Councillors I’m Saleh Waziruddin.
We’re told to protect kids we need to cut bail, more jail time, and open offender registries. None of these things will protect kids but that doesn’t matter to some who are pushing this “tough on crime” agenda because it pushes your buttons of anger and fear.
The accused in Welland wasn’t out on bail, so bail changes would have made no difference in protecting the victim. But we were told on Monday at St. Catharines City Council the accused was offered bail. More misinformation. Everyone has the Charter right to try to get bail. But this Charter right is absolutely useless, it’s as useless as offering Trump a Tylenol. What good is a right if you can’t actually use it.
Last year in Ontario less than half got bail. Repeat offenders generally don’t get bail.
We don’t have a catch-and-release problem, we have the opposite: guilty until proven innocent. The government has a name for this, “reverse onus,” because it’s intentional and was part of bail changes made two years ago.
So that crackdown on bail you want to protect the kids? It was already done two years ago, didn’t protect the recent victims. Why are you asking for it again?
Last year almost 60% of people charged in Ontario were found not guilty or had charges withdrawn, stayed, etc. This means most people in jail will never get bail for crimes they will never be convicted of.
We know who this affects the most. Black people are three times more disproportionately in prison in Ontario and for Indigenous people in Canada it’s five times, most without bail. But it gets worse.
Human Rights Watch and the Final Report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls found Indigenous women don’t report abuse because they’ll be arrested as well in “dual arrests,” and then will be stuck in jail without get bail charged with violence when they are the victim. We’re on the eve of the Day for Truth and Reconciliation.
As others point out, the reason offender registries aren’t public is because of vigilante violence. We saw nooses brandished in our downtowns (you don’t need the CBC to know this), the meaning is pretty clear. The police have had to talk to people about violating publication bans, it’s clear they won’t stick within the law. But it’s not just registered offenders who’ll have that noose around their neck. A few days ago local papers published a desperate letter from someone with two of their three names the same as one of the accused, worried they or their family will be hurt. Who’s going to protect their kids?
The accused in Welland was released early by a few months. Would a few more months would have made the difference? A study by Dr. Irwin Waller of the University of Ottawa of over 400 men released from prison found that those who were held for their full sentence were 56% more likely to re-offend than those who were out early on parole where they were under conditions and given supports. IF offenders are going to get out of prison at some point, shouldn’t we have them re-offend less if it’s about protecting the kids?
The uncle of the previous victim of the accused in Welland told CBC he had wanted a longer sentence but for treatment, not punishment. But why not have the treatment before the first victim was even attacked? That’s how other cities have been reducing violent crime and protecting their kids for about 50 years.
The motion for getting “tough on crime” is going in the direction of locking offenders up forever, throw away the key. But for those years and decades you are counting on locking people up, you aren’t counting on how to prevent them from committing the crimes in the first place.
Boston reduced murders by 60% with 10% fewer police. You’re looking at capping budgets but are faced with increasing police budgets because of more crime. Boston got less crime with a smaller police force. Glasgow went from being the murder capital of Europe to 40% less violent crime in less than a decade. This wasn’t with crackdowns or longer sentences.
So how did they protect their kids? Health officials looked at injuries from violence as a health problem, and with any health problem you do early detection, education, and then get treatment early. The uncle of the previous victim of the accused in Welland wanted treatment in prison, but why not do treatment in the first place by catching early signs of violence? Wouldn’t that protect the kids more?
Regional Council recognized racism as a health issue earlier. So why aren’t you advocating for treating violence and crime as a health and social problem to protect the kids? “Tough on crime” sells better because it pushes the right buttons hard, but “smart on crime” actually protects the kids.
Just because everyone is jumping on this bandwagon doesn’t make it non-partisan. This is a partisan issue but I’m not the one saying this. The campaign manager of the federal Conservatives said her party was the one driving this agenda. You didn’t see Liberal, NDP, or Green ads about crime and crackdowns in the election. But after a few months everyone has jumped on board their agenda because of how it pushes our buttons about protecting kids.
It’s no accident that some of the same people who are pushing anti-trans misinformation and hate are behind the push for this crackdown. The Welland case was used to push more anti-trans hate. This is because they are pushing the same buttons: fear and anger to protect kids. But it’s based on misinformation we should reject. Some of those involved in pushing this agenda include one person identified by the CBC as participating in white supremacist groups and I know some of you on this Council are already victims of misinformation from this person, so you know already.
This Council should advocate for treating crime and violence as social and health problems like it did with racism earlier, to protect kids. It works. Crackdowns and vigilante violence pushes buttons but doesn’t protect kids.
Thank you
No comments:
Post a Comment