Crime and the Closing of the Canadian Mind

One of the great perils of Canadian politics – for legislators no less than electors – lies in the necessity of making decisions that impact people we will likely never meet, in situations we will likely never know. Such blindfolded influence is present in all policy areas, but perhaps no more profoundly so than that of criminal justice.

In the construction of criminal prohibitions, we tell each other unambiguous stories: if X is wrong, then it is wrong regardless of place and irrespective of person. In an odd way, this may be a strand of our national cohesiveness, our democratic promise. Redrawing the boundaries of what counts as a crime, of course, is not a major topic of this year’s federal election (the Green Party’s call to legalize marijuana notwithstanding). What is at issue is how we – in each province, every region, from coast to coast to coast – are being asked to change they way we to respond to crimes when they occur.

Our choice in this regard is being couched in clear, alluring terms. Do we want to send a strong message to criminals? (of course). Do we want to stand up for victims? (you bet). Do we want a safer Canada? (Alleluia!). The answers are offered as inexorable: more people must be locked up for more crimes, and for longer. Simple.

Reforms to sentencing legislation, however, affect some Canadians much more than others. And it is not urban gangsters who come to mind, although these are the bogeymen we are being asked to imagine. In the Aboriginal communities where I work, the incidence of violence and substance abuse can be shockingly high, and persists as a grim symptom of cyclical trauma. In these places, victims and offenders are closely related, with sources of suffering and solace that are deeply enmeshed. Here, the cleaving punishment of long imprisonment is often not seen as an appropriate or effective response to wrongdoing, being not resonant with traditions that value relational healing over individual blame. This remains true even as Aboriginal communities have long been subject to the dictates and ideologies of a Canadian justice system that does not much share or seemingly understand such restorative approaches.

To the extent that any meaningful justice gets done in this intercultural environment, it is due largely to the ability of sentencing courts to moderate the law’s retributive ethic with an allowance to local wisdom. This can come by way of the advice of elders and community circles, in-depth investigations into an offender’s life circumstances, or appeals, direct or indirect, from the person(s) harmed by a criminal act. The end result, of course, is most clearly measured in sentences that are somewhat lower than the national ‘average’. But the importance of attempts to narrow the gaps between different traditions, while also attending to the immense needs that crime uncovers, is poorly reflected in mere numbers. The true effectiveness of any system of justice depends, not on its coercive power, but its moral authority. And in many Aboriginal communities, Canada’s legal apparatus has an unenviable record to work against. This is why the Supreme Court of Canada has strongly endorsed alternative responses to the travesty of high crime and incarceration rates in Aboriginal communities.

A roll-out of mandatory sentences would threaten the (small) gains that have been made in making criminal courts more alive to these realities, and may perversely make communities less safe for actual victims. Faced with the certainty of having family members jailed in far-away institutions, and returned, if at all, bearing the burdens of further embitterment, victims and witnesses of violent crimes and drug trafficking will be less inclined to make reports, seek support, and take the stand. At a time when the criminal justice system desperately needs to build confidence among vulnerable persons and communities, who equally need the security of reflective, responsive justice structures, these initiatives will push such possibilities further away.

The architects of this law-and-order agenda were quite obviously not thinking of the small minority of Canadians who live, and have always lived, in the vast majority of this country’s land. When you cast your ballot in this election, perhaps you could spare them a moment’s consideration. Your choice could tip a very important balance.

blockages and flows

I have been thinking about energy, in relation to criminal justice. If we (as a system) are not effectively engaging with the energies that necessarily arise in consequence of conflict or wrongdoing, we are effectively engaged in their frustration. So the value of such a system, perversely, becomes centrally that of the containment or neutralization of such energies. They are penned up by abstruse procedures, drowned out by inaccessible language, ruled out of order by the lords of this game.

I see my client seething, head in his hands, wanting only to release himself from a prison of body and mind. I hear myself telling him it can't be done, not today, not without scheduling this and filing that. We both look at a letter that has been carefully dictated by aging parents, pleading for him to return home, help them with the early springtime chores. But these frail, unilingual elders, the court says, will have to somehow traverse the winter road 200kms south if they want to make their support for their son official. Just to plead for his release. Our energies swirl, like a mad yet insufficient tempest, within the walls the law throws up. I escape, of course, at the end of every day, but men like these must live within them.

Sioux Lookout...

...is nestled where I could set out into the forest, stand, turn full circle, exclaim 'This is it!', and know it to be true for days in every direction. The unsubtle sovereignty of the boreal land, its many shades at once mute and loudly signalled in the very names of its trees - red pine, white pine, yellow cedar, black spruce. All still green despite four months of deep snow and sap-stilling temperatures. From 10,000 feet up, where I spend more and more of my mornings and sunsets, these colours and textures blend into more abstract patterns, of broad white lakes and dark woodlands, ivory rivers and bald cut-blocks, repeating outwards in apparently endless variety. Dotted down there, where I spend most of my middays, are the 49 communities of the Nishnawbe-Aski Nation. They range in size from a few hundred inhabitants to two thousand or more, and are only roughly summed up in terms of common features - there are at least three major indigenous languages (Cree, Oji-Cree, and Ojibway), three different treaties (9, 5, and 3), and histories as diverse but interconnected as the river systems that weave through its France-sized vastness.

I have no business, anyway, in describing the essence or identity of any of these places. Their similarities and differences may be plotted on any number of variables, and in any case, such graphs would map out only the merest of true stories. It is enough to say that I am sent in to all of these habitations with identical orders, as a member of a culture that prides itself on consistency and culture-blindness. It is enough - and true - to portray the justice system in this so-called 'remote' region as a paradigm of "us and them", because, although the system's values officially eschew such a reality, it is glaringly reflected in the faces of those who comprise criminal courts in all the reserves I've visited. On one hand, there is the 'us' (or 'them') of the professional suit-and-robe wearing cohort that descends from the southern horizon to call court in session, and retreats back there when the work is deemed done. On the other, the 'work' themselves - folks in boots, hats, or shackles, the ones whose surnames might mantle the very gyms the court erects itself in, whose families personalize a community's schools and clinics and gravestones. To one side the lawyers, to the other the (supposed) source of law. It is for the benefit of these people, our leaders proclaim, that legal arts are administered.

As defence counsel, of course, I needn't be disturbed by the absurdity of such claims. I could just put my head down and chew through the files, profit from the abundance of charges that bleed out of these communities. I help my clients navigate the labyrinths of the trouble they find themselves in - but it is a trouble increasingly defined and determined by the assumptions, (mis)conceptions, and judgments of a politically rigged system, not the environment of grounded, intelligible, and accountable justice that our politicians apparently promise. I could just keep doing this job. But my anger suggests that I shouldn't. Who would want hollow words to drown out the sound of wisdom?

Climate changes

This long silence describes a large circle. And, very soon, a Q.

Northern Ontario, whose seasons are marked by the adornments on pickups – from canoes to carcasses, snowploughs to skidoos – and whose courtrooms are counted on one or two hands – is a long way from urban BC. Both places, these past 18 months, have given me home, and both have been ground for digging away at the issues that this site addresses. A year in Vancouver let me observe how different courts speak and listen to the basic moral concepts of crime – guilt, responsibility, fairness and punishment – in a system of ‘summary’ (i.e. guilty plea-based) justice. Anyone interested in a 95,000 word exegesis on the topic is welcome to consult my LL.M. thesis, available here.


Done? Great. Now return with me to Thunder Bay, where very little seems to have changed. Since August, I've been back practicing criminal law, my year of research both a memory and a fleshy presence. This is where, for better or worse, we make sense of laws and lawbreaking. We do it as judges, or prosecutors, or defence lawyers. We do it as witnesses and spectators and journalists. We do it as accused persons and convicts, and we do it as victims. I do so with a bit of experience in a few of these roles; but each role contains innumerable variations. For all I have learned about the rules and strategies essential to my job, the basic fact remains: our courts are only effective insofar as they resound in the hearts of those whom they purport to command. And in Northern Ontario, the congestion of agendas, ideologies, and cultures that churn in every justice process seems particularly unhealthy.

Next week I'm relocating to Sioux Lookout, a small town closer to the centre of these apparent problems, and, I hope, some potential improvements. I will try to share what I learn there.

Do you know what our government is doing? (do they?)

Ultimately, it comes down to what those of us, with the problem in our laps, are able to do. We may be winded by malaise or cynicism, befuddled by the apparent incoherence of competition, or hobbled by our own or adversaries' anger, but these are all challenges that can be bravely faced, accepted and, sometimes, dissolved by the wisdom held within us. There are other impediments though, frustratingly constructed by our public representatives, that seem designed to stymie the worth of our best, most useful efforts. Specifically, I'm talking about the creeping incidence of laws creating mandatory jail sentences.

Over the course of its administration, the Federal Conservative government has introduced several pieces of criminal justice legislation under righteous-sounding baners such as "Tackling Violent Crime" and "Truth in Sentencing". All are aimed at winnowing and, in some instances ending, judges' discretion (and thus lawyers' sentencing advocacy), as having resulted in an unbalanced, over-liberal landscape that rewards wrongdoers and salts the wounds of victims. The perception is of courts who gleefully spend their days slapping law-abiding society in the face.

These legislative volleys, despite the crystelline Newspeak with which they are heralded, are driven by political and ideological gunpowder, not by evidence that they will actually do anything to make Canada (already - if you are not Aboriginal, addicted, and/or desperately poor - one of the safest places in the world) any more secure. But, all the same, they are easily applauded by the populace, and have sparked little dissent or debate in influential circles.

So why am I aggrieved? Unlike our government, I cannot assume to command the complete Truth on this or any issue. But I can tell you from experience that the consequences of this agenda will fall heaviest, and with the least justice, upon our most vulnerable citizens.

Imagine: you are being pummelled in an unfair fight; you are drunk; you retaliate with the nearest object; someone is suddenly bloodied. Such an act, according to our law, can constitute an aggravated assault. Before, a judge might be able to look at a spectrum of factors in deciding what to do: Has this happened before? Is the guy ok? Are you working, supporting a family, sorry for what you did, controlling the roots of it? People who commit crimes can be all these things. Before, I might be able to walk into a courtroom with a client big enough to admit a wrong, but not 'bad' enough to be sent to jail.

Now, impotent to even influence whether our not they will be going to jail, my clients and I are left with cold and polar options: plead not guilty (in spite of what one knows), forcing the prosecution to prove its case through the slow, heavy mechanism of a trial, or succumb to the certainty that an acceptance of responsibility is going to put them in jail. Often, our moral/mental cupboards swept bare of other resources and imagination, jail is indeed made unavoidable, but this need not always be the case. In an increasing number of otherwise reasonable circumstances, however, we are no longer allowed to ask.

the root of it

After a week of travel – early mornings squashed into small propeller planes, late exhausted evenings coming home – it’s hard to remember exactly where each day is spent. But then, such focus never has been easy. Each village is distinct, of course, unique, like every client and all the many families who cram the backs of varied public halls, but the truth of this is smothered by the tiredness, and, so sadly, the present nature of my trade.

I do not think I am being controversial by saying that, by and large, we do not know the people that we serve. And really, how could we? By training we are meant to parse apart, issue-spot and problem-solve, by numbers we are urban, old, and white, and by timing we are ragged and on-guard: confronted by a law-and-order clime, put-upon and underfunded, sweating out our anger in the growing gap between the paper rights we must protect and the barrier realities. For most in my profession, now, the fight is on, and the enemy is a state-fed public who doesn’t (until it happens to one of them) give two cents for the work we do. Fine – through three years of practice I know this as a worthwhile struggle, know that the thin-enough presumptions of fair trials and innocence would crumble without our persistent insistence, enervating though it may often be. This is a country-wide contest, fought with law-makers and opinion-spinners, cast in black-and-white and balance sheets. I will certainly support this lawyer’s role.

But something, small and deeper, is plaguing me as well. On a picnic bench outside the Armstrong court on summer’s first hot afternoon, an old man joins me as I’m picking through a soggy lunch. We talk, in the door-crack way we can, about his hundred dollar fine (criminal penalties are usually much lighter in the north, to accommodate our guilt and insufficiency), the healing lodge on Lake Nipigon, adopted daughters and the start of blueberry season. It is a rare and brief occasion to get to know a client, and, in theory and empathy at least, it will allow me to better represent him if by chance he needs my services again. Though I must thread everything through law, the greatest part of my usefulness is simply in telling someone’s story to a powerful stranger, to justify a particular outcome.

We merely pantomime this process when we do not know the people we serve. We go through official motions and obtain required results, but we do, as a system, next to nothing good for the humans and communities we serve. I know this because the same folks and families are brought back time and time again, the same witnesses don’t show, the same silences meet our ignorant pleas. Only divisions do this.

At the end of another long day of charades, in the hub that is Sioux Lookout’s airport, a probation officer opens up to me that he’s getting out of the game. “It’s absurd that I’m the one responsible for sentences. It’s ridiculous to expect me to be in charge of their change”. Millions of dollars are spent throwing us up into these communities, invested with everything but the essential knowledge and belonging true justice needs. The problem is immense, but solving it, I believe, begins with a simple admission: we are not the right ones for this job.

Say the names

I hardly need words to say that they carry meaning. Names, in particular, strike me as tiny ciphers of human history, syllables that, keenly listened to, tell much about how the past has marked us, and how we understand our now. In this part of the world, my mind and tongue constantly trip along the words of those for whom this place has always been home. This isn’t unique, of course, to northwestern Ontario: we are accustomed, in this country, to assuming custody over names that came long before their current designates. Our cities, parks and suburbs are swept through with original languages: Tadoussac and Mississauga, Ottawa and Saskatoon, Yoho and Penticton. But – in rendering stale such tantalising words – we are far less apt to remember their freshness, and taste again on our tongues the generous mingling of sound and story. Kakekeyash, Mishkegogamang. Achneepineskum and Neskantaga. Quequish, Ostamus – what do names really mean?

So many have been rendered ‘easy’, anglicised: Yellowhead, Big Trout, Summer Beaver, Roundsky, approximations and translations that eventually, through force of use and authority, find their way onto maps and family trees. Almost always, it seems, they are imposed over more intricate appellations. The change can disguise some fascinating shifts in perspective. A wise and charitable colleague, who’s lived here longer than he’s been alive, tells me that the common name Nauagessic is usually taken to mean ‘Bigsky’, or ‘Farsky’. A more accurate translation, however, encompassing the Ojibway understanding of the cosmos, would have to convey the sense that “you were standing at the far edge of the universe, and you were looking back, and you could see all the way across it.”

Others, come across in the rush through court lists and community circuits, are born directly from the awkwardness of colonial encounter. Yesno, for example, is a prominent family name in Eabametoong (aka Fort Hope). The patriarch, apparently, was an important spokesperson in the 1905 treaty-making process, but his English consisted of, you guessed it, two words. And I don’t know the story behind the Nothing family, but am willing to assume that it wasn’t their surname from time immemorial.

So it goes. The apparently permanent is infinitely malleable, and what you see, or say, isn’t necessarily what might have been. I’m reminded to slow down and resist mumbling and mangling the difficult names, stop skimming across those I think I know – we’re all poorer for it.