Posted on: December 14th, 2011 by Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council
For awhile, this past weekend, I thought I was in a parallel universe. Something wasn’t making sense. I was reading an article in The Record about the drug treatment court that was launched several months ago to work with those whose addictions have led them to commit crimes. The article was about graduation day for the first group of offenders who began the alternative program back in February 2011. Dianne Wood from The Record wrote a ‘good news’ story celebrating not only the work of the offenders in turning their lives around, but also the work done by the Crown, police, social workers and various support agencies. Judge Colin Westman, who operates the court with crown prosecutors Kathleen Nolan and Lynette Fritzley had this to say, “This should be a statement to the justice system. There are ways other than punishment to help (people) turn their lives around. It’s more frequently done with love than punishment.” I had to read that more than once to ensure I hadn’t missed something.
As I read his words and other laudatory comments by the Crown attorneys I couldn’t help think about Bill C-10. This innovative drug court approach, according to Wood, receives no financial support from the federal government, unlike six other drug courts operating in Canada. Their approach, combining respect and support for the offender, while not excusing the crime nor forgoing punishment, seems to be in stark contrast to the “tough on crime” stance evident in the new Bill C-10 legislation. Their approach starts with the offender, putting the crime in the context of their lives, their struggles with addiction and their hopes and plans to turn things around. In doing so it has a better chance of matching the offender’s addiction issues with the support networks that will allow them the opportunity to get clean and stay clean. Will all succeed? No, according to one of the Crowns who helped develop the program. But, considering the cost of incarceration (approximately $75,000 annually) and the fact that it pulls people from families, homes, jobs and education, one wonders why this approach wouldn’t be the norm. Particularly at a time when we are seeing overcrowding at our local women’s prison and will no doubt see more of it as a result of C-10.
Now, there are some caveats. As Wood tells us, “the court won’t take offenders charged with violent crimes. It also won’t accept drug dealers who traffic for profit, although it will consider those who traffic to support their personal habit.” Offenders in the program are regularly monitored and must agree to live within certain conditions set by the court. Not everyone succeeds though there appears to be consensus that rehabilitation is less expensive than punishment and has a better chance of reaching the offender.
Given all of this, can you see why I am confused? With all of the negative press (and it sure seems to outweigh the positive) around C-10, why would the government want to continue with mandatory minimum sentences and other troubling features of their legislation? Is it strictly to honour their promise of getting tough on crime with legislation within the first 100 days of their mandate? Do they really think this will work? From what I can see in the program described by Woods in her article, it appears the offenders appreciated the respect shown to them and the trust placed in them to make positive changes. What’s your experience been?
I’ve found there is much more incentive to take control of your life when people believe in your ability to do just that. Respect for the individual and his or her unique circumstance is the key. Several years ago I had the privilege to work with Fr. Mike Cundari when he was the principal of the former St. Jerome’s High School. His actions and words demonstrated respect for all. I marvelled at his ability to reach even the most difficult student. As I watched and learned I saw that respecting each person and ensuring their dignity remained intact in any disciplinary action was the key to his success. That and his enormous religious faith. But faith aside, his approach is reminiscent of that shown by those who initiated the drug treatment court. Hundreds, if not thousands of young men who attended this all-boys school in Kitchener will tell you this approach helped them be the best they could be. In the years to come, if the government doesn’t kill this innovative, smart on crime court, the same will no doubt be said of it.
Maybe it’s a good time to remember the words of Jack Layton:
Love is better than anger.
Hope is better than fear.
Optimism is better than despair.
So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic.
And we will change the world.
I’m interested in hearing your thoughts and comments on this. Please add them below.
Author: Frank Johnson is a regular guest writer for Smart on Crime in Waterloo Region. Frank is a retired principal with the local Catholic school board, a dad, and sometimes runner who possesses an irreverent sense of humour that periodically gets him in trouble. He lives in Waterloo, Ontario.
Frank Johnson’s writing reflects his own opinions and do not necessarily reflect the views or official positions of the Crime Prevention Council.
Posted on: December 7th, 2011 by Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council
Just to be upfront, I am a small ‘l’ liberal on some issues and a small ‘c’ conservative with others, a parent, a middle child with a weakness for mystery novels, Clint Eastwood movies and lots of other descriptors that aren’t that unique. I may be in the minority in society but am in the majority of those who vote. None of this is really important but it may help explain why I am struggling with the issue of youth crime after reading a series in The Star called “The Kids of 311 Jarvis”, the site of Toronto’s Youth Court. It’s probably not too dissimilar from those in other major cities. It might not be that much different from the Youth Court in Waterloo Region. More on that later.
The Star series follows a number of cases through the Youth Court, a difficult step they contend, because of the secrecy behind the Youth Criminal Justice Act. This secrecy is necessary to protect young offenders from being labelled and gives them a second (or third) chance at making positive changes in their lives outside the scrutiny of the public. But, how easy is it to make these changes when saddled by poverty, low levels of educational achievement, substance abuse, mental health issues and the many other barriers they face?
The collective story of the youth in conflict with the law portrayed in the series is horrific and, while this doesn’t justify their crimes, it goes a long way to understanding them. It also puts a face on their victims and the difficult journey to wholeness they face. Some readers might argue that “The Safe Streets and Communities Act” is a perfect remedy as it gives more voice to victims, adds more “aggravating” factors for judges to consider and restricts the ability of judges to consider attempts of some young people see the positive change it envisions.
In conversation with a youth who has been through our local Youth Court I learned things aren’t always what they seem. Dirty cells, being manacled to strangers for transfer to and from court, all freedoms taken away, subjected to strip searches, bad food, connections to families broken is the norm. Deprivations like these might seem justified, and in the minds of some, not go far enough in exacting punishment for the crime. Did this deter the young person from committing the crime? No.
Okay, would the imposition of the heavier sentences and further custodial restrictions act as a deterrent? Isn’t general deterrence a goal of this ‘tough on crime’ approach? As it turns out from conversation with this youth, those tougher sentences wouldn’t have worked either.
From my experience, few of us take the time to analyze consequences before we act impulsively. Think about times in your own life when you made an unwise comment, bought another pair of pants (hey, they were on sale) or rushed through an orange light just on impulse. Maybe you avoided consequences, maybe you didn’t. No, what worked for this youth was the support of family, some new friends, courage and newfound wisdom borne from experience. That, and the help of a local program known as inREACH.
inREACH provides support to potential or current gang members and other youth who either have, or have to potential to, commit crime. inREACH provides support with employment, education, housing, addictions, probation orders or other barriers to success. The success of inREACH is linked to its collaborative partnerships with social agencies, police, crown, probation and parole services in addition to financial support from all levels of government. Programs like this can get to youth before they fall too far into the corrections net. Various provisions of the “Safe Streets and Communities Act” will make their task of diverting youth much more challenging.
All of which brings me to my dilemma. While my heart aches for the terrible lives these youth have to deal with, I also want the victims to know some sense of justice and closure. It’s not either-or, but both-and. I think this is where the Government’s legislation and approach has failed us. It doesn’t seek the balance a person like me wants to see in our elected government. but, if I’m right in surmising that people like me make up the majority of voters, we clearly differ on how we approach this issue come election time. Since we elected a party known to be fiscally and socially conservative, gave them a majority allowing them to reshape our country for the next several years, we shouldn’t be surprised changes to the Criminal Code and Long Gun Registry will come into effect. The added cost of increasing incarceration and the abolition of the registry (despite the fact that police use it regularly for their own safety) make one wonder how fiscally conservative the current Government truly is. No argument about their social conservatism. That is clear from their actions. Adding millions of dollars to federal and provincial budgets through the after-effects of “The Safe Streets and Communities Act”, on the cusp of another recession, makes one wonder what their personal checking accounts must look like each month. I thought conservatives liked smaller budgets and less government intervention in society. In the words of Republican presidential candidate Governor Rick Perry… “oops”.
Whether we count ourselves as liberal or conservative in our values and voting patterns we still need to face the fact that ‘the kids of 311 Jarvis’ will always be with us unless we work to eradicate the fundamental causes of crime. Ultimately that will create fewer victims, lower the costs associated with crime and build a more harmonious society. Canada was founded on the notion of “peace, order and good government”. How we get there will be debated for years but it’s a good starting point for a conversation.
Author: Frank Johnson is a regular guest writer for Smart on Crime in Waterloo Region. Frank is a retired principal with the local Catholic school board, a dad, and sometimes runner who possesses an irreverent sense of humour that periodically gets him in trouble. He lives in Waterloo, Ontario.
Frank Johnson’s writing reflects his own opinions and do not necessarily reflect the views or official positions of the Crime Prevention Council.
Posted on: November 29th, 2011 by Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council
Who could turn down an invitation to an event called “Cookies and Crime Prevention”…… ? Community events often use the lure of food and edible goodies to draw out attendees. I fell for that trap when I was asked to be a guest speaker for the Victoria Park Neighbourhood Association (VPNA) AGM last week! That’s really only half the truth….
In fact, I’ve been involved with members of the VPNA for some time now in my role as Community Engagement Coordinator with the Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council. I could give you a long paragraph about the work we’ve been doing with residents in the neighbourhood. But that’s not nearly as interesting as hearing the story as told by of the neighbours herself.
Aimee makes the point so perfectly in her story. We all have a role to play in creating stronger neighbourhoods. Every little part makes a difference and together we are stronger. We. Can. Make. Change.
And sharing cookies doesn’t hurt either.
Additional stories about Cookies and Crime Prevention from The Record:
Posted on: November 24th, 2011 by Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council
Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder and the Safe Streets and Communities Act – Part Two
While The Safe Streets and Communities Act may tie together disparate pieces of legislation the government could not pass when it was in the minority, it does little to proactively support prevention through increased “front end” support for mental health services, choosing instead to “back end” this by increased incarceration. It’s interesting that parallels exist between education systems and the criminal justice system, and not just because many students see school as a form of jail. No, where they are similar is in the belief, backed by years of research, that the more proactive services put into place, at the earliest possible time, the greater the benefit. The Toronto Star has reported on a study known as “Early Years Study 3” authored by Dr. Fraser Mustard, Kerry McQuaig and Margaret Norrie McCain where the case is made for starting school at the age of two. Why? Because the sooner support is provided, the more successful we are at addressing social and mental health barriers. In the case of Bill C-10, if amendments could be made that would increase government investment in providing support early on, not only with those with FASD, but with other mental health concerns, the costs of having to address these issues later, when it is much more difficult and costlier, will be reduced.
In a recent Juristat Article on Police-reported crime statistics in Canada, 2010, it is reported that these types of very serious crimes have declined substantially. If the intent of “The Safe Streets and Communities Act” is to reduce crimes of this nature, its work is already done. And done, by and large, by recognizing the complexity of motive and opportunity, as well as mitigating factors that Bill C-10 ignores. Few people would argue that there are some individuals who need to be incarcerated. Murderers, serial killers, terrorists, those who kill police while in commission of a crime, those who kill corrections officers while incarcerated, pedophiles whose crime and behaviours put children at continued risk easily come to mind. These are the easy ones and we could likely argue about other crimes for which jail time might not be the best consequence. What we don’t see reflected much, if at all, in the proposed legislation is an appreciation of the difference between the actus reas (the criminal act) versus mens rea (premeditation) and how mental illness, poverty, addiction and, more specifically, FASD impair decision making prior to the crime itself. The unintended consequence is that, without preventative measures that address the root causes of crime, we won’t be able to differentiate and provide appropriate interventions and consequences such that recidivism isn’t guaranteed as soon as the person is released. And, by and large, they will be released having learned lessons in prison that don’t include the ability to make a smarter decision next time the opportunity for crime presents itself.
My background in education causes me to come at this problem from an alternative frame of reference. For example, teachers use ‘differentiated education’ because they recognize that not all students learn in the same way. Some students are able to understand abstractions while others learn better through ‘real world’ applications. Some can see the picture in their minds whereas others have to see a model to understand the concept. In other words, education has to start where the student is at. Increased graduation rates have come about because schools have recognized that one approach won’t work for everyone. Should this any different from criminal justice? Can a ‘one size fits all’ model like that of Bill C-10 work? While crime victims may want retribution, do they really want the criminal to come out more damaged, more able to do harm to others? I doubt it. We shouldn’t hope for institutions to solve problems created at the human level. How can we be ‘smart on crime’ if we dismiss what common sense (as well as reams of research) tells us?
Where does this leave us? We have some obvious decisions to make. We need to continue to educate young people about the risks of alcohol use, particularly during pregnancy. There is no safe amount of alcohol use during pregnancy. There just isn’t. We could call this initiative RIPE (Reduce Impaired Pregnancy Everywhere) if we were terrible at marketing. But, we do need to develop a higher awareness among educators (and all who work with youth) about FASD and create more timely interventions and support. Collaborative partnerships between school boards, police, agencies, Crowns and Corrections could help identify the extent of the issue and determine effective interventions. Additional qualification courses at Faculties of Education as well as Police Foundation courses at community colleges could help inform and instruct their students about the issues. Advocacy and awareness about FASD with governments at all levels is necessary for financial support for collaboration, research and programs.
We can’t ignore what we know about the relationship between mental health and criminal behaviour. We have to work to see that people in need get the help they deserve. It is not only more economical in the long run, it appeals to our “better angels”. Lastly, and here’s the kicker… when Mark Kelly and Gabby Giffords were interviewed recently by Diane Sawyer on 20/20 about the shooting in Arizona, Mr. Kelly said this about the accused: “If he received the help he needed, this probably wouldn’t have happened”.
What more needs be said?
Author: Frank Johnson is a regular guest writer for Smart on Crime in Waterloo Region. Frank is a retired principal with the local Catholic school board, a dad, and sometimes runner who possesses an irreverent sense of humour that periodically gets him in trouble. He lives in Waterloo, Ontario.
Frank Johnson’s writing reflects his own opinions and do not necessarily reflect the views or official positions of the Crime Prevention Council.
Posted on: November 23rd, 2011 by Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council
Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder and the Safe Streets and Communities Act – Part One
The Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council is an organization with links to several community agencies interested in creating a safer community. Its mandate is to develop and encourage a new approach, a ‘smart’ approach to crime prevention and to create more awareness in the community about issues related to crime prevention. The proposed “Safe Streets and Communities Act” has generated much discussion among Council members. As a guest blogger here on Smart on Crime, I’ve had the opportunity to attend various meetings and events to learn about the impending legislation and its consequences for our communities.
One of the major disadvantages of the proposed Act is its failure to look at mitigating factors for crime, as opposed to only ‘aggravating’ factors. Mitigating factors can include any number of issues, from addiction, poverty, lack of educational achievement, poor impulse control or a range of mental illnesses that act as barriers for a person fully appreciating the nature of their behaviour and how it contributes to impinging on the rights of others. We can see this in several ways but, for example, we are now becoming more aware of the number of people with FASD (Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder) who either commit crime or are victims of it. On behalf of the Crime Prevention Council, I attended a recent forum on FASD presented by KidsAbility’s Centre of Excellence The audience was primarily educators and social work professionals (you can see highlights of the forum by going to their website) though there were others of us in the audience who were curious about possible connections between those with the disorder and the justice system.
FASD is an umbrella term and can include other disorders on the spectrum such as Alcohol Related Neuro-Developmental Disorder (ARDN), Alcohol Related Behavioural Disorder (ARBD), partial FAS (pFAS) and others. FASD is permanent brain damage related directly to alcohol use during pregnancy and is characterized in those with no concept of right vs wrong, no sense of consequences, impulsivity, poor judgment, difficulties in school (often suspended, expelled or early school leavers), socially inappropriate behaviours and trouble with the law. We know it is caused by alcohol use during pregnancy, particularly in the early stages. We also know that no amount of alcohol use during pregnancy is safe. None.
FASD is difficult to diagnose and, while it is believed that many in the corrections system in Canada have the disorder, diagnosed cases are underrepresented in the prison population. Full FASD comes with certain physical characteristics so it may be a little easier to spot. However, there are those with pFAS whose facial features do not give any external clue that they may be operating somewhere on the spectrum. Because of this our initial reaction to them and their behaviours is the same as we might have towards those who are not affected by FASD. This is not unknown in the education system as well.
As a secondary school principal I often dealt with students who were repeatedly brought to my attention for being late (no concept of time), inappropriate behaviour (no sense of time, place and personal space), theft and swearing, failure to follow class rules and so on. Almost like the movie “Groundhog Day”, I could see these students every day for the same behaviours because their neural brain damage was such that they would repeat the same behaviours over and over again. There was very little or no remorse or new learning. Our simple solution, borne from legal requirements as well as a lack of alternatives, would be repeat suspensions. On the face of it they just seemed non-compliant. Upon reflection, I think that many of these students likely had partial FAS. They bore none of the physical characteristics ascribed to those with full FAS. Not only that, because there is a high degree of co-morbidity with FAS many students on the spectrum may also have had Conduct Disorder (CD), Pervasive Developmental Disorder (PDD), Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD), Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and so on. FASD would not be the first thought I would have in seeing one of these students.
At the KidsAbility Forum I learned it should have been more on my radar than it was. It’s interesting that some students on the spectrum actually have high IQ’s but can’t process information correctly. More simply, what goes in and is then processed, does not match what should come out as a product. This only adds to the frustration they feel in regular classrooms. They have real problems with transitioning from one situation to another because they have such a hard time with change. School staff have had little to no training in working with students with FASD and most boards don’t have the number of Social Workers and Psychologists needed to support interventions for these kids. That’s just the financial reality. Plus, because their behaviours could be any one of a menu of “alphabet” disorders, it’s hard to get a good handle on them. There’s a caution here too: we don’t want to fall victim to assuming students demonstrating these behaviours are all on the FA spectrum. That’s reminiscent of the old saying that “If your only tool is a hammer, then every problem is a nail”. Educators need more support and training in working with these kids to help them navigate a pretty tough system and to differentiate students presenting with learning issues so that we can, in turn, differentiate the learning process for them.
Now, put on your crime prevention hat and look at the population I’ve just described. Impulsivity, lack of control, no appreciation of consequences, lacking remorse etc. Do they not seem like those who populate our court system? A chart created and adapted by Mary Cunningham, one of the speakers at the KidsAbility Forum, links typical FASD behaviours with possible implications for those caught in the justice system. Given Bill C-10 and its failure to recognize the role mental health plays in the commission of a crime, what can this population expect except incarceration? Though Crowns, Defence, judges and correction officers do their best to recommend consideration and treatment, without a solid diagnosis and available interventions, these men and women will be released only to fall back into the corrections net. Because of the neural impairment connected to FASD, there is a greater likelihood people on the spectrum can be more easily led into crime, can be more easily induced to make confessions to crimes they didn’t commit and be inaccurate in making a witness statement. This only adds to their victimization. With the harsher sentencing under the proposed legislation and a blind eye to mitigating circumstances, we will have a problem on our hands. We will have compounded a mental health problem with a legal one.
There is a fear that Bill C-10 reduces the current flexibility in making sentencing decisions that take into account the neural damage FASD creates. For those looking to learn more about the relationship between FASD and the justice system I’d suggest reading a study by Dr. Julianne Conry, “Interrelationships among Mental Health, Substance Abuse and Cognition in Youth with FASD in the Justice System” as it provides an instructive look at this very serious issue.
Author: Frank Johnson is a regular guest writer for Smart on Crime in Waterloo Region. Frank is a retired principal with the local Catholic school board, a dad, and sometimes runner who possesses an irreverent sense of humour that periodically gets him in trouble. He lives in Waterloo, Ontario.
Frank Johnson’s writing reflects his own opinions and do not necessarily reflect the views or official positions of the Crime Prevention Council.
Whatever stereotypes you might have about youth and drugs and alcohol…… just put them aside for the moment. Youth, like any other group in our community, are affected by drugs and alcohol. While many will experiment with this or that drug and drinking, still more are motivated to use because of physical and/or emotional pain until it becomes a problem. How to help? How to intervene? How to prevent?
One of the best ways to better understand and address the issues and challenges facing youth and substance use is to learn from them.
SubArtSpaceis a youth art and theatre based project for exploring the youth experience and perspective on substance use. Working with the world renowned MT Space and other local artists, a group of youth committed to expressing themselves through their art will face their stories head on in an evening of theatre, music, dance, poetry, photography and visual art. A single story cannot capture each youth’s experience.
This innovative event is for anyone who wishes to immerse themselves in the some of the realities of growing up today- and emerge with a fresh perspective and understanding.
When: Monday November 28, 2011
Where: Kitchener Waterloo Collegiate Institute, 787 King Street West, Kitchener
Time: 7:00pm – 9:00pm
When: Tuesday December 6, 2011
Where: Queen Street Commons, 43 Queen Street South, Kitchener
Time: 7:00 – 9:00pm
**this performance is paired with several films from the final night of “In The Mind’s Eye Film + Forum”.
Last week was Crime Prevention Week across Ontario. It certainly was a busy one from our office at the Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council. Here’s the round up of activites…. they were diverse, we can say that much!!
Overdose Awareness and Training Day: Film + Forum – On Monday November 7th, more than 90 people joined presenters from Toronto and Waterloo region on issues of overdose prevention and intervention. Waterloo region and Toronto are just the second and third communities in Canada to offer overdose programs, despite the severity and prevalence of the problem.
The audience was a mixture of service providers, people with lived experience and students. We were joined by people from Windsor, London, Guelph and Peterborough area, among others.
Changing Perceptions: 2011 Waterloo Region Area Survey – Last week, we released Changing Perceptions, a report that explores local perceptions of crime; fear of crime; and attitudes towards crime prevention. The first fear of crime report was released in 2009. Also, in 2009 the WRCPC made a commitment to regularly monitor perceptions of crime and fear of crime in Waterloo Region. This 2011 Changing Perceptions report compares previous data examining fear of crime with results from the 2011 Waterloo Region Area Survey.
Say Hi Guy & Say Hi Gal: Crusaders for building a safer community – with a very simple message, Say Hi Guy & Say Hi Gal hit the streets last week to Say Hi! You too, can help build a safer community by just saying Hi!
Thanks everyone for a great crime prevention week! Just remember…. there is a super hero in all of us. YOU have the power to make you community safer.
Posted on: November 9th, 2011 by Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council
Each year, the Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council, along with its many partner organizations, sets aside a day where the focus is to simply say “hi” to people with whom we interact. It’s a simple concept that builds on the notion that it’s harder to victimize or stigmatize another person when you see them as worthy of a greeting. Much like the ‘golden rule’, it asks us to acknowledge another’s humanity by simply saying hello to them with a genuine smile.
Several years ago, when gaining additional qualifications as a teacher, I came upon the work of William Purkey, known as the founder of Invitational Education. His theory is that if schools (and by extension any organization) treats people with trust, respect, intentionality, optimism and caring, then embeds these concepts in their policies and processes, we will see more engaged and happier students and staff. The “Say Hi” program is the kind of intentional program Purkey would support. Simply greeting people each day and offering them a positive interaction creates happier places. Happier places are safer places because each person feels more of an investment in creating and maintaining the caring culture that results. We move from simply saying ‘hi’ to more of a relationship with another. We become connected and sociologists will tell us that the more connected we are, the safer we are. And one thing we can all agree upon is that we want to feel safe in our communities.
Based on the success of this venture I’d like to suggest we go a bit further.
How about pledging to keep our smartphones in our pockets, backpacks or purses when we sit across from people in a restaurant? How about we use this time to actually look into the other’s eyes, listen to what they are saying and not to whip the smartphone out like a cowboy preparing for a gunfight? Is it just me or have you noticed the same thing? Just yesterday I watched what appeared to be a happy couple waiting for their food to arrive. Each had their BlackBerry out and sat for several minutes responding to or sending messages with no interaction between them. It’s like the other wasn’t even in the same room. Think about it…how many of our messages/texts are so vital that they can’t be ignored for 30 minutes? Why not invest this time to chat about movies, books, the weather or perhaps even to explore shared or even diverse values and beliefs? Use that time to make or build upon a connection. A face to face connection that allows us to explore our commonalities and differences.
Maybe we could call it “Just Sit Tight”.
Author: Frank Johnson is a regular guest writer for Smart on Crime in Waterloo Region. Frank is a retired principal with the local Catholic school board, a dad, and sometimes runner who possesses an irreverent sense of humour that periodically gets him in trouble. He lives in Waterloo, Ontario.
Author: Frank Johnson is a regular guest writer for Smart on Crime in Waterloo Region. Frank is a retired principal with the local Catholic school board, a dad, and sometimes runner who possesses an irreverent sense of humour that periodically gets him in trouble. He lives in Waterloo, Ontario.
Frank Johnson’s writing reflects his own opinions and do not necessarily reflect the views or official positions of the Crime Prevention Council.
It’s a bird, it’s a plane…. no, wait… it’s Say Hi Gal and Say Hi Guy! In recognition of Crime Prevention Week across Ontario, Waterloo Region will be visited by these caped crime prevention crusaders to remind us that we all have a role to play in crime prevention and it can start with an act as simple as saying Hi!.
We know that a connected community is a safer and one small way of building connection is by simply saying Hi to a neighbour, someone you see everyday on your walk to work or getting a coffee, a complete stranger on the bus or in the grocery store. Say Hi Gal and Say Hi Guy are here to remind us of how its done! It doesn’t cost a thing, it doesn’t take long, and the the rewards are worth it.
Word is there was already a reported and recorded sighting of Say Hi Gal at the Woolwich Township Council on Monday evening! Watch out for this masked marvel on the streets of Waterloo Region this week, and don’t be shy, just say Hi!
Say Hi Gal
Say Hi Guys
Say Hi – Cape Central
Say Hi Gal and Say Hi Guy are an extension of the very successful school based Say Hi campaign that addresses inclusion, student engagement, diversity and understanding. To learn more about the Say Hi program visit www.sayhi.ca.
Posted on: November 2nd, 2011 by Waterloo Region Crime Prevention Council
I read with some dismay that the parliamentary committee created to hear submissions on the Government of Canada’s omnibus crime bill, often referred to as C-10, allowed only five minutes per submission. Five minutes to outline the deep and myriad concerns with this bill. Your time would be up shortly after the introductions. And this for a bill that would make significant changes not only to our criminal justice system, but to the very core of what we believe about rehabilitation, restorative justice and mitigating circumstances. All at an increased cost for taxpayers worried about another recession, led by a government perceived to be fiscally conservative.
While most public institutions like hospitals and schools are required to be more accountable by using the best available research to make responsible decisions, we appear to be seeing a government blind to the experience of other jurisdictions who used a ‘tough on crime’ approach. Even the United States, which has the highest incarceration rate in the world, is increasingly moving to alternative measures in diverting perpetrators from jails. And not necessarily because it reduces recidivism, but because it is simply less expensive to reduce jail time in favour of alternate approaches.
While we all want safer communities, how we get there is a matter of some dispute. Naturally with any proposed legislation there are supporters and challengers. The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, not surprisingly, supports the legislation for its focus on victims while the Canadian Bar Association had this to say:
“In our view, the initiatives in Bill C-10 go in a contrary direction. They adopt a punitive approach to criminal behavior, rather than one concentrated on how to prevent that behavior in the first place, or rehabilitate those who do offend. As most offenders will one day return to their communities, we know that prevention and rehabilitation are most likely to contribute to public safety. The proposed initiatives also move Canada along a road that has clearly failed in other countries. Rather than replicate that failure, at enormous public expense, we might instead learn from those countries’ experience.”
The Bar Association exposes serious flaws in the proposed legislation, namely that it does not address the root causes of crime in any proactive way. It does not deal effectively with poverty, addiction, low levels of educational achievement, mental health, trauma or other factors that will still be there when the offender is eventually released. And all, in their words, “at enormous public expense”. It seems the Government does not know the difference between ‘spending’ and ‘investment’.
It makes one wonder who wrote the various pieces of legislation that make up Bill C-10. Are they using all the information available to them in crafting the bill? Do they truly understand the impact on correctional facilities and families if this moves forward in its present form? Are they truly consulting widely and listening fully to the concerns raised by citizens and organizations with experience, expertise and understanding about crime?
I don’t think so. It reminds me of a quote from former president Dwight Eisenhower:
“Farming looks pretty easy when your plough is a pencil and you’re a thousand miles from a corn field.”
Author: Frank Johnson is a regular guest writer for Smart on Crime in Waterloo Region. Frank is a retired principal with the local Catholic school board, a dad, and sometimes runner who possesses an irreverent sense of humour that periodically gets him in trouble. He lives in Waterloo, Ontario.
Frank Johnson’s writing reflects his own opinions and do not necessarily reflect the views or official positions of the Crime Prevention Council.
