As the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health discussed the Cannabis Act last week, there has been a lot of chatter about providing expedited – if not free and automatic – pardons to people with simple possession convictions.
This is a step in the right direction, but there are thousands of other people with different kinds of criminal records who are now law-abiding, yet face discrimination as it relates to employment and access to other basic necessities who need similar consideration to become fully contributing members of Canadian society.
SO WHAT?! ALL CRIMES ARE PROSECUTED OFTEN LONG AFTER THE FACT OF THEIR COMMISSION, WHEN THE GUILTY PARTIES ARE NO LONGER CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGERS! THE MERE PASSAGE OF TIME DOESN'T VOID ONE'S GUILT NOT EXEMPT ONE FROM PAYING FOR WHAT ONE HAS TAKEN FROM OTHERS! YOU ARE ONLY TRYING TO DEPRIVE INNOCENT PEOPLE OF THEIR OWN RIGHT TO DISCRIMINATE BETWEEN THOSE WHO HAVE CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED PREDATORY INTENT AND ACTIONS FROM THOSE WHO HAVEN'T SHOWN A PROPENSITY TO DO SO!
Thanks to the previous federal government, we have a two-tiered system in place for people who want (and need) their criminal record sealed. Apart from the lengthy wait-times and strict eligibility criteria introduced under the Safe Streets and Communities Act in 2012, the $631 application fee is enough to deter many from applying for a record suspension (formerly known as a pardon).
There are often other costs associated with the application process that can increase the price to around $1,000 – making it an impossible cost for those living in poverty.
For the most part, people want to apply for a record suspension so that they can find employment. Without a record suspension, employers can access all conviction information which limits access to higher paid and permanent jobs. The reality is that without a job, people cannot save the money required to have their record sealed.
This leaves many individuals stuck in a cycle of unemployment and poverty, and often means they rely on social assistance or break the law to meet their basic needs.
NO, POVERTY DOES NOT CAUSE CRIME; ONE'S CRIMINAL CHOICES CAUSE POVERTY!
To date, there have been successful legal challenges in Ontario and British Columbia with respect to the changes made to the Criminal Records Act by asserting that they infringe upon the charter rights of individuals with criminal records.
WAIT - WHAT?! CRIMINALS HAVE A "CHARTER RIGHT" TO NOT BE IDENTIFIED AS OR CALLED "CRIMINALS," BASED ON THEIR OWN INTENTIONALLY CHOSEN ACTIONS?!
B.C. Supreme Court Justice Heather MacNaughton wrote in her decision that “a criminal record is punishment” and that the changes made by the previous federal government act in opposition to principles of rehabilitation and public safety.
WELL, NO DUH! OF COURSE A CRIMINAL RECORD IS PUNISHMENT, BUT IT'S A WELL KNOWN AND PREDICTABLE CONSEQUENCE OF ONE'S OWN PREDATORY CHOICES!
While these decisions mean that people in Ontario and B.C. can apply for pardons under the pre-2012 system, they are still required to pay the $631 user fee to access protections guaranteed under the Canadian Human Rights Act.
In January 2016, Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale announced that reforming the Criminal Records Act was a priority for the Liberal government. He acknowledged that the changes made under the previous government were unnecessarily punitive and that the $631 application fee was far too high. In December 2016, Public Safety Canada conducted a public consultation, but the results of that survey have yet to be released.
While many criminalized people wait for action, many individuals and organizations who work with them support a free and automatic pardon process as is the practice in jurisdictions like the United Kingdom and in our own youth justice system. A more streamlined record management process would allow people with criminal records to access various social domains such as employment, education, travel, safe housing and volunteer opportunities, and would better support meaningful integration into the community.
YOU MUST MEAN "SELF-CRIMINALIZED PEOPLE." BECAUSE BY DEFINITION CRIME REQUIRES A PREDATORY INTENT AND CHOICE TO ACT ON IT WHEREBY THE PERSON THEREBY CHOOSES TO BECOME A "CRIMINAL" - IT'S NOT A FORM OF INEXPLICABLE ACCIDENT OR MYSTERIOUS TRAGEDY WHICH SOMEHOW JUST HAPPENS TO THEM!
People should not have to pay for human rights protections and continue to be punished well after they have served their debt to society. To continue with the status quo as it relates to pardons in Canada is not only harmful to the criminalized, but to us all.
WRONG! YOUR PLAN WOULD DEPRIVE THE INNOCENT CITIZENS - PEOPLE WHO HAVE NOT COMMITTED ANY CRIMES - OF THEIR RIGHT TO KNOW OF AND ASSESS THE INHERENT DANGERS PRESENTED BY THOSE WHO HAVE CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED - AS IN "WERE VETTED BY THE LEGAL PROCESS" - THEIR OWN CRIMINAL PROPENSITY.
Fundamental reforms to the Criminal Records Act were needed yesterday and the federal government needs to act now.
Samantha McAleese is a PhD candidate in sociology at Carleton University and a member of the Criminalization and Punishment Education Project.
WELL, THAT EXPLAINS IT, THEN! CARLETON UNIVERSITY LOL! THE MOST LEFTOPATHIC OF ALL OF CANADA'S HIGHER-LEARNING MENTAL INSTITUTIONS!
"BUT WHAT UNDERLIES THIS LOCK-STEP AVOIDANCE OF RATIONALITY AND COMMON-SENSE FACTS IN SUCH PLACES, VLAD?" ONE MIGHT WELL ASK ME.
WELL ... It's because all the "soft science" humanities ask Why, not How, we do things. Asking Why posits no free-will conscious choice exists, because we are all merely victims at the mercy of mysterious, unknown and unknowable yet somehow also "inevitable" forces beyond our control. Like this:
Law-abiding Conservatives: "Criminal behavior is an effect of free-will choice!"
Criminal libertines: "But what CAUSED that choice? There's always a cause!"
Their implication is that there are no crimes nor criminals because we're all "victims."
But since rational people get angry with criminals for their predatory choices, and criminals insist they have no choices because we're all equally victims who should therefore tolerate the diverse differences between the kind of "victim" who attacks innocent others first, and those who don't, they must insist pity is always good and anger is always bad. Besides, virtue-signalling one's pity, ("compassion") in stead of showing one's anger, ("hate!") no matter how righteous or justified, is a lot less risky than accusing potentially violent and personally dangerous criminals of their crimes.
So these days, pitying the victims (and the criminals AS victims,) is held up by the cliques of cowards in government, media and education as the highest moral virtue, while being angry or "hateful" towards criminals and crime is held the most vile sin.
But what is really more useful in remedying crime: being angry at criminals for their predatory choices, or encouraging them to commit more crimes by pitying them as helpless victims too? Dynamic, hopeful anger - or static, useless and fearful pity?
The answer is obvious ... but not to any of these mavens of "Higher Education."
CAPISCE?
;-)
No comments:
Post a Comment