Pages

Thursday 19 March 2015

Women in Criminal Justice

Women in Criminal Justice

On March 11thSFU had the pleasure of having three guests from different areas of the criminal justice system join us for a night of Q&A.  It was a night where students from different faculties were allowed to come and ask questions about their careers, struggles and opinions on current issues.

The guest speakers were Janice Walton, an environmental lawyer with a diverse background who proves that it is never too late to do what you want. After doing many other things, at age 39, she decided her true passion was being a lawyer and in 1991, she achieved that. Our next guest was Caitlin Grisack, a coordinator for the youth restorative justice program for the Burnaby RCMP detachment who strongly believes that RJ is new and emerging. Her job consists of working with youth, victim-services, and crisis intervention. The third guest was Barb Bluscke, a member of the Vancouver police department since 1991—she was one of two female officers working the downtown eastside in the 90’s, the first female captain of the VPD boat team, first female motorcyclist reconstructionist and helped write the Quarantine Act for Vancouver ports.

There were many questions that night but here are some of the few audience members asked these ladies. The Q&A started off with a student asking whether any of our guest speakers had faced any obstacles as women and what they did to overcome them. Janice mentioned that she had been very fortunate to have not faced many obstacles but she did state she faced challenges. Some of these challenges she faced were more of her career being demanding in the first years. She mentioned that she faced more pressure pre-law, mostly in her engineering career. She did not face much during her law career because she was older and so were her children, which reduced the pressure. Janice added on by saying that although law can be a man’s world, the makeup in law is about 50/50 in law and there are choices in which direction you want to go with in law.

Caitlin also discussed that because she works in Restorative Justice, which is usually woman-dominated field, it has been inclusive and respectful and so she has not faced many obstacles. She continued to mention that although men from institutions can surround her, it has not been an obstacle. Barb on the other hand, mentions that women in policing have had a long road and that there were situations that were sexist. She mentions that many of her female colleagues could not handle it and quit policing. There were some males who believed that their female partners should just “sit in the car, shut up and not touch anything". She states that this has changed, women are now at the same level as men, all that matters is that you can protect each other. She stated that you always have to prove yourself, prove you can do the job, regardless of gender. She adds on that if someone does make a sexist remark, to draw a line and if you do not allow them to cross it, they will not.


Question two focused on the current issue of Bill C-51, they did not have much to say on the topic because they still had to do some more research on the topic but Barb summarized in nicely by saying “the way things are done need to be changed”. I think we can all agree that a lot of things need to be changed!

The third question a student asked was whether they had faced any sexual harassment. Janice began with stating that in the 1980's sexism existed in her first field of engineering. She stated that women were usually office staff not part of the project. She added by stating that sexual harassment was both covert and overt. She believes that things have changed in our time, that this type of behaviour is no longer tolerated and likes to think that all professions abide by that. Caitlin began with mentioning that she has worked six years in the detachment and that sometimes the media has a big role with how things are shown. She clarifies that she has been lucky to be in an environment that communicates and receives training on how to be respectful towards one another.  Barb continued to just add on to her previous statement about not letting them cross the line and that things have changed since from when she started. She stated that about 24% of Vancouver police officers are now women and that it was really high compared to other places, so it shows that things are changing. Their experiences were eye opening, especially from Janice and Barb who were basically firsts in their fields to show us how much has actually changed from when they started to now. It gives us hope that things will continue to change for women in all areas. 

The fourth question for the guest speakers focused around whether they faced any obstacles getting to their careers. Janice started off the conversation by stating that when she first started it was hard because it was difficult finding a job because there was a lack of environmental law firms. She proudly mentioned that she went out and made it happen for herself. She did face pressure because you had to work really hard in order to make partner, there were targets you had to accomplish but she provided us with a solid piece of advice by saying that we have to make it happen for ourselves, that we should take the chance because there will always be obstacles. As for Caitlin, she stated that when she started Restorative Justice was just an emerging field, so she was able to gain lots of experience as it RJ also grew. She added on that she was able to apply her work into her life and life into work because RJ focuses on self-care, so that made it easier for her. Like Janice, Caitlin mentioned that you have to put yourself out there and self-promote. Barb answered her question by discussing that she never finished her undergraduate degree and that she had a lot of grunt jobs, which taught her how to cope. She then provided us with advice that "education is never a waste" and that you can always change what you do with your life because it will not be wasted. She then shared a story about her experience in the DTES. She stated that we should take jobs that teach us to cope because what she saw was difficult. 

She mentioned that in the DTES, there are two types of people: the predator and the prey. She said that the DTES was never like that from the stories that she heard from people she met. It was overwhelming for her to see that happening--people being victimized and targeted by these predators. She then criticized that the "four pillar" system was not helping anyone, especially those with mental health issues. She concluded with saying that she loves her job (even if it can be hard) because it provides variety, it keeps her busy and that she has done things we could not even imagine--of course, she also mentioned she loved her pay cheque (and so did Janice!). 

The final question of the night consisted of an audience member asking our guests, if they could change one thing, what would it be? The guest speakers asked "just one?, which shows that there is probably a lot of things that they wish they could change. Caitlin started the conversation with wanting to move away from punishment and take a new approach to punishment. I assume she meant more of a restorative justice approach. She added on that as a society, we should take more chances and lose our fear. Barb said she would change political correctness, she said life is hard and basically, we should be able to face them and not be naive about it. Janice ended the discussion with her change being that the political system should be balanced--by that she meant that there should be more women involved in politics.

Overall, it was a great night with great people, guest lecturers and free food. Janice, Caitlin and Barb taught us very powerful things that allow us to succeed. They taught us through their experiences that there is still a lot to change in the world but we can do it, if we educate ourselves, live our lives and stand up for ourselves. They are successful because of those things. Janice always knew what she wanted to do but worked in other areas before she got to her goal of being a lawyer. Caitlin started off wanting to be a sommelier, then was a history major and finally found her way into criminology, crime analysis and dabbled with the idea of law, but now is the coordinator for youth RJ and loves it. Barb wanted to be a physiotherapist (because of her bad knee), she then considered the army because she knew she wanted to defend rights, which then led her into policing. These ladies are examples of how life can take us in different directions and if you work really hard, you can get to where you really want to be or do something you did not expect and love it. 


--Martha Espinoza






Wednesday 18 March 2015

Solitary Confinement Challenge

The majority of individuals who commit suicide suffer from a mental illness at their time of death. In 2011 alone, there have been 3,728 suicides committed in Canada. The suicide rate in federal prisons alone is "7x the public...with nearly half taking place in solitary confinement. According to the Globe & Mail, 1 out of every 4 prisoners are put into solitary confinement in the federal prison system. Clearly the numbers show that suicide by inmates held in solitary confinement is an issue. Solitary confinement or segregation in a prison system is the practice of confining a prisoner in a cell while depriving him/her from meaningful human contact for 23 hours a day which could last from days to months to years. These statistics are not just numbers, but rather numbers representing people such as Ashley Smith and Edward Snowshoe.

Ashley Smith was a self-harming inmate. She was 19 when she chocked herself to death in 2007 while prison guards stood outside and watched as they were ordered not to enter her cell if she was still breathing. Within her 11 months of confinement, she was transferred 17x, and spent the majority of her time in segregation. The Coroner's Inquest has offered 104 recommendations regarding Ashley's death, but little has changed. Key recommendations include:
  • Transferring inmates with serious mental health issues/self-injurious behaviour to federally run treatment facilities.
  • Not requiring frontline staff to seek authorization if they determine immediate intervention is required to save life.
  • Abolishing indefinite solitary confinement, prohibiting long-term segregation of more than 15 days and making conditions of segregation least restrictive as possible.
The recommendations were offered in 2013, 6 years after Ashley Smith's death. Within that time, Edward Snowshoe killed himself in 2010 after spending 162 days in segregation. Edward was not well when he went into prison and "as his condition deteriorated, the system responded with solitary confinement." BobbyLee Worm was also an individual placed in solitary confinement who is not part of the previously mentioned statistic.

BobbyLee Worm, a 26 year-old Aboriginal woman from Saskatchewan, was in solitary confinement for over 3.5 years.  She was 19 years-old and a first time offender when she entered prison, where her only human contact was usually through a food slot in the door of the cell. The program she was placed under was known as a "Management Protocol" but she was removed 2 days after a lawsuit was filed on her behalf by the British Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA) for illegal and inhumane treatment. She was given access to programs to support her rehabilitation. The "Management Protocol"  program was for high-risk women prisoners that allowed prison officials to isolate women in solitary confinement. The majority of women placed in this program were Aboriginal.

The BCCLA and the John Howard Society of Canada launched a constitutional challenge in the use of solitary confinement in Canadian federal prisons. They state that indefinite solitary confinement is torture. It is causing individuals' mental health to become worse, as was the case with Edward Snowshoe. It violates constitutional rights as it is discriminatory in its use towards the mentally ill and Indigenous prisoners since they are placed in solitary confinement more frequently than other prisoners. Solitary confinement violates Section 7 (protection of life, liberty and security of a person), Section 9 and 10 (protections against arbitrary detention), Section 12 (prohibition against cruel and unusual treatment), and Section 15 (protection of equality) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The suicide rate in federal prisons are 7x that of the public, with nearly half taking place in segregation. How many more people will be added to that statistic before the Correctional Service of Canada does something about it? How many more people will suffer from mental illness due to being placed in isolation? How quickly will the government respond to this constitutional challenge before the numbers rise?

- Rachelle Tolentino

Bill C-51: Canada's Anti-Terrorism Act

            By now, most of us who read the news should be well aware of the Conservative’s proposed Bill C-51, an anti-terrorism act focused on combating the growing threat of terrorism within Canada’s borders.  Consider for a moment that only six months ago at Canada’s National War Memorial in Ottawa, Corporal Nathan Cirillo was shot and killed while on sentry duty by Michael Zihaf-Bibeau – a man presumed to have been motivated by radical Islamic ideology, likely stemming from the highly publicized ISIS occupation in the Middle East.  It is also worth acknowledging that just one month ago, a Somali terrorist group known as Al-Shabab publicly appealed to sympathizers within the Somali community in Edmonton to carry out an attack on West Edmonton Mall (the largest mall in North America for those who are unaware).  Keeping these events in mind, it would seem odd that many Canadians dispute the implementation of Bill C-51.  So the questions is; why are so many people opposed to this anti-terrorism act, legislation that the Conservative government assures will enhance Canada’s ability to fight terrorism at home and abroad?
            The answers to these questions are evident once the contents of Bill C-51 are inspected.  For starters, the Bill broadly expands the definition of ‘security’ to include “interference with the capability of the Government of Canada in relation to… the economic or financial stability of Canada”1.  Under this definition, the peaceful protests in Burnaby against the Kinder Morgan pipeline could have been considered a national security threat, as hindering the construction of the pipeline may be construed as interfering with Canada’s economic stability.  What’s more, the bill establishes an immense scope for what is considered to ‘undermine’ Canadian security.  British Columbia’s Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA) explains that these far-reaching concepts will allow warrantless sharing of information between and outside of government agencies as well as grant unfettered access to Canadians personal information2.
            Bill C-51 will also enact the Security Air Travel Act, which provides a framework for identifying individuals who pose a potential threat to transportation security. Although the purpose of the Act is justifiable, the means by which the Act achieves its purpose is questionable at best.  The Act allows government to establish a no-fly list that is largely secretive, meaning individuals who have been listed as a threat have no way of knowing the reasoning for there ban, or obtaining evidence associated with their listing.  Moreover, the Act suffers from serious procedural flaws concerning the process of appealing a no-fly listing.  Specifically, if a listed individual is successful in initiating an appeal, the judicial process is authorized to take place in secret. 
            There are also two serious drawbacks to Bill C-51 concerning its proposed amendments to the Criminal Code of Canada (CCC), foremost being the creation of a new offense that targets individuals found ‘advocating or promoting terrorism’.  The new offense would criminalize any speech in support of terrorism without requiring an actual terrorist offense to have occurred.  In other words, a speaker may be accused of advocating terrorism even if they do not intend for a terrorist offense to occur.  As a result, this amendment to the CCC will severely restrict Canadians’ freedom of expression.  The second drawback concerns a CCC amendment that would lower the legal threshold required for police to arrest individuals for terrorist activity.  Currently, the language of the CCC allows police to detain, arrest, or impose conditions on individuals (who have not, and may never commit a crime), if they have a legitimate belief that a terrorist activity will occur.  The amendment will lower this threshold, allowing police to detain individuals on the mere suspicion that terrorist activity might occur sometime in the future, while also doubling the amount duration of time that an individual may be held without charge. It would be reasonable to speculate that this amendment could have the result of innocent Canadians being detained or punished based on sheer speculation that they represent a danger to the public.
            It is clear by examining the evidence above that the Conservative’s proposed Bill C-51 has many critical flaws, all of which would directly impact the lives and democratic freedoms of Canadians.  What is interesting is that although much of the media publications on Bill C-51 refer to the legislation as ‘damaging’ to the democratic rights of Canadians, a poll conducted by the Angus Reid Institute indicates that 82 per cent of Canadians are in support of the Bill3. What’s more, opposing parties such as the Liberals or NDP have not actively opposed the anti-terrorism bill due to the upcoming federal election.  Opposition governments contend that fighting Bill C-51 is counteractive, as Canadians are seemingly in support of the legislation (causing damage during election period if they were to oppose it) and also because the Conservatives maintain a majority government. Instead, the task of stopping Bill C-51 has fallen into the hands of the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC). The SCC will review the legislation for its constitutionality and hopefully restrict many of the proposed amendments for impeding guaranteed Charter rights or freedoms. 
            If anyone is interested in joining the petition against Bill C-51 please click this link à https://stopc51.ca/.  Otherwise, it seems likely that the fate of Canada’s proposed anti-terrorism bill will be determined in court.

- Kyle Doyle

1 – Bill C-51: Security of Canada Information Sharing Act. (2014). s. 2(2)(a)
2 - BCCLA (2015, March 09). Submission to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security: Bill C-51, the Anti-Terrorism Act, 2015
3 - The Globe and Mail (2015, February 19). New poll finds Harper's anti-terror bill is a political juggernaut.

Monday 2 March 2015

Carter vs. Canada: Dying with Dignity Case



With the 87th Academy Awards last weekend came many acceptance speeches that brought awareness to problems that are currently faced in society from Patricia Arquette’s plea for wage equality to Graham Moore’s stand against bullying to Eddie Redmayne's acknowledgement of individuals battling ALS. Speaking of awareness and ALS, are you aware of Gloria Taylor—a woman who suffered from ALS? 

Gloria Taylor was one of the lead plaintiffs, along with Lee Carter and Hollis Johnson, for British Columbia Civil Liberties Association’s (BCCLA) lawsuit that was filed in April of 2011. Lee Carter and Hollis Johnson are a married couple who had to secretly fly Lee’s mother, Kathleen “Kay” Carter, to Switzerland for assisted dying since it was not legal in Canada at the time. Due to the illegality of the situation (14 years of jail for assisting in a suicide), Kay was not able to say a proper goodbye to those that were close to her. This legal fight was also joined by Elayne Shapray, who suffers from multiple sclerosis, as a personal affidavit by sharing her personal stories to the court.

On February 6th, 2015, the right to dignity and self-determination at the end of life was affirmed by Canada’s highest court giving Parliament and provincial legislatures the option to enact a law on physician-assisted dying.This would allow incurably ill suffering Canadians the option for a physician-assisted death as a medical service. Although it is argued that physician-assisted death goes against “right to life” as stated by Section 7 of the Charter, the latter half of Section 7, “right to…liberty, & security” gives competent adults who suffer from an incurable medical condition the choice to consensually end their life with dignity.

Although Gloria Taylor has passed away due to personal health before this was affirmed, individuals such as Elayne Shapray are now able to have the option of physician-assisted suicide without having to worry about keeping it a secret and flying to Switzerland like Kay Carter.

- Rachelle Tolentino