It Could Get Worse; Bill C-10 and the Tyranny of the Soccer Moms
Stand in front of a mirror.
Yell:
“Bill C-10. Bill C-10. Bill C-10.”
Has Rob Nicholson jumped out and sentenced you to prison yet?
Nicholson, for those of you not living in fear like myself, will be our driver of the Omnibus stratight to hell.
Something old
A lot of hyperbole has come along with the debate around this package of new crime legislation.
No column inch has been spared to tell us about the seemingly-endless stream of regressive measures that will see us all imprisoned. And there’s also been plenty of documentation about why that’s bad.
But why, I wonder, does the Wicked Witch of the West Block want to enact such Draconian measures on us, the hapless peasants?
I’m sure, that in the cockles of his heart (whatever they are,) Stephen Harper and his Tory caucus aren’t out to hassle 17-year-old pot smokers.
They don’t the charges that when those pot-smokers will be sentenced to prison, they’ll likely wind up with organized crime and eventually go on to commit acts otherwise unfathomable in their burnt-out teenage minds. It’s not that Stephen Harper don’t care - he doesn’t believe it. He believes that Timmy Pothead really will get scared onto the straight and narrow. Maybe he will.
But the problem is that we’re under the tyranny of the soccer moms.
There are certain altruisms that mothers are remarkably good at putting across. Don’t eat before going swimming. Don’t swallow your gum or it’ll be there for years. Don’t go outside with wet hair or else you’ll get a cold. Imposing a 5-year sentence on a young offender with an ounce of pot will be a blow to the criminal establishment, deter future criminals and reform that young offender.
Old wives tales.
But they’re certainly true to mothers. You can show your mum all the scientific studies you want - she’ll shrug, give you a look and tell you to dry your damn hair off before you leave the house.
The Conservatives are not quite so ignorant, of course. They have studies. They have facts.
Everyone, on any side of an issue, has studies and facts. The point is - decision-making should weight that data and make an informed decision that encompasses all that data and moderates a position based on the best information possible.
But Stephen Harper will shrug, give you a look and lock the cell door.
In his mind, that’s good for his kids. Having one less ounce on the street means $100 less profit for a big-time dealer. It means cleaner streets. It means a system that does not tolerate a standard deviation from the legal.
Something new
The most objectionable part of this new bill is not the Conservative attitude towards crime - that’s nothing new. The issue is the establishment for mandatory minimums for minor crimes.
But acting like the will for such a move was created in a vacuum isn’t right.
For awhile now, the Conservatives have been griping about the courts being too lax. Without a doubt, they are. Rape, child pornography, assault - it’s common for these crimes to only come with a few years jailtime. That’s worrying. No society should accept that.
So, objecting to soft sentencing for heinous crimes by previous hand-writing governments is justifiable. Hand-wringing should be otherwise reserved for cereal purchases and choosing which of your children is your favorite. So I welcome with a firm handshake any provisions further ensuring that child predators are locked up.
But please, leave the potheads alone. Some of my best friends are potheads.
I think the problem may be that Stephen Harper has never met a stoner. If he had, he’d be wondering exactly why these people find everything so funny. He’d probably stop wondering why they want to murder his children (because, the answer is: they don’t.)
And here’s the biggest flaw in the Conservative logic - I’m not sure they have a concept of how many Canadians, at one point or another, have held an ounce of marijuana. It’s a big number. It contains a large number of normal, everyday folks. It contains a whole lot of weirdos and nutbars. It contains a lot of people who really like Call of Duty and Mitch Hedberg.
Those people could be considered ‘traffickers’ and could see years in a prison cell, if they were caught after this bill passes.
Something borrowed
The problem is that they’re relying on old, American, War On Drugs information. Looking at
Kady O’Malley’s liveblog from the Justice committee this past week, we have, as she puts it, “a modern re-imagining of Reefer Madness.”
Myths are abound.
The truth is: pot is not stronger than it was thirty years ago.
Marijuana is not a gateway drug.
Jailtime probably doesn’t work as a deterrent (probation probably does.)
But, like I said, just citing studies in the never-ended back-and-forth doesn’t mean much. What we really need are new ideas.
Something blue
There’s nothing wrong with wanting to keep your kids safe.
And a lot of the other ideas that seem to get banded about are really just more ideas that we’ve tried, and tried, and tried.
No reasonable person doesn’t want to get tough on crime. The problem is “Getting Tough on Crime™” - that implies a very narrow, dogmatic series of “answers.” Deviating from those “answers” is tantamount to allowing children to be murdered.
And some on the left are just letting that criticism sink in. Rather than standing up with new ideas, they just say “Crime is falling!” and leave it at that.
Yes, crime is falling. Let’s make it fall faster, but let’s not spend indiscriminately and lock up thousands of more people doing it.
Speak now, or forever hold your peace
It’s time to object to C-10. But it’s also time to reject the natural alternate that seems to be pushed by the opposition and some activists.
Let’s not talk about jailtime vs. rehabilitation. It’s not that simple.
Our justice system is failing thousands of Canadians. ‘Rehabilitation’ sounds nice on paper, but does it entail? A halfway house? Counseling? Not necessarily the best forms of crime prevention. (Not to say that they don’t have some place.)
So here’s what I propose - don’t scrap C-10. But don’t pass it, either.
The Conservatives want fast action on crime. Nobody will convince them that anything less than that is acceptable. What we should be trying to do is to convince them that there’s an alternative way to write this bill.
A bill that locks up sex offenders, but doesn’t ruin the futures of teenagers.
A bill that puts away rapists, but doesn’t incarcerate a non-violent pot dealer with two infant children.
A bill that protects us from organized crime, but doesn’t force small-time criminals into prison gangs.
This is possible. We need to talk about getting smart, tough, and compassionate - we can’t be just one or two.
Restorative justice. Improving education (or…don’t?) Fighting poverty. Offering community services. Engaging citizens. Re-imagining cities. There. Are. So. Many. Creative. Ways. To. Fight. Crime.
Yes, yes, we can talk about legalizing pot, too.
But for crissakes, can we stop limiting ourselves to - ‘Get Tough’ or ‘Rehabilitate’?
