But the OIPRD’s report and recommendation come more than six months after the organization retained the file, which means that the officers involved will not automatically face a disciplinary hearing—the Toronto Police Services Board, the civilian oversight body for the Toronto Police, must effectively approve that such a hearing be held.

And what is the response of the police union to the recommendation that the officers who beat a handcuffed and sometimes unconscious Nobody face disciplinary hearings?  “We stand behind them,” said Toronto Police Union President Mike McCormack.[ii]  He has urged the Police Services Board not to hold disciplinary hearings against the officers, citing the 6 month delay.

It is no surprise that officers take advantage of every tool provided by the law.  But given that it is the police’s job to ensure that people who commit unlawful acts actually face the consequences of their actions and are held accountable under the law,  we are justified in asking, “Why is it that when the police commit unlawful acts, the union demands that we let it go?”  We might be excused for reacting indignantly to the union’s stance—a stance which seeks to put police officers above the law.

And what can we expect from the Police Services Board?  It’s the Board that now has the power to decide whether a notice of hearing can be served on the officers in question.  In effect, without the Board’s approval, there will be no hearing. The Police Services Act states that, in order to grant its approval, the Board must be of the opinion that “under the circumstances,” it was reasonable to delay serving the notice of hearing. [iii]

Surely the circumstances do exist here.  The case is one that involves important public policy issues dealing with the public’s right to protest, policing such protests, police tactics, and police officers’ beliefs in how citizens who, in their opinion, have broken the law, can be treated.

Furthermore, the volume of evidence that the OIPRD investigators had to sift through was high- significantly more than evidence from the run-of-the mill complaints that make their way to the OIPRD.  The OIPRD interviewed the complainant, interviewed or read reports from 5 other civilian witnesses, 12 police officer witnesses, and the 8 respondent police officers.  It reviewed audio and video evidence, four “volumes” of information from the Special Investigations Unit, the notebook entries of the police officers, and numerous other pieces of evidence.  This voluminous amount of evidence surely justifies a longer investigation period.

Finally, as the report makes no reference to the topic, we do not know if some of the “delay” during the investigation resulted from the slow or reluctant co-operation of the police witnesses, themselves.

When the legislature set out the limitation period it was likely contemplating the more common and straight-forward cases of complaints against one or two police officers.  It is unlikely that the legislature intended a 6-month limitation to apply to cases where many police officers, under an atmosphere of confusion and “mayhem,” as some witnesses described, were the subject of complaints.

In essence, the limitation period ensures that investigations are conducted efficiently and do not drag on indefinitely.  There is no blanket rule preventing investigations from continuing beyond the 6-month period. Under the circumstances, the OIPRD’s report has been produced in a timely manner.  But union President Mike McCormack wants the TPSB to rule otherwise.

McCormack’s position is offensive.  It demands that police officers who have engaged in illegal (and arguably, criminal) acts not be held professionally accountable for their conduct.  It perpetuates the negative and justified public perception that police officers protect one another no matter how egregious the acts of their members may have been.  The union’s position undermines the credibility of the police and the public’s trust and confidence in the police force.  In the end, though, the law allows McCormack to voice his opinion, but the same law grants the Police Services Board the power to approve that the hearings be held.

So what should we do?  How should citizens who want to ensure that the police conduct their job honourably and without resorting to unnecessary violence react?  Can we do anything to prevent the further erosion of the public’s confidence in the police?  Can we ensure that the Police Services Board grants its approval for the hearings?

Yes.  In this case, there is tangible, simple and effective action that we can all take.  We must let the T.P.S.B. and, in particular the three Toronto City Councillors who serve on the T.P.S.B., know that the officers who abused their power in their dealings with Mr. Nobody must be held accountable.[iv]  At the very least, they should face a disciplinary hearing.  Write to the Board and to the City Councillors and ask that they use their discretion to hold the police officers accountable for their actions, and not to protect officers who grossly abuse their powers.   And then, if and when the T.P.S.B. does approve that the hearings be held, follow up to ensure that the disciplinary hearings lead to meaningful consequences.

Demand that our law enforcement agents abide by the laws that they enforce.

“What exactly is the specific point of the Occupy movement?  We’ve got the best system there is. We don’t need to revolutionize it.”  Or, “If people want to make a change, why don’t they work hard and become social workers, vote or run for office?”

There are good answers to all of these questions.  I’d like to share mine with you.

Why not change our democracy from within?  Why do we need a whole new system of economic and social relations and policies?  Indeed, why not dedicate oneself to a single cause, as so many noble persons have done in the past?   The answer is that working on one cause, such as sufficient care for seniors or more affordable housing, does not change the foundations of a system that leads to injustice, in the first place, and that perpetuates systemic inequities.

If you want to change one aspect of the current system, then small steps, such as a career in social services or voting and lobbying, may be effective.  But exercising the right to vote hasn’t stopped the relative powerlessness of struggling families who can’t negotiate with a bank.  Hard-working people still have to choose between essential medical care and food for their families.

In fact, when we get completely engrossed in a single project we become so consumed with advancing that one cause that we have no time to address the roots of the problem, to prevent the creation of more victims.  To focus on any one isolated issue leaves us no time to address the structural problems of our system.

Our system is better than previous or other forms of government, but it still unfairly and unjustly benefits certain groups at a heavy cost to others, much like its predecessors.

At one time, we accepted that kings have the right to exercise control over their subjects, their subjects’ chattel, and their subjects’ livelihood.  In North America, at least, we no longer have monarchs.

But we have made kings of our bankers and big businesses.

Our banks invest our money at great profit for the banks, but with little return to most people.  Saving money no longer makes people rich, but it does make them poor.  And people are evicted from their homes because it’s more profitable for banks to resell those homes than to re-negotiate a different contract.  The enforcement of the bank’s immediate financial “rights” under the contract is deemed more valuable than dignity, shelter, and collaboration.

Big businesses determine the terms of contracts, so that a contract is not an agreement negotiated between two or more relatively equal parties, but simply a dictation of terms that one can accept absolutely or not.  In accepting such a contract, one surrenders all power to negotiate and collaborate.  Refusing standard terms leaves you in the dust, because it means that you can’t do business with Walmart, you can’t download an application, you can’t rent a car, and you can’t do business on-line.

We justify the relative power of banks and mega-business over others, their continued amassing of wealth, and their authority to negotiate contracts on their terms.  We contend that anyone else who is worthy is free to conduct the same business.  Therefore, the system is just, natural, ethical and fair.  But our system is not all of those things.  It is a human invention, subject to the shortcomings and injustices of all human constructions that came before it and will follow it.

The Occupy movement recognizes these shortcomings and seeks a grander, more fundamental change.

And THAT is the point of the movement: to change the assumptions of our system, to change our discourse, and to change the means by which we seek to promote justice and fairness, by ensuring that justice and fairness for all can actually be realized.  And precisely because the message of the Occupy movement is that the whole system needs to be changed, it doesn’t have a single, isolated, neatly defined goal.

In other words, just because our system is better than others past and present doesn’t mean that we should pacify ourselves into quiet surrender.

Instead, why not permit our progress as human beings to inspire us to advance and to seek grand change?

If the only constant is change, why not direct it to a more equitable path? [i]

We can direct both the course and the means of that transformation.  To be effective, such a change has to be made on a larger scale, and not only one small amendment at a time.

No grand-scale positive changes have ever resulted from accepting the status quo and working within its confines only.  The end of feudalism, the overturn of any monarchies, the beginnings of democracy, the end of Communism—none of these indisputably great social changes resulted from the peoples’ simple submission to the systems that existed, and their surrender and acquiescence to make changes within the system only.

But we need not fear a bloody revolution that will lead us to totalitarianism or North-Korean style Communism.  While the Occupy movement aims to revolutionize our system, its path entwines with its goal: to reach a peaceful, just society through collaboration and peaceful means.   The occupations have begun a conversation to lead us on a new course.

And while detractors may criticize the lack of clear objectives and of a roadmap in the Occupy movement, it is comforting that the precise boundaries and terms of this new system are undefined by the Occupy movement.  To do otherwise would be hypocritical.   What the movement does have are working principles that are true to its goal: the principles of collaboration, equity and sustainability. These principles will also determine the means by which we effect change.[ii]

The direction and the extent of such changes are only restrained by the limits of our hope and imagination and our willingness to cooperate.

The Occupy movement is the expression of this hope.  It is both its muse and its fuel.  Moving it and shoving it around may delay it, may modify its speed, but it will not stop its momentum.[iii]

I imagine that if you are a proponent of the Omnibus Crime Bill, then you believe that it speaks for victims.  If your goal is to help victims, to allow them to heal faster, and to ensure that there are fewer victims, then I urge you to engage your colleagues and other members of the Conservative Party to abandon this Bill.

No doubt you are familiar with the many arguments against this Crime Bill.  There is, of course, the fact that higher jail terms and mandatory incarceration are not going to reduce crime or recidivism.  What is more, incarceration, particularly of people who have little or no criminal history or have not been jailed in the past is likely to increase their chances of recidivism.  These are the conclusions reached by study after study that deal with punishment and crime.  This consideration, alone, tells us that the Bill is, at best, a waste of resources.

But the Omnibus Crime Bill is more than misguided.  It is also enormously costly.  How can we justify the billions of dollars that will be spent on what is purely a mechanism for punishment, when our and the world’s economies are in such precarious positions, and when so many of our fundamental institutions are in need of support?  How can a government that advocates lower spending throw billions of dollars away in this manner?

You might say that it does not matter if the Bill does not reduce recidivism.  You might argue that the cost of the Bill in insignificant when one considers victims’ rights.

If we truly care about victims, let’s take the two steps that are the most likely to help.

If we truly care about victims, if we want to ensure that they feel secure, healed, and empowered, let’s invest in programs and processes that help them heal, feel secure and empowered.  Seeing a perpetrator thrown in jail may make people feel that justice has been done, but it does not take away their fear, it does not make them feel secure.

Punishment, throwing people in jail, and looking away, do not make victims feel that they have been heard, or that their loss has, at least, had some positive impact.

But we do have processes that are proven to help victims heal, that include the victim in a meaningful way, and that help victims feel that justice has been done in a way that no harsh sentence and law can.  Restorative justice and victim-offender reconciliation programs are powerful and effective means of meeting the needs of victims, while holding offenders accountable for their actions.  If we only take a portion of the money required to bring the Crime

Bill into effect and put it toward restorative justice efforts, then we are sure to help victims.  What is more, restorative justice is more likely to reduce recidivism, and it will cost much less than the billions of dollars required by this Bill.

Furthermore, rather than focusing on retribution and incarceration, we can take steps that ensure that we have less victims, in the first place.  Let’s invest in education, in the health of children, in support for young people and for  families, in particular families who live in poverty.  Let’s invest in prevention of crime, so that we have less victims.

There is nothing good in a Bill that creates mandatory minimums, removes discretion from judges who have heard all the facts of a case and the circumstances surrounding the facts, focuses simply on punishment, doesn’t do anything to reduce crime, and takes billions of dollars from Canadians and essentially throws it away.

I ask you to please listen to all the criticisms against this Bill.  I urge you to dissuade your colleagues from supporting this destructive project.  It cannot be easy to stop this fast-moving train, but conscience and ethics demand that you do what is required to stop this Bill.

I hope that I can count on you, my Member of Parliament, to do whatever is possible to take this Bill off the legislative table.

Dyanoosh Youssefi

Eglinton-Lawrence resident

Alberta’s Public Security Department announced on Monday that it is ending the annual $351,000 grant for restorative justice programs, allegedly because economic times are tough.

Victim-offender reconciliation (V.O.R.), a form of restorative justice, is one of the most effective and humane means of dealing with crime. It involves mediated or facilitated meetings between offenders and victims. The aim of V.O.R. is, on the one hand, to ensure that offenders comprehend the full human impact of their actions, and that they voluntarily –and genuinely–take some responsibility for those actions. Equally significant, reconciliations help victims cope with their trauma and reduce their fears by humanizing the offender. They help victims move on with their lives. When done right, victim-offender reconciliations may even lead to the wondrous result of the victims helping the offenders overcome those life obstacles that lead him them commit the crimes.

If politicians truly care about victims and want justice for victims, they must look beyond the impulsive urge for punishment for the sake of punishment. They must look at processes that in fact make victims feel whole and restored. Harsh imprisonment may satisfy a desire for “justice” as revenge, but it does not bring about true justice. It never helps victims actually cope with their trauma. Yet incarceration and punishment continue to be the reckless and irrational mission of law-and-order governments.

Furthermore, as a society, we continue to use avoidance and punishment to deal with problems and conflicts that, in fact, require conversation, reflection, commitment, responsibility and empathy.

In its essence, crime is the infliction of pain (sometimes horrible and tragic) by one person on another. Friends sometimes do this to each other, though on a different scale. It is true that when wronged by a friend, some people choose avoidance and simply cut off a relationship. But we know that the better and more effective way of dealing with that pain is to confront the friend and to communicate with them. Why would it be any different if some other human being causes us pain? Why would we choose avoidance and punishment, rather than communication and resolution? Why would we not seek to open the doors to victim-offender reconciliation?

The path of victim-offender reconciliation is not easy- least of all for the offender. It is demanding. It can be emotionally draining and gruelling. It compels the offender to deal with his actions and their consequences, rather than bury the memories, ignore responsibility, or rationalize his behaviour. It impels the offender to make amends, thereby helping the victim and improving his own life. And because V.O.R. forces the offender to confront the victim, and mobilizes everyone to deal with the underlying issues that lead to the criminal behaviour, it is effective.

After all, what is more likely to reduce recidivism: an authentic, deep and personal examination of one’s actions, their consequences, and the acceptance of responsibility, or a jail cell where an offender is taught little conflict management or other skills? What is more likely to empower victims and to help offenders change direction: a process that encourages everyone to tackle the underlying factors that lead to the crime, or a prison sentence where the offender develops bonds with others who are also leading a life of crime? The benefits of restorative justice to the victim who heals emotionally and to the offender who humanizes his victim are simply greater than any money-saving measure.

And while it is difficult to measure what the cost savings are, surely reconciliation is more cost-effective than imprisonment. The cost of incarceration is extremely high, ranging from $89,000 to $250,000 per year. This cost does not include the eventual costs to society of unemployable, beaten or unstable individuals, once they are released from jail.

But “law-and-order” politicians and our current Conservative government continue to charge anyone who opposes the backward and Draconian push for more jails and longer sentences as being “soft on crime.” They regularly accuse detractors of not caring about victims.

If we truly care about victims, however, we must help them cope and heal. Victim-offender reconciliation programs across North America have proven that the process of restorative justice can do just that, in a way that no tough sentence alone can ever do.

According to the CBC and the Edmonton Journal, the $351,000 per year grant (the equivalent of incarcerating two inmates for one year) helped victims and offenders in 218 criminal cases in one single year (2009). With each case bringing together at least one offender and often more than one victim as well as mediators, the $351,000 helped over 436 victims and offenders, and brought together 1000 or more people. Try stuffing that in a jail cell.

(To read the reflections of an ex-offender on restorative justice and the London riots, see this article: Restorative Justice After the Riots?)

Routinely, attempts by idealistic candidates to make nuanced and in-depth analysis of issues is spurned, abused and replaced with shallow, simplistic statements, ungrounded assertions and mud-slinging.

One of the latest recipients of this mud-slinging is Liberal candidate John Reilly, a former Alberta Provincial Court Judge. On a radio interview with Calgary’s QR77, he discussed the Tory’s crime agenda. He attempted to provide some nuanced, realistic, thoughtful insight on mandatory minimum sentences. The Tories are hoping that this reasoned analysis will cost Reilly his political aspirations.

If you have not read over the transcript of that infamous and grossly misinterpreted radio interview, then reserve your judgement and discard any attacks you have heard so far. Read the transcript here.

On the program, John Reilly distinguished between two opposing views on the purpose of criminal law: punishment and vengeance versus reduction of crime and rehabilitation. He mentioned the hazards of Tory laws that will put thousands more people into our jails, will cost us billions, and will NOT reduce crime, but will have an overall harmful effect (which tends to be greater recidivism). When the conversation turned to mandatory minimum sentences, the former judge pointed out that you cannot treat all crimes the same way.

The host asked if there are occasions when someone should not go to jail after having committed an offence (and he listed a series of offences that are generally considered serious.) Reilly contended that in some cases, a jail sentence or a mandatory minimum sentence (as the Tories are proposing) of three years is not appropriate. The examples he cited were: some drug offences, some assaults causing bodily harm, and some sexual offences. In each case, he gave an example of a real offender that had been before him and why, in those circumstances, a mandatory minimum sentence of over two years was not appropriate (though a conviction and a different sentence, including jail, could be appropriate.)

If Judge Reilly had focused only on the small-time drug dealer and addict in need of help, or on his aggravated assault example of a drunk woman who seriously injured a man at whom she was trying to throw the beer in her glass, and argued that given the facts of those cases and the accuseds’ backgrounds, they should not be sent to jail for three years, no headlines would have been made. No one would have called his comments outrageous or shameful.

But then, heaven forbid anyone should speak of sexual assault with some nuance. In my opinion, it’s not that Harper or the Conservatives are champions of women’s rights and a protector of woman victims, but that they saw an opportunity to feed Reilly and the Liberals to the vultures, and they seized it. In so doing, they (and anyone else who outright condemned Reilly) removed all nuance and all intelligence out of the discussion of sentencing and mandatory minimum sentences.

But what did Judge Reilly really say? Did he say that men who commit sexual assault should not be held accountable? No! Did he say that no perpetrators of sexual assault should go to jail? No! Did he say that no doesn’t always mean no? No!

What he did say is that a judge needs to examine the facts of each case, as well as the accused person who is before him. (Judges routinely do this in every case. Is the person a first-time offender? Is he remorseful? Has he taken any steps to make a positive change? Was he in a position of trust? Etc. ) He said that there are different kinds of sexual assault, and that they should not all be treated the same.  Indeed, not every sexual assault deserves a three-year penitentiary sentence, and some deserve way more.

Harper and everyone else who’s vilified Reilly want to suggest that all sexual assaults should have an arbitrarily set minimum penitentiary sentence: whether you are a 19-year-old who makes a condemnable, wrong, and misguided decision (for which Judge Reilly never said you should not be held accountable) or a serial sexual predator who creeps into women’s homes at night and assaults them, or a priest in a position of trust who abuses young people in his charge. Judge Reilly was merely saying that these different accused persons should not be treated the same way. And he is right: take a hypothetical sexual assault example: an 18 or 19-year-old who has no prior convictions, who regrets his actions, wants to apologize, or to take some courses related to gender issues, one who made a terrible, wrong and one-time decision while intoxicated, should not be sent to the penitentiary for three years. A judge should be permitted to examine the entire context and make the call for the appropriate sentence.

It is even entirely possible that, in this specific case, the victim of the sexual assault, had she been involved in the decision-making, would have of her own free will and using her own sense of what happened, her own knowledge of the perpetrator and her own rational mind, asked for a less Draconian sentence than 3 years in the pen.

What is shameful is that even Reilly’s own party leader permitted the lies and misconceptions about what Reilly said to continue. In attempting to distance himself from Reilly’s alleged stance, Michael Ignatieff failed to seize an opportunity (I will admit, not the easiest one) of saying, “Hey, this judge never said we should overlook or go easy on sexual assault. He simply said that there are different kinds of criminal acts and they should be treated differently.” Igantieff could have further clarified that Reilly’s comments in no way exonerate or give an excuse to men who do not obtain a woman’s consent prior to any sexual acts. He could have even added that Reilly’s cursory description, in the circumstances, was problematic because it could mislead some idiotic misogynists to inappropriately conclude that a woman’s sexual attitude obviates the need to get her consent.  Instead, he said that Reilly’s comments were “outrageous” and “unacceptable.”

Ignatieff didn’t fire his candidate, but he did not stand up for truth, justice, intelligence and nuance either. Unfortunately, this cowardly attitude has been prevalent in the Liberal (and, to some extent, NDP) approaches to crime.

While Reilly did not use the smartest example, politically, to make his point, and while his explicit description of the sexual assault is too much for our conservative society and likely intensified the negative reaction, he did not, as the Tories would have us believe, excuse sexual assault or lay the blame for it on women.

In this last debacle, it was not just John Reilly who was turned into a dartboard and shot at by Conservatives, Liberals and the media alike. Justice was also made a victim. Humanity and our struggles were turned into a two-dimensional comic, where hyperbole ruled the day, context was completely ignored, and deep, rational analysis was sacrificed.

In the end, all Canadians lose when we eliminate any nuance and analysis from our discussions about the justice system.

Many such events have occurred in Canada in the past few years: police violence and abuse of power during the G20; the death of Ashley Smith while in the custody of an oppressive, neglectful and abusive prison system; the R.C.M.P. beatings of prisoners (on the radar only because they were caught on video). But despite all the effort, thought, cooperation and money that goes into reviewing or investigating these horrific abuses of power, there is not a smidgen of a hope that there will be enough fundamental change so that we can avoid the same tragedies in the future.

When there are investigations, and if such investigations are lead by civilians, as opposed to the police (who often excuse the wrongful or criminal behaviour of their brethren), they usually end with a list of recommendations. These recommendations rarely lead to new policies and laws. But even if new policies are implemented in response to the recommendations, what then?

Here is where I get cynical.

 Changes in laws and policies are useful and are indicators of our moral compass. But they achieve little. They give false hope.

 Law and policies, alone, do not make for a just society. They do not prevent police abuse of power or prison guard disdain and apathy.

 During the G20 summit in Toronto, the police knew that what they were doing to protestors and non-protestors alike violated our basic Charter rights. They knew that nearly all the people they were detaining or arresting had not committed a criminal offence. They knew that threatening rape, breaking off someone’s prosthetic leg, leaving people in the pouring rain, holding handcuffed people without food, water, or bathrooms, or caging them in cold, crammed cells was all illegal, contrary to existing policies, and otherwise inhumane and unacceptable in our society. Yet they did it all anyway.

 So far, the police have rationalized their behaviour. They continue to reject criticism. They do not see themselves as answerable to the people they harmed or to Canadians, in general. They ignore the call for accountability.

 For any police officers who were disgusted by what was going on –and I have no doubt that there were many– none have had the courage to come forward. That is a sad but not surprising reality, as speaking up against their brothers would be career suicide. I hope that, in time, some of them will work up the courage to break ranks and describe what they know.

As for the guards and prison officials in Ashley Smith’s case, had they wished, they could have seen that her deteriorating mental condition was a direct result of her incarceration. They could have seen the oppressive and horrendous consequences of her mistreatment and prolonged solitary confinement.

Yet they went about their daily business. They ran the jails, but did not care for the inmates. There were plenty of regulations in place to prevent a death like Ashley’s, but none of them helped in the face of the tired, frustrated, apathetic, resentful or short-sighted institutional staff.

History and experience teach us that governments and the police can ignore, interpret and revise rules, policies, and rights to suit their own ends. In Western democratic societies, we have placed obstacles to prevent such abuse of power. But those procedural safeguards and entrenched rights are often seen merely as that- obstacles to overcome. They were overcome during the G20, and they will be overcome again, unless a much more fundamental transformation takes place.

What will lead to such a transformation? What is that key factor that will ensure that abuse at the hands of the state does not occur?

Empathy and empathy training. They are the only means and hope for fundamental change.

If people in power are trained to deal with others with empathy, then even bad laws, such as the Regulation under the Public Works Protection Act which was enacted for the benefit of the police during the summit, would cause less harm and damage. If a cop has empathy and basic human respect for others, he won’t threaten, mock, or use abusive language, even when attempting to search people under a Regulation that should have never been revived from its war-time tomb.

If people in authority exercise empathy, they will jump to the rescue of those who need them, regardless of institutional rules or protocol. With empathy, they will not dehumanize another because she or he is drunk, is black, is homeless, is Native, is a prostitute, or is the voice of dissent.

But our individualistic, legalistic society distrusts such apparently vague and relational principles. We don’t trust one another to treat each other with respect and empathy, so we rely solely on the rule of law- a cold, “objective” law. We’ve surrendered our rights and well-being entirely to laws and policies. We’ve put our trust and hope in our governments and their ability to legislate what’s good. We’ve abandoned notions of community, of taking care of one another, of empathy.

But without empathy, even good laws and policies will be put to bad use.

People fear that an officer with empathy will be weak. We expect our police to be tough, and we equate being tough with being uncaring, even callous. But there is nothing that supports the notion that an officer cannot do his or her job competently and properly– cannot investigate, apprehend, and arrest someone– while at the same time respecting a person as a human being, despite the officers’ dislike of the actions attributed to that person.

Police can arrest an alleged thief without beating her up or mocking her. They can calm a street person who may be breaching the peace and is off his medication without dragging him to an isolated area, beating him, or shooting him. They can deal with protestors whom they want dispersed without acting like there is an epic battle taking place at the corner of Queen and Spadina.

Kettling at Queen and Spadina Photo by Jonas Naimark

 What police officer would want his own family members subjected to those same conditions that protestors and by-standers were subjected to during the summit? What jail guard would want her own ill child jailed and then shipped from institution to institution without any help?

Empathy and compassion would not make a weak police force. On the contrary, in our democratic society, such qualities would make for better policing. Treating others with dignity would even have the added benefit that the police and many members of society want: more convictions against people who have committed offences, whose charges will not be stayed (dismissed, basically) because the cops broke the accused’s jaws, beat him up, denied him medical attention, and then lied about it.

If every weapon-carrying or other representative of state power treated those under his/her control with empathy, our entire system, including our jails, would be not only more humane, but also more effective. The people leaving those institutions might come out with better conflict resolution skills, a greater trust in other human beings, a clearer hope, or a greater determination to change.

The police attempt to engage our empathy when they break laws or breach our rights. “The police had a tough job to do under very difficult circumstances,” is an oft repeated slogan of the police when describing what occurred during the G20. And, in fact, we (the courts, the media, the public) often do treat officers with empathy when they break the laws. If every individual officer and every police force is trained to incorporate that same level of empathy into their own work, then we would have much better relations with our police, far fewer breaches of fundamental rights, no more criminal activity than we do now, and a far more civil society.

This is so because when people peacefully band together to achieve positive change, that change will eventually arrive.  The power of the collective, united human spirit to guide its destiny toward greater equality, democracy, and justice can be temporarily impeded, but it cannot be forever beaten.

But what do demonstrations in oppressive regimes where public gatherings are usually met with the fatal force of the military or police have to do with us in Canada?  Plenty.  These events teach the skeptics among us two things:  first, protests do change the course of history;   second, we must resolutely defend our right to protest peacefully.

Recall just a few months ago when critics derided Toronto’s G20 protestors for trying to effect change through demonstrations.  “Protests achieve nothing,” they jeered.  “If you go out and protest, then you’ve got to accept the risk that the police may beat you or arrest you, so quit complaining.”  These detractors had no sympathy for the cause or the fate of the protestors.

Even once image after image, account after account, revealed shocking police abuse of power during the G20, these critics seemed to regard the incidents as excusable exceptions.   The entire country should have been on the verge of revolt, so to speak, at least to denounce the actions of the police and the complacency of our government.  Yet none of that happened. The apathetic sentiment continued, “Why bother protesting?” “Protests may be a necessary ‘evil’ in dictatorships or in countries where people have no other means of participating in government, but they are a waste of time and unworthy of protection in Canada.”

In other words, while oppressed people are justified in demonstrating against state tyranny, people living in democracies should not indulge in such vulgarities. Or, if they do protest, they should accept a little police brutality.

These conclusions run counter to our democratic principles.

The right of individuals and groups to voice their opinions directly, openly, and through the most basic method of participation in demonstrations is a fundamental element of democracy, is essential for its survival and instrumental to both attaining and promoting it.

Without people’s desire to participate, democracy is rendered meaningless.

Demonstrations are particularly important in capitalist democracies because they give voice to disenfranchised members of society, allowing them to partake in democracy alongside the more powerful in a manner that is more accessible than making submissions to Parliament or writing policy papers. No other form of democratic participation offers this crucial benefit.

Demonstrations give people a sense of belonging and solidarity, which helps to strengthen their resolve and determination to make change.

When properly conducted and properly reported in the media, demonstrations grant visibility and exposure to issues that are otherwise ignored.

Specifically, the annual demonstrations during the G8/G20 summits send a message to leaders about the priorities of large segments of society:  focus on the environment;  don’t abandon the poor;  reinforce Aboriginal rights; stop corporations from committing or enabling human rights violations in other countries which we would not tolerate in our own democracies.

If Canadians and Americans, or, for that matter, Egyptians and Iranians avoid protests for fear of being arrested, assaulted, detained and threatened by the state, or for the pessimistic view that nothing will change, then, indeed, nothing will change.   Democracy will never be attained nor, once attained, will it survive without people’s ability and desire to participate directly in their own governance.

Martin Luther King Jr. said, “There is more power in socially organized masses on the march than there is in guns in the hands of a few desperate men.” That conviction holds as true now as it did sixty years ago.

Of course, it is perhaps for all these same reasons that so many people, the police, and the state often fear and attempt to curtail demonstrations.

It is, therefore, never more important to protect our democratic rights to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom from unlawful and abusive police (state) interference with our rights than when people voice dissent and try to participate, peacefully, in democracy. To punish them for their participation is an attack against democracy.  If we reserve demonstrations only for dictatorships, we in the free world will surely lose our own liberty.

Every Canadian must defend and value our right to protest peacefully.  We owe it to our fellow human beings in the Middle East.  And our democracy depends on it.

(To see a short list of demonstrations that changed history…or at least, gave it a helping hand, click here: http://justicerequiresempathy.wordpress.com/?p=140&preview=true)

The March on Washington of 1963: 250, 000 people poured onto the streets to demand civil and political equality for African Americans- a pivotal moment in the American people’s struggle to end overt racism and inequality.

Tiananmen Square, 1989:  About one million Chinese people who peacefully occupied Tiananmen Square for nine weeks were suddenly met with army tanks, with fatal results.  Change has come at snail’s pace in China, but should these brave protestors  have returned home and continued to live under Chinese dictatorship and not fought for freedom?

Revolution against the Revolution, June, 2009: The people of Iran demonstrated in massive numbers  after the allegedly fixed elections of that same month.  They were met with curfews, bullets, arrests, beatings and a couple of executions.   The people did not get what they wanted then, but they are back on the streets now, in Jan-February of 2011.

The Storming of the Bastille in 1789:  So this is not the most peaceful form of mass or popular resistance (afterall, the guillotine is famous from this portion of history).  However, the relatively small demonstration did mark the beginning of the French Revolution, the beginning of the end of French monarchy, and the eventual democratization of France.

For a very detailed list of protests and similar events that changed the course of history, see Google’s outline from 1500 to 2011:

http://www.google.ca/#q=protests+that+changed+history&hl=en&sa=X&tbs=tl:1,tll:1500,tlh:1549,tl_num:28&prmd=ivns&ei=cOhdTZisAojGgAeRyJ2fDQ&ved=0CF8QywEoAw&fp=1ba74468d0c8a162

(For two recent articles on the topic, see  Kirk Makin’s reports in the Globe and Mail from January 2011, below:  http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/why-canadas-prisons-cant-cope-with-flood-of-mentally-ill-inmates/article1879501/
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/prisons-grapple-with-increase-in-mentally-ill-female-inmates/article1884243/  )

Each time, these exposés reveal the same tragedies:  There are far too many people who suffer from mental health problems in jail.  Jails are not the appropriate place for the treatment of the mentally ill.  Jails and jail conditions often exacerbate people’s already compromised mental health.  Each time, it appears that we have a mental health “crisis” in our justice system.

But the mental health “crisis” is not news.  It’s been an ongoing problem and shame for our society.

Some readers may be surprised at what these reports reveal.  But the fact that those institutionalized for having committed society’s most condemned acts are, themselves, suffering, should not be a surprise.

A person who turns to crime, especially violent crime, or one who returns to crime repeatedly, cannot be whole.

Crime is rarely an option chosen by rational people who have decent options in life.  When a child is asked, “What do you want to be when you grow up,” the excited response is not, “I want to be a criminal.  I want to be drunk in public and do crazy things. I want to steal and beat up people, and shoot in a drive-by.” Crime is not the dream of a child.

And yet a chain of events usually leads some people to acts of crime.

In the majority of these cases, those people are not whole.  The chain of events chipped away at their mental health, at their stability, at their innocent and hopeful view of life.  The chain of events stripped away many of their options.

Of course, such circumstances generally do not abdicate an offender of responsibility.  But given our role in perpetuating these conditions, we must change our approach to crime.

After all, who else is responsible for the damage?  Who else is responsible for the untreated depression?  Who is responsible for the suffering and harm that result from a broken mental health system that often offers people drugs but no other support?  Who is responsible for the neglect and abuse a child receives?  Who is responsible for ignoring that neglect and abuse, for not lending a hand to the family that so badly needed it?  Who is responsible to parents who work at full-time minimum wage jobs, but who then don’t make enough to buy food and pay the rent, let alone save for college, pay for tutoring, or get qualified and sufficient counseling when needed?  Who is responsible for the lack of love, care, and attention in a child’s life, because his or her parent(s) were drunk, manic, or absent?  Who is responsible for throwing the mentally ill in jail (and then acting disappointed and angry, when that person commits another crime?)

We are.  The community is responsible.

We saw it coming and we turned away.

We saw the need for help and we ignored it.

We found it easier to say, “Well, the parents are responsible.”  “A tough childhood doesn’t justify turning to violence later.”

Yet we know that certain factors certainly lead to deteriorated mental health.  And we know that people with serious mental health problems are disproportionately represented in our jails.  We know that certain factors are more likely to lead to a life of trouble with the law.  We know all this, and yet we ease our conscience by abdicating our responsibility.  We know that A leads to B, and we do nothing to intervene.  We provide no support.  And then we cry in shock, shake our heads, and condemn people when A did lead to B.  We throw people in prison, when we know that prisons are ineffective as a place to rehabilitate people.  We relegate the mentally ill to jails, but provide them with no services to address their ailments.

And then we do it all over again, knowing what is to come.

If we want to fix it, we have to prevent it.

If we want justice, we have to seek it together, right from the start.

We have to collaborate to make us all: victims, offenders, and the community, whole.

Imagine what would have happened that first time a young man was charged with theft or robbery if we did things differently.  What if, instead of dealing with him in court, where we largely ignored him or his victims and where just handed him a quick sentence (whether apparently lenient or apparently harsh), we involved him, his victims, and his community?

What if he really listened to and heard about the impact of his actions?  What if the victims and others in the community listened to what got him there?  What if they caught the beginnings of a mental illness?  What if the community observed that the young man had little support at home: his single mother was working around the clock at jobs which provided little security.  He has very few of those extras that might make our children’s lives rich: the security of not worrying about where his food will come from, knowing that his father will be home to speak to him about his day, loving and available grandparents, engaging activities, and most importantly, the knowledge that he is moving forward, that there is hope for progress in his life, that he can make an improvement in his life and his family’s life.

What if everyone was involved in righting this wrong, and making each other and themselves whole?

The young man would likely take responsibility for his actions, and attempt to make it up to his victims.  He would practice empathy. He could see his own ability to make a positive impact on others and himself.  His self-esteem would gain a boost.

In the process, he becomes a whole person to his victims, who feel less anxious and afraid, having gotten to know the person who harmed them.  They feel more healed by participating in the process, where the offender accepted accountability and tried to help them.  And what’s more, as so often happens in true collaborative justice, the victims and the community step in to support the young man so that he can choose a different path in the future.  If the beginnings of a mental illness are discovered, the community may pitch in with support: financial or services, to help him and his family manage the illness.

Put aside our needs to condemn and to blame.  Replace it with empathy and with accountability by all, and amazingly, we are likely to see a lot less crime.

The presence of so many people with mental health problems in the criminal justice system shows us how wasteful and immoral is our individualistic, punishment-oriented approach.

We cannot expect our government to take care of our people if we, ourselves, do not want to be bothered, want to go our merry way, want to turn a blind eye.  It’s time that we, as communities, stepped in and held ourselves accountable.

I believe that most people can be more rational and reasonable than that.  I hope that most people, when faced with a more comprehensive report of the events, will open their minds and modify their views.

To further our understanding of that weekend, I provide you with a list of what I believe are the must-see videos relating to that weekend.  For those who somehow also missed the infinitely played videos of burning police cars, I will provide those links, too (though I ask you to consider why the police, who had planned for months for this summit and had, according to them, deep knowledge of any clandestine activity, had left their cruisers in the middle of major intersections and abandoned them there.)

Here is the list:

1.  IF YOU ONLY WATCH ONE VIDEO, THIS MUST BE IT…

Queen and Spadina kettling:   On Saturday, June 26th, at the corner of Queen and Spadina, the RCMP and other police forces formed several “kettles,” advising people to go in a different direction while trapping them and leaving them no choice but to stay in ever more ominous and tightening police squares.  This is a video from the earlier part of the kettling (before the skies opened up and it started to pour.)   This video is posted by Jason,  “thedigitalliberty,” who attended the protests with his sister.  It is a telling account of the desperation and innocence of the people who were caught in the Orwellian nightmare.

2.  THIS IS NOT CANADA

To see an example of police abuse of powers and of search and detention way beyond the security fence perimeter, watch this video of a mixed police team (appears to be a team of York Regional police and Toronto police).  When questioned about his authority to search and turn away people from public streets under Canadian law, one officer quips, “This isn’t Canada, this is G20 Land” (at 3:59).    At 1:37, an officer physically handles a pedestrian in a manner that would almost certainly result in an arrest, were it the civilian who grabbed the officer.  The officers then keep moving in a line to push the peaceful pedestrian back, until he is caught between the police and the subway steps behind him.  At 3:23, an officer claims, “This is our area.”  The pedestrians keep insisting that they are not even near the “5 metres,” but relying even on this fallacious and police-declared rule does not get them anywhere.

3. PROTESTERS OR AGENTS PROVOCATEURS?

One of the first and repeated images that the public saw of the demonstrations in Toronto was of supposed Black Block members damaging property and setting police cars on fire.  Yet it is a known fact that the police sometimes plant “agents provocateurs” among crowds of demonstrators.  These are undercover police officers who act like a member of the public in demonstrations, but then may instigate or encourage violence, after which uniformed police make arrests of citizens who may have joined the undercover cops.   The maker of this video examined some suspicious activity and appearances by alleged “Black Block” members, and complied a montage.  Although there is no conclusive evidence, the question of which “protesters” and instigators were the police and which were real demonstrators is a valid one…one that may never be answer unless we have a full public inquiry.

4.  MORE HARASSING OUTSIDE OF THE PERIMETRES OF THE SECURITY FENCE..THIS TIME SEVERAL KILOMETRES AWAY.

An independent film-maker is harassed and asked for ID in a location more than 3 km away from the summit location.

5.  DETAILED ACCOUNT OF ONE PERSON’S EXPERIENCE

Tommy Taylor’s account was one of the first to be circulated

http://illicitpopsiclecollective.wordpress.com/2010/07/01/tommy-taylor-how-i-got-arrested-and-abused-at-g20-in-toronto-canada/

6. EVERYONE’S A TARGET:

Jesse Freeston of the the Real News reports on police attacks against a deaf person, journalists, and other protesters.

7.   RANDOM GRABBING AND THE REACTION OF THE CROWD AT QUEEN’S PARK:

8.  FOR ACCOUNTS ON THE CONDITIONS IN THE SO-CALLED DETENTION CENTRE:

9.  DETENTION FOR HOURS IN A CROWDED POLICE VAN, WHILE HANDCUFFED, WET, UNABLE TO GET FRESH AIR:

10:  BURNING POLICE CARS

There are many major news reports as well as YouTube videos which shows images of burning police cars.  Here is one:

http://www.cbc.ca/video/player.html?category=News&zone=canada&site=cbc.news.ca&clipid=1531278854

If you believe that there is a video which is a “must-see,” you may write to me at justicerequiresempathy@gmail.com