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

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

However when we speak from our hearts publicaly about a topic we know little about, one must proceed with caution.  I totally get that none of us has the time to fully study every single issue....but we should at the very least take whatever minimal time is required to investigate some of the arguments from each side and perhaps short of a fuller, more complete investigation, take our own positions within the realm of those issues we have had the time to look at...

Without appropriate caution we run the risk of perpetuating myths and stereotypes which do more harm than good and in some cases even bolster those on the opposite side of an argument.  Take a look at the following letter opposing C10 for instance.  It is immediately obvious that the author has little knowledge around issues affecting criminalization, and incarceration.  However it is probable that their approach to social issues have a left leaning.   sj, Nov 29, 2011

A note of concern re:Omnibus crime-Bill C-10.

While we can understand the need for a tougher stance on SERIOUS crime (Does not spell out what is “serious crime” or even “crime” in general) we strongly feel that minor offenses and first-time offenders shouldn’t be placed in the same category as hardened criminals.(“minor offences”, “first time offenders”, “hardened criminals”??? Sounds like the right speaking here. We need to be very careful when dividing the “deserving” lawbreakers from the “undeserving” lawbreakers. Really there is no such thing as a hardened criminal, only those who have been forced to survive the most harrowing of life circumstances.)

The court/justice/incarceration costs alone would be prohibitive if this Bill is allowed to pass without alterations….i.e. both thoroughly and thoughtfully…clause by clause .We would rather that the government be more fiscally responsible . (Again focusing on arguments perceived to be from those opposing C10. The financial burden argument is the safest one against the Bill and one that some conservatives are sure to take. Though it is an important issue, its equally important to stress why.)

The societal costs could indeed be much higher ..the ‘lifelong record ‘, possible job loss, relationship ramifications etc.that our citizens might have to bear for a possibly very minor crime would make the passage of Bill C-10 “as is”  quite intolerable .  (Here the author talks of the social costs and then does go on to list some important ones. But besides cringing at the language used here I wonder at the contradiction around the notion of “hardened criminals” in the first point and then concern over a “lifelong record” in this last point. Since only those who likely fall under the author's definition of “hardened criminal” [repeat lawbreakers, violent lawbreakers] will be those refused pardons under C10. And the letter seems to imply that sanctions against the “hardened criminal” are more acceptable than those applied against first timers. Again I want to stress that the effort to learn about this issue and then to speak out against it are valiant, But please take the 30mins. required to learn about an issue, before “safely” speaking out against it, least you damage the very cause you seek to assist!)

What happened to that wonderful (or illusory!) democratic notion of  public consultation ??

Please attend to ( FIX) the problem quickly.

Regards,

It Could Get Worse Anti Crime Bill Initiative

Another new initiative to oppose the crime bill:
It Could Get Worse is a collaboration between Media Collective ForgetTheBox.net and writers, organizers, and concerned citizens to stop the Conservative government’s Omnibus Crime Bill, C10, known to its proponents as the “Safe Streets and Communities Act.”

check out their web page at:  http://www.itcouldgetworse.com/about/
take a look at their video campaign - video shorts like the one at right opposing the omnibus

Lead Now and "10 reasons to oppose c10"

Well the people at Lead Now and their collaborator's have managed to put together a truly national campaign which seeks to oppose C10 by putting community members on the steps of MP offices!  Its a pretty terrific approach on a number of levels.  Check out their web page at http://www.leadnow.ca/stop-the-crime-bill.  People that might not have ordinarily met have the opportunity to do so and to talk with neighbors about the issues around the law and order approach and all the nastiness that comes with it.  It gives people a chance to be involved  and to feel they have a voice.
From the looks of things the campaign was fairly successful in terms of turn out and contribution!  Whether it makes a smidgen of difference to the upper class white men in parliament ramming C10 down our throats remains to be seen, but Im not holding my breath
Now for the critical feedback - the Lead Now folks could have and should have shared all the how to materials (which they obviously worked hard on) and the materials to read and take with alot earlier.  Many of us were unable to participate or at least not to the level we might have preferred because of this.  Well learn as you go...
More concerning for me was Lead Now's decision to include "10 reasons to oppose C10" in this campaign and indeed as part of the materials to read, study and take with!@#%
Wholly shit you guys!  Did anyone even read this thing?  Yeah I agree the idea of a simple, direct article listing the top 10 reasons to avoid C10 is not a bad idea, a clever tool, but the content of this one was pretty bad and down right disturbing on a number of issues they decided to list - such as #7 "Training Predators".  Here I believe what the author is suggesting is that because C10 converts prisoner rights such as the right to be free from abuse and the right to speak out about it when it does happen into privileges by tweeking the language in the Parole and Conditional Release Act - because of this and because our jails are soon to be far more crowded than they already are, worsening conditions for those who are forced to live there and for the those working there - the prisoners are apt to return to society as predators!  WTF?
If a person did not enter the system a predator, no amount of shit and abuse is going to convert them into one!  But I guess that depends how we define predator.  Most times when this word is used it is to describe a child sex offender or a rapist.  On occasion it might be used to describe those who prey on the weaker in any form.  But I will say it again, if you were not one going in - horrific environment or not - you wont be one coming out!  What you likely will be is less able to cope in the day to day, more bitter and angry, less mentally stable or healthy, more likely to go right back to the thing which can deliver you from all those hate filled days and nights - your substance of choice and your way of getting it!  Lets not forget the vast majority of people imprisoned today are so either directly or indirectly because of substance use issues!  Not because of predatorial instincts

10 Reasons to Oppose C10 - A Critique

The article included below, “10 reasons to oppose Bill C10” has good intentions but stops short on some issues, and is mis-informative on others.  Though we should all welcome and cheer most any support in opposing Bill C10, I also think we should think critically and welcome and cheer each other for those efforts.

Yes it is true as the article's authors states, that the Canadian Bar Association representing 37000 wrote a collective letter of opposition to the Harper government. But so did dozens of others including another collective letter, this time of human rights organizations from all across Canada including the Civil Liberties Association, and the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network. The Urban Health Research Initiative also organized a petition letter with over 550 signatures from healthcare workers.

Letters however were not the only form of address taken. Other organizations arranged actions which included developing web sites and blogs, building community coalitions, hosting discussion panels, forums, and public speaks, as well as designing letter and petition campaigns. Articles have been written, letters to MP's sent out, and conversations with friends, neighbours, and colleagues have taken place individually by 10's of thousands of Canadians since 2007 when the current law and order agenda was first introduced.

For those who wish to be involved there are current campaigns including a petition at AVAZZ.org (www.avaaz.org) asking Premiers to oppose Bill C10 on the basis of dollar cost. Another petition at Lead Now (leadnow.ca/keep-canada-safe) asks for a more radical re-thinking of the law and order approach to justice period. Lead Now requests that government officials “establish an independent commission of diverse citizens and experts to create a 21st century Canadian justice plan.” Lead now is also in the process of building a national campaign on this issue for those wishing to do more than write their MP's.

Most recently several Premiers have stated publicly that they will not be responsible for footing the dollar cost of this Bill. This is wonderful new but has 2 failings I can see. First, in attacking only the dollar costs associated with Bill C10 we fail to acknowledge that the greatest consequence will be the human cost. (although both human and dollar costs are intertwined and one failure increases failings in the other) Secondly, what do our Premiers intend to do if Ottawa steps up and provides funding? Will they simply continue to disregard all of the more important reasons for not supporting this Bill?

The author, Trinda L. Ernst begins in point one with a call to increase use of and funding for preventative measures to community harm – that which we refer to as crime. However she leaves out some of the most crucial and impactful measures known to both prevent community harm and increase public safety. Measures such as affordable housing and childcare, quality education, meaningful, well paid work, and equitable access to healthcare must be the focus of any “crime” prevention strategy where human rights, and community safety are the prime considerations.

Points 2, 3, and 4 discuss the rush with which the conservatives are pushing Bill C10 through parliament, the subsequent lack of review, and the methods with which they are promoting this legislation. In addition to stating that these processes are problematic we need to talk about why its a problem, who stands to benefit from this approach, and how.

The conservatives have made it known time and again that they care not for proven best practices, nor the evidence, research and statistics backing those approaches. What they care about are the demands and ideology of their core political base. People who tend to be mainly white, and middle class. People who are a long way from the experiences of oppression that many of us are subjected to which have often lead to our continued impoverishment and criminalisation. Not only do most of the conservatives political base not understand the day to day realities of what it means to be criminalised but they are also lied to and provided misinformation from their leaders in regards to the connecting issues of poverty and trauma. As Trinda states, those who support increasing criminalisation do so without fact based information.

Who benefits from this approach? The status quo, and those who represent them. By keeping mostly working class people under foot and not only infringing on civil rights as evidenced by the many recent attacks on labour unions and protestors, but by also threatening imprisonment more often and for longer periods of time, people are made fearful, and kept silent. These tactics combined allow the upper classes to maintain ownership, high profits and unfair percentages of our national resources, all off the backs of the low waged poor.

Point 5 deals with our youth. One important point left out here is that Canada leads the world in our rates of incarcerating young people. This trend will likely not only continue but be made worse under the conservatives who are once again pandering to ideology. That is that our youth have become dangerous and are out of control, that they need to be locked up. In fact just the opposite is true. “Crime” rates among young people are like most rates of “crime” in Canada, on the decline.

Trinda makes the point that imprisonment is a forerunner to later law breaking, that community based options are less likely to see continued lawbreaking behaviour. The piece she leaves out is that all people, not just youth are known to fare better with regards to increased stability, and decreased lawbreaking in community based programs as opposed to imprisonment.

In point 6 Trinda significantly points out that despite the title the conservatives have given to the portion of the act dealing with house arrest, (Ending House Arrest for Serious and Violent Criminals Act) it does not merely target acts of violence. In fact most people who are sentenced to conditional sentences or house arrest are non violent, property law breakers. So who benefits from this mis-information and how? Once again the owning classes are seeing their property and their profits protected as a priority in legislation which despite conservative claims, has nothing to do with ending violence in our communities.

Trinda's comments in the next point about prison creating predators were particularly annoying to me. People subject to ongoing degradation and humiliation at the hands of others for extended periods of time can become less socially able to live and work among us on a number of levels. But I would argue that someone who was not a predator going into prison, will still not be one when they come out. Moving on to the point behind Trinda's line of reasoning; disregard for prisoners human rights is a serious and prolific issue even with fairly strong law in place to protect them. Prison walls have the effect of blocking all public scrutiny, it is difficult to monitor what really goes on behind their walls even in the best of circumstances. The “Parole and Conditional Release Act” which is the Canadian legislation that deals with prisoner treatment states that prisoners maintain all rights afforded every Canadian except those necessairly restricted by withdrawal of individual liberty.

The conservatives want to see these rights transformed into privileges that have to be earned. This means for instance that freedom to protest conditions could be made illegal and subject to sanction. Protesting illegal treatment of one self by guards is already extremely difficult and indeed dangerous for those inside. Now with law on their side, stories of rape, assault and other abuses could be legally silenced.

I agree with Trinda in that the system with regards to prison overcrowding is at the breaking point right now. I would argue that this overcrowding fits into the effects of degrading and humiliating conditions I alluded to above. There are few if any quiet moments in prison, and no privacy at all, ever. These conditions can have the effect of causing anxiety and depression, as well as heightening survival instincts (fight or flight mechanisms) which in turn can increase incidents of aggression which become more difficult to turn off or undue as time goes on.

I don't agree that the police need more money to do their jobs. They are already some of the highest paid cops on the planet with access to some of the most up to date technology and resources available. Policing money would be better spent in alternative, grassroots, prevention and treatment initiatives.

In point 9 Trinda talks about victimizing the most vulnerable, a top issue of any law and order based agenda. But Trinda gets a little confabulated here.

The truth is that aboriginal folks are often moved far from their homes in order to be imprisoned. This is true of all women imprisoned in Canada as well, even after the building of 5 “regional centres” for women. The truth is that aboriginal peoples are vastly over represented throughout the criminal legal system. What we also need to know is that women are the fasted growing segment of the prison population and that aboriginal women are most impacted by this trend. Its also important to note that women account for 80% of all people victimized in Canada. In prison populations those statistics rise, with 85% of all women noted as survivors of sexual or physical assault. That number increases still more to 95% when speaking of aboriginal women. Other populations known to be vulnerable to criminalisation and imprisonment are the poor, people of colour, youth, people living with mental health issues, trans men and women, and those who use drugs. The methods by which they are criminalised almost always relate in some way to extended periods of poverty.

And finally the financial cost of this travesty called Bill C10? No one knows, and not enough people seem to care. What they are doing is not only irresponsible and disrespectful of the Canadian people, this kind of devil may care spending is not particularly conservative.... or is it?

10 reasons to oppose Bill C-10

Published On Mon Nov 14 2011

Under Bill C-10, prison officials will have more latitude to disregard prisoners’ human rights, bypassing the least restrictive means to enforce discipline. This means inmates are more likely to re-enter society as predators hardened by their prison experience.

Chris So/Toronto Star

Trinda L. Ernst
Bill C-10 is titled The Safe Streets and Communities Act — an ironic name, considering that Canada already has some of the safest streets and communities in the world and a declining crime rate. This bill will do nothing to improve that state of affairs but, through its overreach and overreaction to imaginary problems, Bill C-10 could easily make it worse. It could eventually create the very problems it’s supposed to solve.
Bill C-10 will require new prisons; mandate incarceration for minor, non-violent offenses; justify poor treatment of inmates and make their reintegration into society more difficult. Texas and California, among other jurisdictions, have already started down this road before changing course, realizing it cost too much and made their justice system worse. Canada is poised to repeat their mistake.
The Canadian Bar Association, representing over 37,000 lawyers across the country, has identified 10 reasons why the passage of Bill C-10 will be a mistake and a setback for Canada:
1. Ignoring reality. Decades of research and experience have shown what actually reduces crime: (a) addressing child poverty, (b) providing services for the mentally ill and those afflicted with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, (c) diverting young offenders from the adult justice system, and (d) rehabilitating prisoners, and helping them to reintegrate into society. Bill C-10 ignores these proven facts.
2. Rush job. Instead of receiving a thorough review, Bill C-10 is being rushed through Parliament purely to meet the “100-day passage” promise from the last election. Expert witnesses attempting to comment on more than 150 pages of legislation in committee hearings are cut off mid-sentence after just five minutes.
3. Spin triumphs over substance. The federal government has chosen to take a “marketing” approach to Bill C-10, rather than explaining the facts to Canadians. This campaign misrepresents the bill’s actual content and ensures that its public support is based heavily on inaccuracies.
4. No proper inspection. Contrary to government claims, some parts of Bill C-10 have received no previous study by parliamentary committee. Other sections have been studied before and were changed — but, in Bill C-10, they’re back in their original form.
5. Wasted youth. More young Canadians will spend months in custodial centres before trial, thanks to Bill C-10. Experience has shown that at-risk youth learn or reinforce criminal behaviour in custodial centres; only when diverted to community options are they more likely to be reformed.
6. Punishments eclipse the crime. The slogan for one proposal was Ending House Arrest for Serious and Violent Criminals Act, but Bill C-10 will actually also eliminate conditional sentences for minor and property offenders and instead send those people to jail. Is roughly $100,000 per year to incarcerate someone unnecessarily a good use of taxpayers’ money?
7. Training predators. Bill C-10 would force judges to incarcerate people whose offenses and circumstances clearly do not warrant time in custody. Prison officials will have more latitude to disregard prisoners’ human rights, bypassing the least restrictive means to discipline and control inmates. Almost every inmate will re-enter society someday. Do we want them to come out as neighbours, or as predators hardened by their prison experience?
8. Justice system overload. Longer and harsher sentences will increase the strains on a justice system already at the breaking point. Courts and Crown prosecutors’ offices are overwhelmed as is, legal aid plans are at the breaking point, and police forces don’t have the resources to do their jobs properly. Bill C-10 addresses none of these problems and will make them much worse.
9. Victimizing the most vulnerable. With mandatory minimums replacing conditional sentences, people in remote, rural and northern communities will be shipped far from their families to serve time. Canada’s aboriginal people already represent up to 80 per cent of inmates in institutions in the Prairies, a national embarrassment that Bill C-10 will make worse.
10. How much money? With no reliable price tag for its recommendations, there is no way to responsibly decide the bill’s financial implications. What will Canadians sacrifice to pay for these initiatives? Will they be worth the cost?
Canadians deserve accurate information about Bill C-10, its costs and its effects. This bill will change our country’s entire approach to crime at every stage of the justice system. It represents a huge step backwards; rather than prioritizing public safety, it emphasizes retribution above all else. It’s an approach that will make us less safe, less secure, and ultimately, less Canadian.
Trinda L. Ernst is president of the Canadian Bar Association.

Omnibus Forum and an Advocate for Survivor's of Violence

In October I participated on a community organizing committee seeking to educate the public on Bill C10.  The Harper governments Safe Streets and Communities Act.  The committee members spent considerable time discussing who should be invited as speakers.  We wanted to ensure a range of people were heard from on the impacts this Bill will have on Canadians.  One committee member suggested we might invite someone not opposing the Bill in order to provide insight from that side of the podium too.  While I could see why he would make that suggestion - to allow the event a certain level of credibility - as in "see were hearing from everyone, its a well rounded debate", while I could see his point, I did not agree.  I think the Right, the conservatives have their voice heard and have greater access to the public podium than those of us who actually care about people.  We don't need to provide them additional space.  However this did get us talking and thinking about what other view points are important in a discussion about how to address harm.  Another committee member suggested we invite someone to speak on the issues affecting victims.  And it was agreed that we should look for someone who could provide a balanced, but most of all honest view point on what victims go through as they traverse the criminal "justice" system, what they need, and how they can best be supported.  

I personally was pretty nervous about ensuring the person we invited to speak on this important piece was not from the "Release them Later, Release them Sicker" camp - Issue Solved - Victim Healed and that's it. 

I don't believe in everything Steve Sullivan  does when it comes to survivor's of violence, but I certainly believe he is on the right track and that he has a sound knowledge of what victims need....support to heal.

Take a look at this post from Steve's Blog, "crime victim advocacy"  

http://advocateforvictims.blogspot.com/

Thursday, November 3, 2011

An email to Stephen Woodworth, Tory MP

Stephen Woodworth is a Tory MP who sits on the Justice Committee. When I testified on Bill C-10, he asked me a question and refused to let me provide a full answer...we got into a bit of a shouting match. I wanted to ensure he and all the members had a more fullsome answer than the one I was permitted to give so I sent him, and all the committee members, this email:

Dear Mr. Woodworth:

During my appearance before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, you asked me a question towards the end of the meeting. Your preamble was rather lengthy and you refused to allow me the opportunity to fully answer your question. I will paraphrase what I understood to be your question: “Over the past 2.5 years that you have spent on the Committee, every crime victim that has testified has said they want tougher sentences so how is it I do not hear this same message?” I summarized a rather lengthy preamble so I hope I have captured the essence of your question.

My answer, had you allowed to me to provide it, would have been that over the last 18 years, I have met with, spoken to, communicated with, cried with, supported and advocated for hundreds of individuals and their families. They have been families of homicide victims, people left with severe disabilities from impaired driving crashes, women who were abused by their partners, men who were abused as children, sexual assault survivors, victims of terrorism, victims of hate crimes, victims of robbery, and the list goes on.

I appreciate the committee hears from crime victims and would encourage the committee to hear from immigrant women who have experienced partner abuse, women who have been terrorized in their homes by husbands who owned guns, Aboriginals who have been repeatedly victimized, people with disabilities who were sexually abused and other vulnerable Canadians who are often at a much higher risk of being victimized than you or I. My guess is that your committee has not heard these voices.

Your suggestion that victims speak with one voice about tougher penalties does not reflect my experience or the research. One cannot reduce the experiences of unique individuals with different life experiences and who experience victimization individually to a single minded focus on punishment. It simply does not address the complex needs of those victimized by violence and does them a disservice.

The reality is Bill C-10 will not impact most victims of crime because most do not report. There is no evidence Bill C-10 will increase reporting rates. As I mentioned, a small minority of women who have experienced sexual violence report the crimes but when asked why not, light sentences are not a common reason. When survivors are asked why they did report, only a minority say it was to see the offender punished. Most children who are abused will not report; most exploited street youth will not report; most abused women will not report; etc. Bill C-10 will address none of their needs.

When I said that sentencing is not identified as an issue for many victims, it is because most of their needs are not addressed by how much the offender is or is not punished - financial issues, the need for counseling, the treatment they received in the criminal justice system, long term safety, etc. are often more pressing needs. Even for those that do place more importance on sentencing, Bill C-10 offers false hope because the evidence of the Crown Attorney's Association suggests there will be more plea bargaining and more stays.

Sentencing is more important for some victims than others, but the problem with Bill C-10 is that is all they are being offered and the public is being told this will enhance justice for victims. You are asking victims if they support Bill C-10 but if the question was different, say should the government spend 5 times more on healing child victims or punishing offenders , some may have a different answer. I submit to you that the government's priority of spending five times as much money on punishing offenders than it does on healing children does not put victims first.

There is so much more I could say, but I felt it important to clarify my position because your synopsis of my position was misleading. I would also ask you to carefully review the statement of Wilma Derksen who testified before the committee today, and would refer you to some of the editorials written by those who have been affected by violence which are part of CSC"s Basic Toolkit on National Restorative Justice Week (which can be found on their website) for more differing views on what justice means.

Posted by Steve Sullivan at 9:43 AM 0 comments

EMAIL EXCHANGE: KIM PATE, MYSELF, AND MP RATHGEBER

After reading the following article where MP Rathgeber was embarrassingly disrespectful to Kim Pate of the Elizabeth Fry Society.  He objected to language Ms. Pate used in describing the impacts of excessive strip searches currently forced on the female prisoners at Kitchener's prison for women.  This particular story struck home.  Not only have I been subjected to multiple strip searches but I am also aware of the deeper issues which can surround them.

Prisoners are subjected to multiple strip searches during any period of incarceration as a matter of routine and under special circumstances such as a suspected presence of drugs in the institution.
 Some guards really detest carrying out these searches, especially those which are done as a matter of routine rather than the safety of the institution.  These state employees have been known to only pretend to carry out a strip searches at these times.  Simply handing prisoners clean clothing and standing in such a way as not to be watching them dress.  At the other end of this spectrum are those guards who get off on the "power over" dynamic of such searches.  These state sanctioned abusers take their time stipping inmates, sometimes carry out the proceedure in open walkways with substantial pedestrian traffic, arrange surprise searches at odd hours with women pushed and hurded into line ups with their hands kept atop their heads or cuffed behind their backs, orders to bend, turn, and lift are carried on much more thoroughly than normal or than called for in regards to the stated purpose of locating restricted weapons and drugs..  

Most prisoners will be subjected to both ends of this spectrum and everything in between during even a minimum sentence.  Many of us cope by transforming the process into a normal routine in our minds.  Oh well, whatever kinda situation.  But its not.  Especially for those men and women who have histories of sexual abuse.

Below is the email exchange between Kim Pate, myself and MP Rathgeber, below that is the article referred to.       by sheryl jarvis
 

 

Email Exchange,Re: Supreme Court Selection Committee Work

‏

 From: SHERYL JARVIS [mailto:j-sheryl@hotmail.com]
Sent: October 8, 2011 3:08 PM
To: Cotler, Irwin - M.P.; Rathgeber, Brent - M.P.; Comartin, Joe - M.P.; Hoeppner, Candice - M.P.
Subject: re: Supreme Court Selection Committee Work

 Dear Members of Parliament

I would like thank each of you for your  dedication to Canadians through the work each of you are doing on this most important panel, the election of new members to the Supreme Court of Canada.

I would like to believe that each and every portion of this process would be given ample thought and consideration with all those present provided his or her own space to speak from their personal and professional experiences.  This after all is a fundamental aspect of what constitutes a thriving democracy.  It also happens to be included in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

"(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;"

I read about an incident which occurred recently where an invited guest and presenter(Kim Pate) from the Elizabeth Fry Society was disrespected for having discussed openly what is the reality for most women in prison - that is, being subjected to unnecessary strip searches which are experienced by those female prisoners as a form of sexual assault and a continuation of what has for over 80% of incarcerated women been a life time of sexual, physical, and emotional abuse.

Mr. Rathgeber how dare you claim to be speaking for survivors of sexual predators when you stated that Ms. Pate's comments were an affront to victims of such predators.  When it is common knowledge that women in prison are as a group those most often victimized sexually, emotionally and physically.

All Canadians including those imprisoned have the same fundamental rights and freedoms, especially those which necessarily protect human rights.  This of course is contrary to what you and your party would have Canadians believe when you continue to repeat media sound bites such as  “putting the rights of criminals against the rights of law-abiding Canadians”

Ms. Hoeppener, shame on you as a woman for putting the process of state sanctioned abuse of the most vulnerable women ahead of their individual Human Rights.  How very cruel!

Sincerely

sheryl jarvis
Woman, Mother, Survivor

From: brent.rathgeber.a1@parl.gc.ca
To: j-sheryl@hotmail.com
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 15:23:10 -0400
Subject: RE: Supreme Court Selection Committee Work

Dear Ms. Jarvis,

 Thank-you for your correspondence with regard to comments I made in the House of Commons regarding the Elizabeth Fry Society.

 Ms. Kim Pate recently appeared before the Public Safety Committee as a witness for the Elizabeth Fry Society.  In the course of her comments, Ms. Pate stated that strip searching inmates is tantamount to “sexual assault by the state”.  She used this phrase throughout her opening statement and in the rounds of questioning that followed. 

 I am concerned by Ms. Pate’s characterization, especially because it has no basis in fact or in law.  The Criminal Code clearly defines an assault as a non-consensual application of force and sexual assault as having an added aspect of sexual need, gratification, or sexual degradation. I only take issue with the characterization of these situations as having a “sexual” aspect. 

 While I have the utmost respect for the work the Elizabeth Fry Society and its members carry out on behalf of incarcerated women, I stand by the statements I made in the House of Commons. 

 Regards,

  Brent Rathgeber, Q.C.

Member of Parliament

Edmonton-St. Albert

Subject: Re: Supreme Court Selection Committee Work
To: j-sheryl@hotmail.com
CC: kpate@web.ca
From: caefs@web.ca
Date: Sat, 8 Oct 2011 22:26:05 +0000

Dear Ms Jarvis,

Thank you so much for copying us on this. I am preparing some information for the Committee. Please let me know if you would also like to receive it. 
Thanks again and all the best, 
KimSent wirelessly from my BlackBerry device on the Bell network.
Envoyé sans fil par mon terminal mobile BlackBerry sur le réseau de Bell.

From: SHERYL JARVIS <j-sheryl@hotmail.com>

Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 17:48:30 -0400

To: <brent.rathgeber.a1@parl.gc.ca>

Cc: <kpate@web.ca>

Subject: RE: Supreme Court Selection Committee Work

Dear Honourable Rathgeber

The newspapers quote an MP who said that you are usually more reserved and respectful, that he was surprised to find out it was you who had made the comments to Kim Pate.  The tone of your email seems to bear that out.  However its tough to tell if you wrote it or one of your assistants did.....

You point to specific acts of law regarding the definition of sexual assault.  The problem with relying entirely on the law books is that peoples life experience's and thus their reactions to situations such as prison strip searches can not be accounted for.

The purpose of a strip search is to maintain the safety of prisoners and staff.  Tobacco is not a weapon.  The possibility of tobacco being smuggled into prison is not nearly reason enough to put prisoners, women in this case through what is for some a highly traumatic event. 

In the case of women's federal institutions these strip searches are happening regularly and persistently.  The staff are not required to strip search prisoners in order to address the question of tobacco but they do it anyways.

It is common knowledge that many prison guards chose their professions because they enjoy the "power over" dynamic.  There is for some a perverse sort of pleasure in degrading and humiliating others.

Most women who end up in prison have been sexually assaulted in their life times.  A strip search can cause a woman to relive feelings of degradation and humiliation.  Whether this is the staffs intention or not and whether it is written into law or not assault is the woman's experience.  Here again she is being ordered against her will to remove her clothing and to stand, bend, lift, and stretch her body on command for no good reason.

The truth is that many female prisoners find a way to cope with this by dissociating themselves from their bodies.  They may pretend it isn't happening, or that it is someone else standing there, or they may simply pretend to themselves that it doesn't matter, that they don't care.  In any case it does have an adverse impact on the woman's mental health.  This is just the opposite of what we should be aiming for.  

I know you may not believe these statements to be accurate or you may dismiss them as the babble of a "bleeding heart liberal", but I hope you will at least consider that perhaps there is some merit to what I say. 

Human beings, human relationships are all so very complex and often there is more than what meets the eye.  I'm sure you will at least agree with that last statement. 

thank you for continuing the conversation on this topic

sheryl
Mother, Advocate, Survivor 

---

27/10/2011

Reply  ▼

 kpate@web.​ca

To SHERYL JARVIS

Many thanks for your compelling confirmation and correspondence with Mr. Rathgeber, Sheryl. Thanks, too, for being such an articulate ally. All the best, Kim

Sent wirelessly from my BlackBerry device on the Bell network.
Envoyé sans fil par mon terminal mobile BlackBerry sur le réseau de Bell.

---

Tory MP Rathgeber refuses to apologize for criticizing director of national group devoted to helping women in prison

Democrat MP Peter Stoffer calls for Conservative MP's apology, but Brent Rathgeber says NDP 'putting the rights of criminals against the rights of law-abiding Canadians.'

Veterans Affairs Minister Steven Blaney, Defence Minister Peter MacKay and Status of Women Minister Rona Ambrose launch Women's History Month on Monday before a Tory MP crticized the Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies. (Photograph by Jake Wright)

By TIM NAUMETZ October 5, 2011

PARLIAMENT HILL—A Conservative MP who sat on a Commons advisory panel screening candidates for nomination to the Supreme Court of Canada is under fire for making a formal statement in the House sharply criticizing the director of a nationwide group devoted to helping women in prison.

Brent Rathgeber (Edmonton-St. Albert, Alberta) slammed Kim Pate, executive director of the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies, for comments she made opposing a rise in strip searches of female Corrections Canada prisoners, describing the naked searches as “sexual assault by the state.”

Ms. Pate made the comment during testimony at the Commons Public Safety Committee the previous day, when she told MPs the strip searches are so invasive and prevalent that some women inmates have refused to have their children visit them in prison out of fear they would also be strip-searched.

She said the searches are for contraband of all kinds, including jewellery and cigarettes, and “virtually no drugs” have been found and no weapons in the searches of female prisoners, which Ms. Pate said have increased “massively” because of a recent ban on cigarettes in federal prisons.

Conservative MP Candice Hoeppner (Portage-Lisgar, Manitoba), who chaired the advisory panel screening nominees for two Supreme Court vacancies and is also a member of the Public Safety committee, also criticized Ms. Pate, after she made the comments in the committee.

Coincidentally, the third government MP on the Supreme Court panel, Robert Dechert (Mississauga-Erindale, Ontario) was recently the subject of lengthy controversy after he admitted to a series of romantic email exchanges with a Toronto-based journalist with China’s Xinhua state news agency, often accused of spying for the Chinese government.

NDP MP Peter Stoffer (Sackville-Eastern Shore, Nova Scotia) asked Mr. Rathgeber to apologize in the Commons to Ms. Pate but the Edmonton MP refused. A lawyer, Mr. Rathgeber and the other members of the panel took part in one of the most sensitive phases of the Supreme Court nomination process.

He accused Mr. Stoffer and the NDP, which had invited the Elizabeth Fry Societies to send a representative to the Public Safety Committee as part of a review of the use of drugs and alcohol in prisons, of “putting the rights of criminals against the rights of law-abiding Canadians.”

The phrase has been used repeatedly by the government and Conservative MPs to attack opposition MPs who have challenged a string of government crime bills over the past three years.

The Conservative members of the Supreme Court appointment advisory panel were all named by Prime Minister Stephen Harper (Calgary Southwest, Alberta) as he and Justice Minister Rob Nicholson (Niagara Falls, Ontario) began the reviews of candidates who will sit on the court as it braces for expected cases that could be among the most important it has heard in years.

Human rights lawyers say challenges against the omnibus crime bill, Bill C-10, the Safe Streets and Communities Bill, that the Conservative majority is currently rushing through Parliament are inevitable. They also say provincial challenges of legislation proposing to limit Senate terms severely and allow provinces to hold consultative elections on Senate appointments are also expected.

Mr. Hoeppner’s appointment as chair of the advisory panel came under scrutiny earlier because of the notoriety she won as the champion of the Conservative drive to dismantle the federal long-gun registry. Although a private member’s bill Ms. Hoeppner sponsored in the last Parliament to end the registry died in the Commons, her position on the panel was seen as a reward for the cross-country campaign she mounted.

Mr. Stoffer told The Hill Times he was astonished by Mr. Rathgeber’s attack against Ms. Pate, not only because of the group’s longstanding advocacy for women in prison, but because Mr. Rathgeber made the statement only four days into the internationally recognized Women’s History Month.

“We all have statements and if the Conservatives wish to attack the NDP or anyone else, in terms of political things, we don’t really care,” Mr. Stoffer said. “But if you’re going to attack the Elizabeth Fry Society and impugn their evidence, and impugn their motives, I think it is simply wrong.”

In the House, Mr. Stoffer said that the organization has been protecting womens' interests in the country and Mr. Rathgeber "goes after the Elizabeth Fry Society when it cannot defend itself. ... For many years it has been protecting the interests of women in this country, it has been protecting women who are incarcerated, many of whom are mentally ill and should not be in prison.”

In refusing to retract his statement, Mr. Rathgeber told the Commons: “The record from yesterday’s committee will reflect that I quoted the said society accurately and correctly, and I stand by those statements.”

Page 2 of 2

Ms. Pate told the committee the strip searches are a particularly traumatic experience for women inmates who have experienced sexual abuse and assault.

" Going back to the history of sexual abuse and physical abuse that many women have, many women find those kinds of invasive searches not just humiliating, but they become additionally punitive in terms of their histories of post traumatic stress, their histories of abuse,” she said.

NDP MP Joe Comartin (Windsor-Tecumseh, Ontario), his party’s representative on the panel, said he was surprised by what he had heard about Mr. Rathgeber’s statement.

“I’m a bit surprised it’s him, because as much as he is fairly mainstream conservative on these issues, he usually has more of a diplomatic approach,” Mr. Comartin said, suggesting it is possible the government directed Mr. Rathgeber to say what he did.

Liberal MP Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Quebec) cited his oath of secrecy for the panel and said he has not commented on any topic or MP associated with it.

Mr. Rathgeber told the Commons Ms. Pate’s description of strip searches as sexual assault by the state were “a slap in the face to our correctional officers, and legally dubious, it is absolutely insulting to those who have actually been victimized by a sexual predator.”

Mr. Comartin said the panel of MPs, which interviewed prospective candidates and reduced the field to a short list of six, reported the list of six to Mr. Nicholson last week. Mr. Nicholson and Mr. Harper are expected to announce the final two nominees next week.

tnaumetz@hilltimes.com

ALCOHOL VS. POT, THE CRIME AGENDA, AND AMY WINEHOUSE

Though some of the stats in the below article are not exactly spot on (there are no viewer than 22 new facility builds and  expansions in the works across Canada tpcp-canada.blogspot.com) it provides a unique perspective, comparing the harms associated with the legal alcohol to the harms associated with the illegal pot. The author then frames the debate around the death of Amy Winehouse and other famous artists.   sheryl jarvis, Oct 2011

Iman Sheikh: Crime-policy lessons from the late Amy Winehouse

Andrea De Silva/Reuters

Amy Winehouse likely died of alcohol poisoning. Can Stephen Harper name a person who's died of a marijuana overdose?

Iman Sheikh  Oct 28, 2011 – 7:00 AM ET | Last Updated: Oct 27, 2011 5:27 PM ET

As they say on Law & Order, the lab called. They found something. Amy Winehouse, the notorious British jazz sensation who died mysteriously in her London home on July 23, had a blood alcohol level of over five times the legal driving limit. That the coroner ruled it death by such a mundane depressant is actually a shocking piece of news considering the troubled singer had experimented with more drugs than the FDA. How ironic that the one legal and socially acceptable mind-altering substance she ingested finally did her in.
It’s a familiar pattern when it comes to celebrity death. Michael Jackson: the (legal) anesthetic propofol. Heath Ledger: oxycodone, hydrocodone, diazepam, temazepam, alprazolam and doxylamine (all legal). Anna Nicole Smith: the (legal) sedative chloral hydrate. If all of these stars merely had been committing the crime of smoking pot, they’d still be alive.

Yet Stephen Harper’s Bill C-10 dictates tougher penalties for drug offences, including a potential doubling of sentences for growing drugs such as marijuana. Meanwhile, Manitoba and Ontario have actually loosened liquor laws this year. What’s wrong with this picture?


According to StatsCan, over 58,000 Canadians were arrested in 2010 for simple marijuana possession. This is a 14% increase over the previous year, and comprises over 54% of all drug arrests in Canada. All this for possession of a drug that has never produced a single clinically observed overdose death in human history.
Earlier this year, a report from the Global Commission on Drug Policy declared the war on drugs, started 40 years ago by former U.S. president Richard Nixon, an abject failure: “Arresting and incarcerating tens of millions of people in recent decades has filled prisons and destroyed lives and families without reducing the availability of illicit drugs or the power of criminal organizations.”

The war on drugs is also expensive — and getting more so thanks to the billions of dollars that Mr. Harper is pumping into it. Under his program, eight prisons across the country are scheduled to be expanded at a cost of $2.1-billion over five years. Add to this the immense cost of maintenance of facilities and looking after the prisoners. Parliamentary Budget Chief Kevin Page has said the new rules could raise total prison costs to $9.5-billion a year in 2015-2016 from $4.4-billion this year. It could also require the construction of as many as a dozen new prisons.

This is a Prime Minister who once made a name for himself talking about the need for smaller government. Want to make government smaller, Stephen Harper? The drug war is a really good place to start.
On Oct. 17, officials from Texas — a state not known for bleeding-heart policy-making — said the Canadian government’s crime strategy is futile. “You will spend billions and billions and billions on locking people up,” Judge John Creuzot of the Dallas County Court said. “And there will come a point in time where the public says, ‘Enough!’ And you’ll wind up letting them out.” Texas isn’t alone. According to a February report from Human Rights Watch, “Eight states — including New York, where laws were the most punitive in the nation — have repealed most of these mandatory-minimum sentences, and dozens of other jurisdictions are considering repeal or reform.”

Back to Winehouse, who is not alone: Alcohol consumption is involved in 30% of all suicides, 40% of all deaths due to accidental falls, 45% of all deaths in automobile accidents and — the kicker — 60% of all homicides. The numbers for marijuana are close to zero, zero and zero. Yet Bill C-10 would tighten the screws on the latter, not the former.

To borrow from the late singer, it’s time to send these ludicrous policies back to rehab.
National Post

 A Little Known Expert on the Harper Crime Agenda?

Paula Mallea didn't make it to the short list for the recent speakers forum at Church of the Redemmer in Toronto.  But not for lack of trying.  People on the organizing committee simply had not heard of her.  I hope to contribute to changing that in whatever small way this blog may be able.  Paula is an expert around criminal justice having worked for 15+ years as a lawyer in Canada.  Paula is also an expert on the conservative governments crime agenda.  Included here is a copy of an article posted on Rabble, but originally written for the Centre for Policy Alternatives(CFPA).  It was while visiting the web site at CFPA that I first discovered Paula and her writing. She had several articles and one longer study published at that time in 2009.  I was inspired to contact her and asked if she could come to Toronto to speak on ideas for how people could oppose the crime agenda.  She agreed, but the pieces just havn't come together so far.  If the CFPA, Rabble, and I couldn't get Paula Mallea's name out there maybe her new book, Fearmonger can.    sheryl jarvis                                                                                                                                                                   For a summary and where to buy the book see: http://canadianbookshelf.com/Books/F/Fearmonger                                                                                                                                             To read her earlier work at the CFPA follow: http://www.policyalternatives.ca/search/apachesolr_search/paula%20mallea

Omnibus crime bill won't reduce victimization rates

By Paula Mallea

October 27, 2011

Harper, Nicholson and Toews are selling their snake-oil crime bill by presuming to speak on behalf of victims. When told that the crime rate has been declining for 20 years, they reply that one victim is one too many. When advised that statistics do not support their approach, they say most crimes go unreported by their victims. When criticized for the cost of their simplistic and counterproductive legislation, they reply that crimes cost victims $99 billion per year.

Let's be clear. One victim is too many, and whatever we can do to reduce victimization rates should be done. However, the omnibus crime bill will not achieve that objective. It will contribute mightily to a continuing structural deficit because of the colossal costs involved. And paying for this crime bill means programs that effectively prevent crime and rehabilitate offenders will never be funded.
Victims are not all made the same. They do not all support the strictly punishment-oriented approach of the Harper government. Why not let them speak for themselves?

Arlène Gaudreault, President of the Association québécoise Plaidoyer-Victimes, objects to the way politicians are usurping the legitimate voices of victims. She says victims are "increasingly exploited and used as a tool for partisan purposes by political parties of all stripes. Victims' rights are used to legitimize more crime control, but that discourse does not express the position of all victims. . . . It does not serve the cause of victims, and we reject Canada's decision to take this path." She says that "measures to help parents and families reduce poverty and inequality are essential to combat and reduce criminal victimization."

Lorraine Berzins worked in federal penitentiaries for 14 years and was the victim of a hostage-taking. As spokesperson for the Church Council on Justice and Corrections, she says the Harper tough-on-crime agenda "goes so much against all the evidence about what keeps communities safe, and it does so much harm, and they are going to spend so much money, that it's really surprising that there isn't more opposition."
Steve Sullivan of Ottawa Victim Services (and erstwhile Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime) says "victims understand, better than most, that nearly all offenders will eventually be released from prison. . . . The best protection victims, their families, and the community will have is if the offender can learn to modify negative behaviour before he or she is released." In other words, rehabilitation programs are key.
In spite of eloquent pleas by victims' advocates, the Harper government forges ahead with a retrograde, antediluvian and discredited approach to criminal justice. Its only "solution" for any and all crimes is a long prison sentence.

There is virtually no hope that the omnibus crime bill can be defeated now that Mr. Harper has his majority. So we turn to Steve Sullivan, who recently sent a desperate crie de coeur to the Conservative caucus:
I believe the ministers when they say they care about victims. . . . Here is what they should do -- at the next cabinet meeting, tell the Prime Minister he should abandon his crime agenda and put the bulk of those resources into programs for victims and prevention. When the Prime Minister says no, and we all know he will, then they should stand up for victims and walk out.

Paula Mallea, B.A., M.A., Ll.B, practised criminal law for 15 years in Toronto, Kingston, and Manitoba. She acted mainly as defence counsel, with a part-time stint as prosecutor, and spent hundreds of hours in penitentiaries representing inmates. She is a Research Associate with the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. She is the author of The Fear Factor: Stephen Harper's Tough On Crime Agenda. Her book, Fearmonger, a detailed critique of the Harper tough-on-crime agenda, published by Lorimer, is available in bookstores and online.

This article first appeared on Behind the Numbers.

Canadian Torture Victim

The conservatives have made new policies not to intervene internationally if Canadians get in trouble abroad. And not to request commutations of a death sentence when Canadians end up on death row in the US. The first 2 stories focus on torture in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia.  The last story reflects on both the possibility of wrongful convictions which involve the death penalty and that Harper refuses to intervene on behalf of

Canadians who land on death row in the US!   

             sheryl jarvis, Oct, 2011

Canada finally makes contact with family in Saudi jail
Tuesday October 25 2011      By NOUMAN KHALIL


Canadian officials in Saudi Arabia finally established contact with a
Toronto man and his family, including two children, after they were
granted access to see them in a Jeddah prison, a foreign office
spokesperson told Focus.

"We have been granted access to see the family and we will continue to
engage with Saudi officials about this family's case," said John
Babcock, a spokesperson for the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs
Diane Ablonczy.


Babcock, however, didn't say anything about the charges, the release
or health condition of the children.

It is pertinent to mention here that Uddin Ahmed, a Canadian citizen
of Indian origin, has been living in Saudi Arabia along with his
family for the last few years on a work permit.


On Sept 22, the family, including Uddin Ahmed's wife and two
daughters, aged 18 months and five years, was charged and thrown in
Jeddah's Dhaban Prison for 'unknown' reasons.


Following the incident, MP Jim Karygiannis and members of the family
in Toronto criticized the government and its foreign office for
failing to secure their release and finding out about the health of
the kids - one of them is sick and needs medical care.


In response to a very emotional appeal from Junaid Ahmed, brother of
Uddin Ahmed, Karygiannis said the Minister Diane Ablonczy is ignoring
the two children.


In the appeal to the MP, a copy of which was also received by Focus,
Ahmed said: "We feel helpless and it is saddening to see lack of
Canadian government's intervention for a Canadian family that has been
imprisoned for a month without any reason."


He said the Canadian consulate in Saudi Arabia and ministry of foreign
affairs in Ottawa are not helpful and complained that, instead of
listening, the staff (at least one time) hung up the phone on him.


However, Babcock said: "Canadian consular officials are providing the
detained Canadian and his family, and their relatives with consular
assistance as requested, both in Canada and in Saudi Arabia.

"We hope that he (Karygiannis) is not trying to politicize this issue
for partisan reasons at the expense of the family, that is both
unhelpful and dangerous for the family. As the member knows, Canada
cannot intervene in the judicial affairs of another country," said
Babcock.


MP Karygiannis said: "Once again, this Conservative government is
saying to Canadians, 'If you travel and get into difficulty, don't
call on us, you are on your own.'"

Canadian fears more torture from officials in Bahrain

 By Thandi Fletcher, Postmedia News October 26, 2011

Naser Al-Raas says he's fearfully awaiting the moment Bahrain police handcuff, blindfold and drag him back to a jail, where he contends, he'll ruthlessly be tortured for a crime he did not commit.

Al-Raas, a Kuwait-born Canadian citizen, was sentenced this week for breaking Bahrain's illegal-assembly laws. He and 12 others were sentenced for having links to antigovernment demonstrations.

Al-Raas, 28, is free pending an appeal, but could be arrested before the scheduled Nov. 22 court date. If so, he is certain he will be tortured again. Earlier this year, Al-Raas said he was kidnapped and beaten for a month in an underground prison.

"The main thing that was going through my head was 'How will I survive?' Al-Raas told Postmedia News on Wednesday, calling via Skype from Bahrain as he believes his phone lines likely are tapped. "I saw death many times."

On March 20, Al-Raas was leaving Bahrain after a three-week visit to check up on his five sisters and ensure they were safe amid the political unrest enveloping the tiny Persian Gulf country.

Pro-democracy protests that broke out in February amid the fervour of the Arab Spring were crushed by Bahraini security forces, backed by Saudi troops. The government says 24 people were killed, including four police officers, while the opposition puts the count at 31.

Al-Raas was returning to Kuwait where he worked as an IT specialist.

At Bahrain International Airport, four policemen in civilian clothes ambushed and forced him into a tiny office where he was beaten and held at gunpoint, Al-Raas recalled.

They blindfolded him, took him to an undisclosed location, and subjected him to a mock execution where bullets were repeatedly fired around him.

For a month, he was held hostage, taken to an underground prison cell where he endured the screams of others. He said he witnessed one man being tortured until he was dead.

When it was his turn, he said his torturers took him to a wooden room, blindfolded him, and tied him to a chair with ropes. They beat him with a rubber hose, kicked him with military boots, and electrocuted him. Sometimes they would spit into his mouth and force him to swallow, he said.

Other times, he would be forced to stand up for hours at a time without rest and was beaten when he tried to sleep, said Al-Raas.

"I could not sit, I could not sleep. Whenever I moved, I was beaten by many officers," said Al-Raas.

Often the blows were targeted at his chest, where he has scars from two open-heart surgeries.

Al-Raas has pulmonary hypertension, a heart and lung disease that requires careful medical attention and anti-clotting medication.

When he asked for his medicine, his requests were denied and the torture intensified, said Al-Raas.

A month after he was arrested, Al-Raas said he was forced to make an on-camera confession, threatened to not speak to the media and told not to tell anybody about the torture. Then finally, he was released.

Once free, Al-Raas pleaded to have his Canadian passport, which was seized during his arrest, returned. On June 7, when security officials told him he could come get his passport, he was arrested and beaten again, and charged with kidnapping a Bahraini police officer.

He denied the accusations and was taken to military court earlier this month, where he was acquitted of all charges.

But on Tuesday, he was found guilty in civilian court on other charges, for participating in protests and publicly inciting hatred and contempt against the regime.

Amnesty International is now urging Canada's federal government to pressure Bahraini authorities to drop the charges against Al-Raas, who they said is being held as a prisoner of conscience.

"In our view, there is absolutely no reasonable basis for the charges," said Alex Neve, secretary general for Amnesty International in Ottawa. "Now that the conviction has happened, it's vitally important that the Canadian government bring considerable pressure to bear on Bahraini authorities to drop the charges and for the verdict and sentence to be quashed."

On Wednesday, John Babcock, spokesman for Diane Ablonczy, the minister of state for foreign affairs, said Canadian consular officials in Ottawa and in Riyadh are providing consular assistance to Al-Raas and his family in Canada.

Al-Raas has lived on and off in Ottawa since 1996.

"Although the government of Canada cannot interfere in the judicial affairs of another country, we have made high level representations to Bahraini authorities to seek assurances that the individual is afforded due process and to ensure his well-being," Babcock said.

Babcock added the Canadian government is aware and concerned of reports that Al-Raas was mistreated while in detention in Bahrain, and has raised its concerns with the "appropriate authorities."

Although he has appealed the decision, Al-Raas said he has been advised to surrender himself to Bahraini authorities within 10 days.

For now, he is enjoying spending time with his fiancee Zainab, waiting in fear for the unpredictable moment Bahraini police may storm his home.

Since his arrest, Zainab has worked tirelessly to contact international human rights groups for help.

"Naser can't go there again," said Zainab, her voice thick with emotion. "(The police) are animals. They are not even human."        tfletcher@postmedia.com              Twitter.com/thandi_fletcher

Reflections in the wake of Troy Davis’ execution
    Human Rights . . . Here & There


Written by  Sonya Nigam Posted Date: October 10, 2011


On Sept. 21, 2011, the American state of Georgia executed Troy Davis.
Like many organizations that fought for a stay of his execution, the
International Association of Lawyers was deeply disappointed with this
final turn of events.


In its press release the association expressed its support for a
commutation of the sentence to the Georgia State Board of Pardons and
Paroles and the district prosecutor, Larry Chisolm. The association
raised the same issues cited by many others: the fragile nature of the
evidence that Troy Davis actually shot police officer Mark MacPhail,
the disappointing inability of the American legal system to re-examine
the evidence, and the perpetuation of errors that “tarnish the justice
system on the whole.” The press release states, “Apart from the fact
that it constitutes a form of legalized violence that trivialises and
even legitimizes violent behaviour among individuals, it also promotes
an atmosphere of vengeance and brutality that is incompatible with the
idea of justice and, above all, human rights.”


A huge number of people were mobilized to stop this execution. This
appeared to many to be a case of supreme injustice considering the
evidentiary problems with the case: several recantations by
eyewitnesses, admissions of guilt by the alternative suspect, Davis’
clear and continuous assertions of innocence, and no incriminating
physical evidence or a murder weapon.

The execution was scheduled for 7 p.m. For reasons that have not been
explained, the Supreme Court delayed the execution. According to press
reports, the mood of the crowd outside the prison brightened, only to
be dashed about four hours later. Davis’ execution was a very
emotional and deeply saddening event. In a recent Huffington Post
article, David Protess, president of the Chicago Innocence Project,
wrote that the result should have been expected. “Troy Davis never had
a chance,” he wrote. “From the day he was arrested, Troy Davis had
three strikes against him.”


Davis was black, and MacPhail was white. According to the Death
Penalty Information Center’s web site, where there is interracial
murder, the likelihood of execution is much higher if the accused is
black and the victim is white. Protess wrote, “In the past three
decades, 255 blacks have been executed for killing whites, while only
17 whites have been put to death for killing blacks.” Citing the U.S.
Bureau of Justice Statistics, he continued, “During the same period,
almost 80 per cent of executions involved inmates convicted of
murdering whites, even though half the murder victims in society were
black.


“MacPhail was a police officer. Law enforcement, charged with
protecting all citizens equally, protects some more equally than
others. The murder of a police officer compels prosecutors to pull out
all the stops to get a conviction and death sentence. State law makes
the murder of an officer a capital offense. If MacPhail had been the
mayor of Savannah, his murderer would not have been eligible for the
death penalty.”

He continues: “The crime happened in the South. Three Southern states
(Texas, Virginia, and Florida) account for the majority of all
executions since 1976, according to a recent report by the NAACP Legal
Defense and Educational Fund. Georgia ranks seventh in the country in
total executions, and its death row is one of the nation’s largest.”

The recorded moments of Davis’ final hours are so human it is
difficult not to be moved. Associated Press reporter Greg Bluestein
was one of five reporters to witness the execution. He wrote: “Death
watch began at 7 a.m. on Sept. 20, a day he spent meeting with
visitors, watching TV, and talking to his attorneys. A nurse brought
him a fish oil pill and other unspecified medications around 9:20 p.m.
and he was asleep within half an hour.


“He awoke the next morning and refused his breakfast tray. He stayed
in bed until about 7:50 a.m. when he was strip-searched and escorted
to the shower. The prison warden met with him a few minutes after he
finished shaving, and the first of his 28 visitors came to see him at
that morning.

“He turned down his lunch at noon and, after the last visitor left
about six hours later, refused to eat an early dinner, requesting only
the grape drink on the tray. Guards spotted him praying around 6:45,
and 15 minutes later, when his execution was scheduled to begin, he
was napping. He awoke an hour later, called his attorney for an update
and asked the guards to bring in some food. He spent the next few
hours on and off the phone with his lawyer awaiting news on his fate,”
continues Bluestein.


“He probably heard that the Supreme Court denied his request for a
last-minute stay shortly before guards came into the room at 10:28. A
few minutes later, he was strapped to the gurney and execution
witnesses started filing in. It was over at 11:08, when authorities
pronounced him dead and cleared the death chamber.”

In Canada the last hangings took place in 1962. The death penalty was
officially removed from the Criminal Code in 1976 and replaced with a
mandatory life sentence without possibility of parole for 25 years for
first-degree murder. Finally for military personnel, the death penalty
was removed from the National Defence Act in relation to the most
serious military offences, including treason and mutiny, in 1998.


While the current government says it has no intention to re-open the
death penalty debate, Prime Minister Stephen Harper has said he
believes in the use of the death penalty in some cases. The current
Conservative government has modified Canadian policy and no longer
requests stays of execution for Canadians who find themselves on death
row in the United States.


Further, the government has decided, even in these very uncertain
economic times, to devote a significant amount of its budget to
expanding prison facilities. Through the new omnibus bill C-10, the
“safe streets and communities act,” it is signalling it wants to put
more Canadians in jail for crimes that did not necessarily receive
jail time in the past.


Are Canadians being co-opted to accept a black-and-white law-and-order
agenda as we hang on to the fiscal conservatism of the current
government as a life vest against the current tide of economic
uncertainty? Will we slowly start thinking differently, and at some
point accept that it is OK to kill in the name of justice, even when
we know that our justice system is a flawed human invention? Or, will
our knowledge of the cases like David Milgaard and Steven Truscott
safeguard us from this mistake?