardi, said:
I think the prospects of constitutional challenges to the legislation are quite high. I think they could be many and varied. . . . I think the likelihood is quite high that that there will be constitutional challenges of different kinds.
That view is from the Canadian Bar Association.
We then heard testimony from the president of the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies, Lucie Joncas, who said:
I am also concerned about whether such a practice would be considered constitutional. Given that, in 2000, the Supreme Court recognized that it was perfectly justified, and given that detention conditions at provincial level have deteriorated significantly, I do not see how the practice can be said to be no longer justified.
What are the court decisions that those experts refer to? They are essentially the unanimous court decisions of at least four appeal courts of provinces: the Court of Appeal of Quebec — from which I will quote immediately; the Court of Appeal of Alberta; the Court of Appeal of British Columbia; and the Supreme Court of Canada.
What does the Supreme Court of Canada rule on that principle of one for one — one day in pre-sentence custody versus one day once an offender is sentenced in regular prison?
I quote from the decision of R. v. Wust, a unanimous decision in 2000, at paragraph 45, which states:
In the past, many judges have given more or less two months credit for each month spent in pre-sentencing detention. . . . The often applied ratio of 2:1 reflects not only the harshness of the detention due to the absence of programs, which may be more severe in some cases than in others, but reflects also the fact that none of the remission mechanisms contained in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act apply to that period of detention. "Dead time" is "real" time.
In lay terms, what does that paragraph mean? It means that when someone is in remand custody, that person has no access to rehabilitation programs. The time that person is kept in pre-sentence custody cannot be counted as time toward conditional release — parole release. The person does not benefit from any of those programs that exist once an offender is in prison serving a sentence. The person experiences harsher conditions in pre-sentence custody than if that person is in jail once the sentence has been imposed by the judge. This is an important element and one that the Canadian Bar Association, under the signature of its chair, responded to on September 15, indicating that unjustified disparity in sentencing could result from the passage of Bill C-25.
The Canadian courts have upheld the principle that judges must take into account the different time and the quality of that time when prisoners are held under pre-sentence conditions as opposed to being held in jail. Let me quote the decision of the Court of Appeal of Quebec of 2005, a decision for which appeal was sought in the Supreme Court of Canada, which appeal was denied. In other words, that decision of the Court of Appeal is seen by the Supreme Court of Canada as being definitive. I quote from paragraph 40.
Thus, there are two primary reasons for this practice: the harsher conditions of interim detention and the impossibility of being granted parole during this time. That is why interim detention has become known as "dead time."
One of the most eloquent conclusions of that decision is found at paragraph 42.
Furthermore, the 2 to 1 ratio cannot be considered an advantage for the accused.
This is very important. Some people have the perception that the two-for-one or the one-for-one-and-a-half is a benefit, a premium. With that option comes the perception that it can be stretched, but this is not what the court has ruled. The British Columbia Court of Appeal ruled on a similar matter last year with regard to a decision in August 2008 on the case of R. v. Orr. I quote from paragraph 20 of the decision.
A lesser credit, generally in the ratio amount of one and a half-to-one seems more appropriate where the offender has been held for the pre-sentence period in an institution where post-sentence type programs are available. A refusal by a sentencing judge to allow any credits seems to me an erroneous approach having regard to the majority of existing authorities in Canadian appellate courts and the Supreme Court of Canada.
That is the most recent decision.
In other words, it has been established quite clearly that you have to maintain a balance between the time served in pre-sentence custody and the time served in prison. This bill equates the one-to-one challenges that form the fundamental principle of Canadian courts — the Supreme Court of Canada and all the provincial appellate courts — to rulings to maintain a relationship to the one-for-one principle.
It is easy for public opinion to support the one-for-one principle, but it violates one essential principle: Those in pre-sentence custody do not have the benefit of programs available for rehabilitation to reintroduce them into society. We want released prisoners on the streets to behave like good Canadian citizens.
Honourable senators, that is my first point. There are two other sections of the bill for which the constitutionality has been raised. One was raised by Senator Baker yesterday, the proposed section of the bill that allows the judge, in imposing that kind of sentence, to withhold the reasons. We all know that a sentence is appealable. It is a fundamental principle just as you can appeal the principle that you are found guilty. Those are the fundamental principles of our common-law criminal system. This bill takes away the obligation of judges to justify and explain the reasons for the sentence. That would go against that fundamental principle of our system, and there is no doubt that could be challenged in the court. I will not elaborate by quoting cases in the Supreme Court of Canada because the jurisprudence is clear.
There is another aspect of the bill that could be open to a court challenge, and that is a point Senator Nolin raised with one of the expert witnesses, namely, the arguments as to why a person should be detained in pre-sentence custody. The testimony we received from Mr. Munson on this is clear. If it was interpreted differently than what we were told it could be interpreted as, that could be open to challenge.
There are at least three aspects of this bill that raise important fundamental constitutional issues. That is my first point.
My second point, honourable senators, is that this bill will create more dangerous conditions in Canadian prisons, endangering the health and life of the inmate population as much as the personnel charged with the responsibility of operating the prisons. I am not inventing this situation. We had the benefit of hearing from the Canadian prison ombudsman, a person who is neutral and is there to look into the prison system, receive complaints, evaluate the context into which the prisons operate and make recommendations.
We heard from Mr. Howard Sapers, the Correctional Investigator of Canada, on September 30. Here is what Mr. Sapers testified during the study of this bill. He said:
. . . Bill C-25 will likely lead to a significant increase in the offender population managed by the Correctional Service of Canada.
I underline "a significant increase in the offender." He continues:
A significant increase in the federal inmate population will affect the safety and security of that population, as well as individual inmates' ability to receive programs and services that will assist their timely and safe reintegration into their home communities.
Listen to this aspect of his testimony.
. . . the current level of tension and violence within Canada's penitentiaries is already excessive. For example, for the first quarter of this fiscal year, the most recent data available, the correctional service reported a staggering total of 2231 security incidents and 577 reported physical injuries to inmates. During this three-month period, the security incidents included assaults on inmates, disciplinary issues, inmate fights, medical emergencies, self-inflicted injuries and three deaths.
That was in three months. Multiply that by four and you will have at least 12 deaths, at least 10,000 security incidents and at least 2,000 reported physical injuries to inmates. Why? Because this bill, when it is implemented, will bring, according to the statistics we received from Statistics Canada justice division, 10 to 12 per cent more inmates into the prison population.
Again, I refer you to the testimony of the ombudsman. "A significant increase in the federal inmate population will affect the safety and security of that population, as well as individual inmates' ability. . . ."
I questioned Mr. Don Head, the Commissioner of the Correctional Service. I have his testimony here. I tried to get from him the percentage of the so-called increase in the Correctional Service of Canada budget that will be devoted to dealing with that influx of 10 per cent more inmates and the consequences that it will have on the safety and the health of inmates and personnel. Here is what I got. Mr. Head answered:
In terms of disclosing the numbers, at this point I cannot disclose them because they are considered to be cabinet confidence.
In other words, honourable senators, we were told that this information was out of our reach in order to determine if this bill would have a severe impact on the health and life of the inmate population, with the proper balance of budgetary investment to maintain the current level of safety, which is critical according to the ombudsman who reported to us.
This is important because it deals with the kind of approach we should have regarding the inmate population. It would be easy, honourable senators, to mount public opinion against the inmate population. "Let us keep them in prison. Let us lock them somewhere and we do not want to hear about it." However, we need to try to understand who those people are. Are they all the Clifford Olsons of this world? Are they all criminals who are beyond the reach of rehabilitation or are there different kinds of citizens among them who are victims themselves, in a way, as a result of the circumstances of family, education, birth and so on?
I want to draw to honourable senators' attention that this bill will have a disproportionately severe effect on the vulnerable populations in the prisons. Who are they? It will be surprising for you, honourable senators, to understand that it will be the offenders suffering from mental disorders.
The population of our prisons is composed mainly of Aboriginal people. About 20 per cent of Canadian inmates are of Aboriginal origin. They form 3 per cent of the Canadian population and yet they form 20 per cent of the inmate population. In Saskatchewan, it is as high as 80 per cent and above 50 per in Manitoba.
In other words, we are dealing with offenders with significant social backgrounds. One cannot just say, "We will lock them up and forget the key and, when they get out, everything will be fine."
Again, I quote from Mr. Sapers, the ombudsman, who reported that:
This is of importance to the study of Bill C-25 because offenders with mental illnesses and cognitive difficulties are often held in pre-trial custody. We know that the prevalence of offenders with significant mental health issues upon admission has doubled in the past five years.
In fact, another witness stated that the ". . . Aboriginal adults admitted to remand custody increased by 23 per cent compared to a 14 per cent increase in the total remand admission rate over that same period."
In other words, we are putting more Aboriginal population in prison and remand. This is a serious problem, honourable senators, if we add that to the people suffering with mental disorders. The problem with people who are affected by mental disorders is that, as Mr. Sapers stated, "Federal prisons are now housing the largest psychiatric population in the country. . . ." It has doubled in the past five years. If one was to ask where are the majority of the Canadians who suffer from psychiatric problems, the answer would be that they are in prisons. They are not in psychiatric institutions or under the kind of care that one would like to have if someone in their family suffered from a psychiatric disorder.
Mr. Sapers also stated:
. . . despite the need, the capacity of the federal correctional system to respond to and treat mental illness is largely reserved for the most acute or seriously chronic cases — those receiving psychiatric treatment in one of the five regional treatment centres. Most other mental health problems receive limited clinical attention, at best.
This means that, when those people have served their time, they are released onto the street with no real capacity to reintegrate into a normal course of life. It is so much so that the accessibility to rehabilitation has been severely cut by the lack of funds.
Let me quote from Mr. Zinger, the Executive Director and General Counsel of the Office of the Correctional Investigator. He testified at the committee:
The Correctional Service allocates only two per cent, under $41 million of a $2.1 billion total annual budget, to offender programming.
For now, offenders have to contend with long waiting lists for programs and with cancelled programs because of insufficient funding or lack of trained facilitators.
They also have to deal with delayed conditional release because of the service's inability to provide the timely programs they require.
They must therefore serve longer time before parole consideration.
In other words, there is not enough capacity to offer the programs that would help those inmates to reintegrate into normal life.
Honourable senators, you will understand those aspects of Bill C-25, outside the hoopla of the political game of name-calling and trying to address emotion rather than the substance of this bill, is very serious.
I will conclude by referring to another witness whom we hear from very rarely at the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. I have been serving on that committee for 12 years now and we have never heard a representative of the Crown counsel. Why? Of course, the Crown counsel is the Department of Justice, either provincial or federal. It is the government. This time, we heard from the President of the Canadian Association of Crown Counsel, Mr. Jamie Chaffe. It was extraordinary to have him testify. He said that, from his association's perspective, it was certain that there would be an increase in the workload in the bail system. That could only be reasonably expected since part of the sentencing process would be imported into the bail hearing itself, which would likely be fully litigated by defence counsel and the Crown. In other words, by trying to alleviate the condition in the remand centre, we will be clogging the bail court.
Mr. Chaffe was questioned by all of us around the table because it was such an important element to consider before supporting this bill. We thought this information had to be shared with all senators in this chamber before voting on this bill.
I do not doubt that the intention of the government to try to frame the discretion of the judges is a legitimate objective.
However, when it is framed in a way that there are unintended consequences in the system, either in the courts by clogging the bail courts or in the prisons by creating more dangerous conditions, and by putting the weight on those who are the most vulnerable, the result might not be the one contemplated at the beginning. There has to be the proper commitment of budget and human resources, and the proper capacity of monitoring such that this initiative will be sound, humane and will serve the objective, which, as Senator Wallace has said, is to increase safety and security in Canada.
Honourable senators, that might be a different tone than what you have heard in the hoopla surrounding the debate on this bill. However, those are the serious considerations that I thought were useful to bring to your consideration before you vote on this bill later today or this week.
Hon. Jerahmiel S. Grafstein: Honourable senators, if Senator Watt is to enter the debate, I want to ask some questions.
Thank you, Senator Joyal for that presentation. This topic is not new to this chamber or the committee.
In 1994, the Minister of Justice Allan Rock — I see a senator on the other side nodding in agreement — who came from Toronto, raised the issue for the first time because of the overcrowding of the court system in terms of bail, remands and prisons. The rationale for that decision taken by the Minister of Justice was that the court system and jails in Toronto were overcrowded. It was going from bad to worse. There was agreement on both sides at the time that this bill needed remediation.
Having said that, it is my understanding that the court system in Ontario — the province I represent — is worse today than it was then. I look at other members from Ontario. They should take a look at this question before they opine on this bill. I think they will come to the same conclusion. The court system in Ontario is worse today in terms of clogging the courts, reasonable remands and bail. Prisons are also more crowded today than they were 14 years ago.
Did this evidence come forward to the committee as to whether there were budgets available at the provincial, municipal and federal levels to expand space availability in prisons that will be required if this bill goes into effect?
Senator Joyal: Honourable senators, I will quote Ken Crawford, corrections staff representative from the Winnipeg Free Press on the sixth of this month:
All provincial jails within this province are presently overcrowded. . . . Our institutions are at the breaking point.
The honourable senator was talking of Ontario; this article is from Manitoba. The newspaper was reporting about a mutiny in the correctional centre in Brandon. The article continued:
They'd like to see trailers to house at least 200 people in order to ease overcrowding. The trailers can house 20 to 60 people, said the union
The article goes on to quote Peter Olfert, Manitoba Government and General Employees Union president:
(The province) are looking as moving as quickly as they can to provide portable units.
In other words, this problem is not peculiar to Ontario. It is the same in Manitoba, according to what I read. I would say it is the same in Quebec.
If I remember correctly, in June, a front page article in La Presse described conditions in the provincial prisons. Although some provinces might have announced budgetary initiatives, construction will not keep up with the increase of population we will experience by adopting minimum sentences, or by the fact that remand population will increase. This increase is not because people want to stay in prisons, but because cases are more complex. That is the witness testimony we heard. Cases are more complex, hearings are longer and personnel in the courts are not always available. A clogging of the court system exists generally, and it needs a massive injection of funds.
We have to take into account that element of reality with all the bills we are requested to vote on. We continue to add to a system that is already cracking all over the place. At a point in time, we must understand that what we do may have an unintended adverse effect because we are creating additional pressure in the whole system.
Senator Grafstein: Honourable senators, I have another question relating to Toronto and my province of Ontario. It is my understanding that the urban Aboriginal population in Toronto is the largest in Canada in absolute numbers. While there is a problem in Regina, Winnipeg and other places in the West, the largest problem in quantitative terms is in Toronto.
Senators from Toronto will know the statistics well when we talk about the homeless. At least two thirds of the homeless on the streets in Toronto are Aboriginal. Of the Aboriginal community on the streets, about two thirds of them — maybe more — are on the streets because of psychiatric or emotional problems. This information is confirmed in a report.
Again, we have a more intense problem in Toronto. I assume the committee sorted this problem out as well. When we come to the question of bail, remand or incarceration, Toronto now has probably the largest proportion of Aboriginals convicted in Canada without any remediation.
Did this issue arise in the committee study? Have you any comments about that issue?
Senator Joyal: We did not hear any witnesses from the Aboriginal community. I want to put that information on the record. We did not hear representatives of the Assembly of First Nations, other national groups that represent Aboriginal people or provincial groups like the Cree or Innu of Quebec.
The issue came to us as a side issue. As I mentioned earlier, we will create additional pressure on the system. Our colleague, Senator Watt, who intends to speak this afternoon on this issue, is a member of the committee. He has raised this issue regularly with the witnesses. At a point in time, that problem must be addressed. It cannot be ignored. It is the major problem of the Canadian inmate population.
At this stage, we could not study more than the purpose of this bill and the reference we received from the Senate, which was to study the scope of the legislation.
Senator Grafstein: Finally, we have been confronted in the past — I look at new senators in regard to this problem — with a situation in the criminal justice system and other places where a bill is not in sync with the economic reality. I suspect and assume this bill is not.
Did the committee — all members of the committee — give any consideration to suggesting an amendment that will allow the bill not to come into effect if it is passed until such time as Her Majesty the Queen and cabinet can be satisfied that there are adequate facilities both at the court level and in the prison system to accommodate the increase in prisoners incarcerated?
Senator Joyal: The answer is no, honourable senators.
I mentioned earlier, Don Head, Commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada appeared as a witness. He is the "big boss" of the prison system in Canada. We tried to obtain the figures and statistics on how much of the budget will go for bricks and mortar and how much will go to rehabilitation programs, training, personnel, et cetera. We could not obtain proper detail on those figures. Mr. Head told us those figures were deemed confidential documents. To answer your question, yes, the figures exist somewhere, but they were not made available to us.
"Grown commercially in Canada since 1998, hemp has become one of the most profitable crops for farmers north of the U.S. border. While American farmers often net less than $50 per acre for soy and corn, Canadian hemp farmers just across the border net an average of $250 per acre." Hat Tip to Hemp & Company for the link. You can also Fan them on Facebook.
A joint project of Vote Hemp and the Hemp Industries Association, Hemp History Week is looking for patriotic Americans to anchor and organize events in their hometown as part of a national grassroots, media and public education campaign.
More posts about Hemp on my blog here and I've also come across this wonderful site that you just can't pass up: Hemp: What The World Needs Now .
Update: Read about the awesome discovery: 100-Year-Old Government Hemp Farm Diaries To Be Revealed ... "So in addition to the already-known intertwining of the noble hemp plant and U.S. history, now it is revealed that the very location of the Pentagon itself was once covered with verdant fields of cannabis."
A Blog that is definitely worth checking out is "Pharma Gossip", it's got the lowdown on all the info that Big Pharma wants to keep on the downlow. I've been reading it for many months now and the blog is worth sharing with all of you.
A favourite *video, highlighting Big Pharma drugs and the hypocrisy of "Drug Free".*Note -some swearing in this video.
“I now have absolute proof that smoking even one marijuana cigarette is equal in brain damage to being on Bikini Island during an H-bomb blast.” ~ Ronald Reagan
The video is a little over half an hour, but well worth the time! I think all politicians should listen to it, so they know that we are here raising our voice and we will never, ever stop fighting to end prohibition!
Ethan Nadelmann, Executive Director of the Drug Policy Alliance at the 2009 Drug Reform Conference in Albuquerque, New Mexico: "Right now the wind is at our back" from Hungarian Civil Liberties Union. Thank you to the HCLU for filming, please visit their link for more pictures and info about the conference.
UPDATE: And even more awesomeness from Ethan Nadelmann, I really just can't say enough about how much I respect and admire all of the work Mr. Nadelmann puts forth towards reforming our drug laws and ending prohibition.
"The U.S. House Domestic Policy Subcommittee, chaired by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), held a hearing Wednesday April 14th. on the White House's drug war budget and forthcoming 2010 National Drug Control Strategy...." Read Mr. Nadelmann's testimony, as always, he's brilliant.
Mama, Wife, Writer, Political Junkie, Legalizer, Freedom Fighter, Student of Life, Atheist, Lover of Music & Written Word.
#420Friendly #Spoonie
****************************
"I, as a responsible adult human being, will never concede the power to anyone to regulate my choice of what I put into my body, or where I go with my mind. From the skin inwards is my jurisdiction, is it not? I choose what may or may not cross that border. Here I am the Customs Agent. I am the Coast Guard. I am the sole legal and spiritual government of this territory, and only the laws I choose to enact within myself are applicable." ~ Alexander Shulgin PhD, Chemist and author
Posts
