Post by Souriquois on Nov 15, 2018 10:44:55 GMT -4
This is a current political scandal, embroiling two political parties (the Conservatives and the Liberals) about sending child murders to healing lodges.
Here is the Conservative politician, Peter MacKay, defending his record:
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/powerandpolitics/pnp-peter-mackay-child-killer-healing-lodges-1.4906110
Justin Trudeau (Liberal) also criticized this being turned into a controversy, he called it “ambulance chasing” (can’t find a video).
In Canada, healing lodges are minimum security areas where people who have committed a crime go to be rehabilitated. It often uses traditional indigenous healing practices (not everyone in them is indigenous, though). People who go to them often end up better when they get out of prison, lower reoffending rates and they become productive members of society.
The debate here is over child killers. They will usually never get out of jail, or if they do, it will be in 25 years and then they will be on parole and under strict surveillance for the rest of their lives, so there might not be a point to rehabilitating them.
It’s an emotional issue, with child killers, people usually want strict punishment. And it was politicians trying to score political points off this emotional issue. Neither the Conservatives nor the Liberals have anything to do with the transfers, since Corrections Canada is independent of elected officials, as it should be, since how people vote is often emotional and so the politicians they vote to are prone to respond to the emotions of the electorate. I assume Corrections Canada, who has more expertise in their ranks, approved the transfers because they saw benefits to it. If we go the route of having elected officials, and by extension the regular people who vote for them, decide, then we could end up with human rights violations and a less successful corrections system because the decisions would be made by regular people, and I know myself as a regular person (I am a human being with all the imperfections that human beings have), my first emotional reaction would be “Hang em high!”
Another aspect of the issue is that healing lodges are often in indigenous communities, and there are a lot of indigenous people who don’t want these dangerous criminals in their communities. I certainly sympathize with their concerns as well. But then, indigenous people are just like everyone else, imperfect, and could vote based on their emotions and that may lead to someone who could benefit from a healing lodge not getting that.
What do you think?
Here is the Conservative politician, Peter MacKay, defending his record:
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/powerandpolitics/pnp-peter-mackay-child-killer-healing-lodges-1.4906110
Justin Trudeau (Liberal) also criticized this being turned into a controversy, he called it “ambulance chasing” (can’t find a video).
In Canada, healing lodges are minimum security areas where people who have committed a crime go to be rehabilitated. It often uses traditional indigenous healing practices (not everyone in them is indigenous, though). People who go to them often end up better when they get out of prison, lower reoffending rates and they become productive members of society.
The debate here is over child killers. They will usually never get out of jail, or if they do, it will be in 25 years and then they will be on parole and under strict surveillance for the rest of their lives, so there might not be a point to rehabilitating them.
It’s an emotional issue, with child killers, people usually want strict punishment. And it was politicians trying to score political points off this emotional issue. Neither the Conservatives nor the Liberals have anything to do with the transfers, since Corrections Canada is independent of elected officials, as it should be, since how people vote is often emotional and so the politicians they vote to are prone to respond to the emotions of the electorate. I assume Corrections Canada, who has more expertise in their ranks, approved the transfers because they saw benefits to it. If we go the route of having elected officials, and by extension the regular people who vote for them, decide, then we could end up with human rights violations and a less successful corrections system because the decisions would be made by regular people, and I know myself as a regular person (I am a human being with all the imperfections that human beings have), my first emotional reaction would be “Hang em high!”
Another aspect of the issue is that healing lodges are often in indigenous communities, and there are a lot of indigenous people who don’t want these dangerous criminals in their communities. I certainly sympathize with their concerns as well. But then, indigenous people are just like everyone else, imperfect, and could vote based on their emotions and that may lead to someone who could benefit from a healing lodge not getting that.
And then in Norway, all people go to something similar to healing lodges (minus the Canadian indigenous aspect, obviously, probably more European, but just as good), there are no prisons up there. and they have the lowest reoffending rate in the world... and I mean the worst of the worst go there in Norway; Varg Vikernes, Anders Breivik, etc., would be/have been in environments similar to a healing lodge. The Norwegian corrections system works way better than the Canadian one. Of course, I was watching a documentary on the Norwegian system once, and it was very controversial and unpopular with regular Norwegians at the time they reformed their corrections system, leading politicians to do the reforms behind the backs of the Norwegian electorate (they used to have quite harsh prisons, actually)... but now, Norwegians seem to be quite proud of their corrections system, so it seems to have been the right thing to do. Now some US states, ironically ones where there are a lot of people of Norwegian descent (ie Minnesota), are doing the same kinds of reforms with the help of Norwegian politicians, and the same way: behind the backs of the electorate because if it got out, there would be controversy.
Honestly, I think that guy who shot up the mosque in Quebec City, who got the longest and most harsh jail sentence in Canadian history (6 live sentences consecutively, so 150 years, meaning he will never get out of prison), might benefit from a healing lodge because he was radicalized by online propaganda and I think he could be reformed and then share his story to prevent other people from going down that path. I could understand indigenous people not wanting him in their community, however... and I remember posting on Facebook that he should be sharing his story with kids in schools to have students think critically about what they see on the Internet, and a (white) friend of mine who has three kids was like "No, he killed 6 people, he should be nowhere near a school", and I sympathize with that concern as well. But I remember as a kid having paroled murderers come to my school talking about their experiences and what it is like being on parole (they need to notify the police if they as much as go to the grocery store to pick up a carton of milk, for the rest of their lives), and it wasn't scary... well, their stories of prison and parole, and the regret they live with, were scary, but that was the whole point. And I assume these guys felt the need to tell their stories as a way to prevent others from going down the same path, as a way to repay their debt to society.
Another aspect of this is that I would like to see more indigenous knowledge and practices in Canadian governance, everything from corrections to commerce. Maybe not slap a healing lodge in every indigenous community, but incorporate these practices in the whole corrections system (especially considering it was pretty much scientifically proven to work, unlike more "Eurocentric" approaches to corrections, Norway the exception). We settler colonials should integrate with the local culture, basically lol.
What do you think?