updates from beyond

Since August, the wheels have rumbled! Staff at Matsqui finally completed the paperwork for the transfer to lower security. William Head Institution put pressure on them to get the transfer done before this week so he could take part in the framing course that is starting tomorrow. It is a lead in to the carpentry apprenticeship that he is transferring there to take.

He is there now for a week. Of course, his clothes and personal effects will take another month to arrive. He is happy to be near the ocean once more. It has been 17 years since he could listen to the waves crash and break.

I went to Victoria by ferry to visit him a couple of days after his transfer. Unfortunately, I was not allowed to see him as my visiting status had expired in October. That was something that does happen every two years, but I had put new forms in to Matsqui Institution in September after receiving a warning that it was about to expire. They lost the forms, but neglected to tell me. Now I have to re-apply and wait for approval. I filled in the forms while at William Head and turned them in. They lost those ones too. Go figure!

Since then, the framing course has started and Derik is not in it. They chose to put it available to only those who are to be released within the next 4 months. Since he does not have a date for his parole hearing yet, he has no release date. The system had to put off his parole hearing once again because the officer at Matsqui again refused to do any of the paperwork required.

He is learning to cook for himself and quite liking the freedom that entails. Once again, he is sitting and waiting. None of his personal effects have arrived yet. Likely will take another month to get them. He is surviving with the change of clothes and limited hygiene items he brought with him.

He is much happier despite all this as he is not under the same bullying constraints he had at Matsqui. The wheels of change roll so slowly that they appear to stand still.

Words from Inside Canada's Prisons

Dignity’s Child

The Canadian Charter of Right’s and Freedoms

This submission was prepared by a Canadian prisoner for the “Roadmap to Strengthening Public Safety” conference held in Matsqui Institution on November 29th, 2008. The conference was presided over by Professor Michael Jackson, Q.C., of the UBC Faculty of Law, and Mr. Graham Stewart, former National Chairman for the John Howard Society of Canada. It was convened with support from the British Columbia Law Foundation for the purpose of formulating a response to the “Report of the Correctional Service of Canada Review Panel” of October 31st, 2007. The author of this submission chose anonymity so that his identity would in no way distract the reader from the truth of his message.

In the spring of 1982 I was 15 years old, living in a small city in B.C. Like many teenagers, I was preoccupied with motorcycles, girls, rock music, and dressing to impress my peers. Mostly I was unaware of something happening that spring that would have considerable influence on my future life. On April 17th Queen Elizabeth II and the Prime Minister of Canada signed a document that included the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, or “The Charter”. Though it meant little to me at the time, the Charter is a Canadian legal document that would have a greater effect on my life than any other.

Two short years later, I would enter British Columbia’s infamous Oakalla prison. From then until today, I am ashamed to concede that I have spent over 22 years inside of prisons just like this one (Matsqui). In that time, I have learned more about human indignity than many would think possible for an educated person living in one of the most “civilized” nations on earth.

Though I could not know it at the time, my entrance into Oakalla began a long search for human dignity. My dictionary defines dignity as, ‘the quality or state of being worthy, honored, or esteemed.’ By that definition, human dignity involves the way I view myself, the way others deal with me, and the way I view and treat others. While it is true that many things can affect the way I feel about myself, it is equally true that the way others treat me plays a large role in my everyday sense of personal value. I have been thinking a lot about that lately. Especially have I been thinking about it in light of the Charter. More than any other Canadian legal document, the Charter gives voice not only to how Canadians must treat each other, but more importantly, how we should view, or feel about each other.

For example, section 7 of the Charter states that “EVERYONE has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.”The right to life. The right to liberty. The right to security of their person. What the Charter is really stating is that humans have the right to DIGNITY, and the right to not be deprived of that dignity except in accordance with the principles of justice. These rights are not earned. The Charter did not give Canadians these rights. Dignity is my birthright as a human being. As I understand it, that is why these rights are referred to as fundamental HUMAN rights. They were not ceded to me, nor can they be withdrawn by human legislation. The Charter is merely Canada’s effort to validate my humanity and remind me of the responsibility I have to conduct myself with dignity by according dignity to everyone.

This reality is confirmed in section 15. (1), which states that “Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, color, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. And again in section 2: EVERYONE has the following fundamental freedoms: a) conscience and religion; b) thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; c) peaceful assembly; and d) association. The right to be treated as equal in value to all other humans. The freedom to think what I want, feel what I want, worship how I choose, and associate with whomever I wish, wherever I want, as long it is peaceful. Again, did the Charter give me and the rest of Canadians these rights and freedoms? Never!

The Charter’s opening preamble states “Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law”. (Emphasis Mine) With these words, the Charter confirms that freedom, dignity, and right to be human comes from the highest authority – God – and these gifts are not to be removed from any person inside the borders of Canada “except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.” For greater certainty, the Charter confirms that any “principles of fundamental justice” must be “demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society”. In plain English, the Charter validates that the human right to dignity is God given, and inside the borders of Canada, no one dare assault the dignity of another human being without an extremely good reason. It further states that because Canada is a democracy, that “reason” is open to public discussion, debate, and even disapproval.

Sadly, while the Charter is an admirable attempt to enshrine dignity for every Canadian, it is condemned to failure. If my study of human laws has taught me anything, it is that from the Code of Hammurabi to the over-promoted U.S. Constitution, no written code has yet been devised that can govern what a man is on the inside. The significance of this becomes obvious when I admit that what I am on the inside ultimately determines the value I place on the dignity of myself and others.An outstanding example of this comes from the most famous code of human dignity ever devised. The historical giant Jesus Christ once stated, “All things, therefore, that you want men to do to you, you also must likewise do to them.” Referred to as the ‘Golden Rule’, it is in reality the ‘Golden Rule of human dignity’. Yet, as well known and accepted as this rule is, history tells a tragic tale of its mis- or non-application. Repeatedly, this Golden Rule of human relationships has been corrupted into the Golden Rule of retaliation; “All things, therefore, that men to do to you, you also must likewise do to them.” This “Golden Rule” has served as the principal rallying cry behind two world wars, countless religious pogroms and crusades, and an unending succession of so called “civil” wars. Moreover, once enacted, mankind has yet to find a way to stop this devalued version of the rule from degenerating into “Do to others worse than they have done to you”. This was Hitler’s ‘Golden Rule’ for annihilation of the Jews. It is a central pillar in the architecture of religious terrorism - from Munich in ‘72 to Northern Ireland in the 80’s to the World Trade Towers tragedy of 2001. It is the key element of U.S. foreign policy in Iraq, and has been the prevailing philosophy of various Middle Eastern factions since 1000 years before Christ. Now this dangerous and debased idea has reared its ugly head in the form of a “policy recommendation” made to and accepted by arguably the most powerful law enforcement agency in Canada. I am speaking of the CSC (Correctional Service of Canada).

Inside Canada’s territorial boundaries, no government agency has as much ability, or authority to “reasonably limit the rights and freedoms” of Canadian citizens as does this one. It is therefore a frightening spectre that inside this powerful, influential organization, the idea of “doing worse to others than they have done to you” has gained significant momentum. Most recently, it reveals itself in the form of the following recommendation made in the 2007 Correctional Service of Canada Review Panel Report:2. “The Panel recommends that the following amendments be made to section 4 of the CCRA:Note that the underlined text identifies the Panel’s recommended changes.…e) That offenders retain the basic [below minimum-standard] rights and privileges of all members of society, except those rights and privileges that are necessarily removed or restricted as a consequence of the sentence, [or] are required in order to encourage the offender to begin to and continue to engage in his or her correctional plan.3. The panel recommends that, at each security level (minimum, medium and Maximum), a basic level of rights should be defined. - “Roadmap to Strengthening Public Safety” at 216, 217. In layman’s terms, this recommendation promotes the idea that human rights can somehow be attenuated simply because a citizen resides in the penitentiary or because he has not shown ‘sufficient progress’ (a perilously subjective standard) in developing cognitive thinking skills. This recommendation represents the most dangerous philosophy in Canadian society today. In Canada, our definition of the basic rights that a human has from the time of birth are those written in the Charter. To suggest otherwise - as the Roadmap report does - is not only absurd, it is irresponsibly dangerous. This is this ideology that fostered horrid and tragic human rights abuses in Canada’s Indian reservations and residential schools for over a century. It is the same doctrine that led to the conditions of segregation in the British Columbia Penitentiary in 1975, when it was shamefully declared by a Canadian court to be a form of cruel and unusual punishment. When will we learn that to devalue the rights of any human is to devalue the human himself?

In the 20th century, the dehumanization of certain ‘categorized’ citizens led numerous countries to commit state-sponsored atrocities in such proportions as to never be erased from our collective consciousness. Stalinist purges, Cambodian killing fields, ‘Cultural Revolution’ in Maoist China, and the Holocaust all have in common that they were carried out by the state against their own citizenry. While many are left wondering how responsible, civilized governments could ever conduct themselves with such brutality against their own citizenry, there is a lesson to be learned in reviewing the laws and policies of those countries during those times. Without exception, justification for the state’s monstrous conduct can be found in legal decrees defining ‘certain groups of citizens’ as unworthy of the full compliment of human rights. Alarmingly, this is the slippery slope that the “Roadmap to Strengthening Public Safety” advocates. That alarm should sound loud and clear in the heart of any who would learn from history.

Evidently though, it is not. What is of great alarm - to those of us under the authority of the Correctional Service of Canada – is that this report and its recommendations have been both accepted and approved of by the ruling political party and the Commissioner of the CSC. As CSC began its 2008 implementation of the “transition” doctrine outlined in the “Roadmap” report, the opposition political parties have not uttered a word of disagreement or criticism. Even inside of CSC, where there exist judicious, experienced officials who have spent long careers ever vigilant for the types of human rights abuses indigenous to a penitentiary environment, there has been an awkward and conspicuous silence in the critique of a document widely perceived as representing the most regressive Correctional philosophy since the Canadian Penitentiary Act of 1868.

The reason for this noticeable hush is difficult to pinpoint. However, my commentary on the rapid and unimpeded rise of reactionary correctional philosophy as presented in the “Roadmap” report would be incomplete if I did not mention – even in brief - the equally rapid and unprecedented increase in influence of what has become a defacto “shadow administration” inside CSC – the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers (UCCO).UCCO’s roots can be traced to the late 1980’s and early 90’s. During that time, the CSC underwent a major organisational restructuring spearheaded by an aspirational Mission Statement, a new model for institutional management and a research-based cognitive model for prison programs. Front-line security officers soon found their authority and role in a reorganized, mission-driven CSC reduced in favor of cognitive-therapy treatment. An organization that had for 150 years supplied lifetime employment to consecutive generations of high school educated men was perceived by those same men as having turned its back on them – in favor of a correctional model that ceded greater dignity to the criminal offender. Many of these officers felt that the greater human rights – or dignity – being expended to prisoners was coming at the expense of their own dignity. (See “Toward a Policy for Canada’s Penitentiaries – The Evolution of Canada’s Prison System and the Transformation of the Correctional Officer’s Role (1950-2002)” http://www.ucco-sacc.csn.qc.cp/pregenerate/cmsFrameMain_EN_national_V05072Z0628670845PM.html?Lang=EN&ParentID=national&SectionID=V05072Z0628670845) This perception was undoubtedly strengthened by CSC budgetary decisions that oversaw a reallocation of financial resources from front line security into correctional programs and reintegration initiatives. Bitter, unfruitful contract negotiations between CSC and the Union representing Federal Public Servants (PSAC) in the early 1990’s provided fertile ground for a upsurge of resentment amongst front line Correctional Officers. The match that lit the tinder finally came in 1997, when CSC exponentially increased its fiscal budget for correctional programs facilitated by Sociology graduates, while simultaneously reducing its budget for front line Correctional Officers. CSC’s message was clear. In the field of corrections, the 21st century would belong to Canada, with its pioneering model of therapeutic, cognitive-training based correctional ‘healing’ environments. “Citizen lawbreakers” would be accorded personal dignity with an expectancy that they would follow suit by according dignity to others. It was a correctional philosophy that the front line Correctional Officers would never buy into. To the contrary, they became this philosophy’s most successful opponents.Exploring the success behind UCCO’s meteoric rise of influence inside the criminal justice system would make for a fascinating book, and is certainly beyond the reach of this submission. However, it is an important observation that now, in late 2008, no single entity inside of Canada’s criminal justice system holds greater influence over current and future correctional policy than does the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers. At the penitentiary level, prison Administrators cringe in apprehension when facing even potential conflict with UCCO representatives. At the national level, Correctional Officials at the highest levels of CSC are perceived by many middle managers to be “in the pocket” of UCCO. Anecdotal evidence even exists that UCCO is on the primary distribution list of the current government’s cabinet briefs concerning Corrections – ahead of even CSC Commissioners! Perhaps most revealing in terms of UCCO’s sphere of influence, is that a great many of the recommendations made by the “Independent CSC Review Panel” in their “Roadmap” report to the government are ‘cut-and-paste’ out of widely available UCCO promotional literature detailing the union’s future vision of Corrections in Canada. (Compare “Toward a Policy for Canada’s Penitentiaries – The Evolution of Canada’s Prison System and the Transformation of the Correctional Officer’s Role (1950-2002)” at page 131) This reality presents an obvious problem. While the primary mandate of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act is Public Safety, the Trade Union known as UCCO is focused primarily on the financial and career advantages of its due paying members. On a great many levels, these two agendas are mutually exclusive. Of equal importance to UCCO is an increase in due-paying members, thus greater enabling it to fulfill its primary mandate. On their face, correctional policies that grant greater dignity for criminal offenders, with emphasis on reintegration and lower rates of recidivism are by their very nature antithetical to UCCO’s primary goal – securing long lasting employment and influence for Correctional Officers. Logically then UCCO leadership does, and MUST oppose both legislation and policy that promotes human rights for criminal offenders. UCCO does not hide this organizational philosophy, rather freely advocating it in the promotional literature found at its website (http://www.ucco-sacc.csn.qc.cp) While couching its opposition to human rights (dignity) for criminal offenders in language supportive of staff safety and dignity, UCCO’s resistance is in reality a rejection of the social healing model of corrections in favor of a punitive, control and domination model requiring an ever larger legion of front line Correctional Officers.

This rejection of CSC’s mission-driven model, combined with the great political influence UCCO currently wields, is the evident reason that innovative CSC sites such as the Kwìkwèxwelhp Healing Village in B.C. have – as of November 2008 - a 17% occupancy rate while Medium Security facilities that tend towards keeping offenders incarcerated for longer periods under greater control are full to the point of double bunking. UCCO’s strategy in this regard has been little short of brilliant, transforming itself in 10 short years from a grass-roots movement of marginal, disgruntled public service employees into a powerful lobbying machine capable of dictating terms to its employer and essentially guaranteeing life-long career employment for its membership. Lamentably, for CSC and the tax-paying public they represent, it is not at all evident that UCCO’s strategy strengthens public safety in any way. The Union’s very public promotion of a return to a pre-Charter style penitentiary environment is in actuality a vote of support for the ultra-violent prison conditions of the 1970’s that led to riots, hostage takings, and murders in penitentiaries across Canada, as documented in the following words of the MacGuigan report of 1977:Seven years of comparative peace in the Canadian penitentiary system ended in 1970 with a series of upheavals (riots, strikes, murders and hostage-takings) that grew in numbers and size with each passing year. By 1976 the prison explosions were almost constant; hardly a week passed without another violent incident. The majority were in Canada's maximum security institutions. In the 42 years between 1932 and 1974, there was a total of 65 major incidents in federal penitentiaries. Yet in two years – 1975 and 1976 – there was a total of 69 major incidents, including 35 hostage-takings involving 92 victims, one of whom (a prison officer) was killed. (House of Commons Sub-Committee on the Penitentiary System in Canada, Report to Parliament [Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services, 1977] [Chairman: Mark MacGuigan] at 5) I have spoken with a number of institutional level correctional managers who feel that with the adoption of the ‘transformation agenda’ outlined in the “Roadmap” report, this 20 year tug of war between two competing ideologies inside of CSC has now been decided in favor of UCCO and its Allies. If this is so, there is great fear amongst many stakeholders that CSC is on the cusp of the largest regression of human rights since the patriation of the Canadian Constitution. It would be unrealistically biased of me to be so critical of the “Roadmap” report and not present an alternative. Yet, I freely admit that any alternative I could present would only be one more theory in a long line of theories presented by those seeking a utopian society. The truth is, crime is ugly. In every form, it is an assault on the human dignity of another. I know of which I speak.

In 1983, I began my all out assault on dignity. It began with a breach of financial trust, and ended 12 years later with the ultimate indignity - when I deprived another human being of his right to life. Yet, as implausible as it may sound, I now know that during that time I was desperately seeking “worth, honor, and esteem.” You will recall that this is how the dictionary defined “dignity”. How did a person searching so desperately for dignity become so undignified?I have thought about that question for many years now. The conclusion I’ve reached is that even though we are born with dignity, the world we are born into is full of indignity. My power of reason leads me to believe that powerful unseen wicked forces beyond our control are influencing the entire human family. How else can we explain the global epidemic of sexual slavery, child molestation, family violence, drug addiction and alcoholism, war, violent crime, starvation and poverty, environmental destruction and gross economic injustice? We may be born innocent, but it doesn’t remain that way for long. If dignity is a human birthright, then the world we are born into is a thief relentlessly seeking to steal it away. Unfortunately, this is the model we learn from the youngest age. When dignity is first taken from us, we feel “indignant”. Without correction, our base response is to take dignity from others in an attempt to retrieve our own. Logically, this “tit-for-tat” model of conflict resolution is the wrong response. It only creates a firestorm of people robbing dignity from others. Yet it is the model we continue to follow into adulthood – often without second thought. What it creates is a life cycle of indignity as the pendulum swings between losing and taking dignity.

Lawmakers know this well. In April of 1945, in an endorsement of the Charter of the newly formed United Nations Organization, U.S. President Harry Truman publicly stated: “We must build a new world—a far better world—one in which the eternal dignity of man is respected.” (Emphasis Mine) It is this attempt to validate “eternal dignity” for all that drives lawmakers to draft codes such as the Charter. It was with similar intent that in 1986, Canadian lawmakers set out to create “new correctional legislation which gives guidance to correctional staff and promotes fair and effective decision-making; it should facilitate operations and be clear and unambiguous; it should be internally consistent; it should promote the dignity and fair treatment of inmates; and reflect the interests of staff, offenders, and of all others affected by the correctional system.” (Emphasis Mine) (A Framework For the Correctional Law Review - Correctional Law Review Working Paper No. 2, - June 1986) Why should such legislation “promote the dignity and fair treatment of inmates”? The answer to that question strikes at the root of how Canadian citizens end up in prison.

As stated earlier, I am in prison because of committing one of the greatest indignities known to man. I forcibly took away another person’s dignity. His right to “worth, honor, and esteem”. His right to life. In doing so, I likewise gave up my own human dignity. Notice, I did not say I gave up my right to dignity. A human’s right to dignity can only be removed by the one who created him. Rather, in my case, I threw away my own dignity. At that time, Canadian society was forced to decide how to respond. Was revenge the right model? By killing me, they could enact upon me the same indignity I had enacted on my victim. Though I wouldn’t learn anything from the experience, perhaps it would teach the rest of society that taking away the dignity of another would be met with a forcible and severe removal of their dignity. Or, perhaps, as is the case in some societies, it would be better to publicly torture and maim me. That way revenge could be satisfied as my dignity is taken away on a repeated and daily basis.

In the end, Canadian society chose the moral high road. Perhaps this course was chosen on the perception that a person born into a world with so much indignity is not solely responsible for treating others with indignity. So, it was decided that in my case – and the cases of thousands of other Canadian citizens – Canadian society would attempt to teach us how to treat others with dignity. But how could this best be accomplished on such a large scale? In 1986, it was decided to create a new body of law that would – amongst other things – “promote the dignity and fair treatment of inmates”. This new body of law would take 6 years to create, span the mandate of two separate governments, and involve the labours of hundreds of lawmakers, social workers, International partners, university professors, CSC staff, lawyers, and community liaisons. The working papers alone for this project cover 2 years and 481 pages of summary reports. I know, I’ve read all of them. The final result was the CCRA – The Corrections and Conditional Release Act and the accompanying Regulations. In the opening sections of the CCRA, this law boldly stated its goal:Purpose of correctional system3. The purpose of the federal correctional system is to contribute to the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by(a) carrying out sentences imposed by courts through the safe and humane custody and supervision of offenders; and(b) assisting the rehabilitation of offenders and their reintegration into the community as law-abiding citizens through the provision of programs in penitentiaries and in the community. (Emphasis Mine)A “just, peaceful and safe society”. “Rehabilitation”. “Law abiding citizens.” Perhaps these principles are best summed up in the CCRA sections 70, which states:Living conditions, etc.70. The Service shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that penitentiaries, the penitentiary environment, the living and working conditions of inmates and the working conditions of staff members are safe, healthful and free of practices that undermine a person’s sense of personal dignity. (Emphasis Mine)The rationale behind this legislation is easily understood. Stripping a person of dignity is often more brutal than inflicting physical blows. It is devastating to the human spirit. A devastated, dehumanized human spirit is a dangerous thing. When humans become dehumanized, they tend to act inhumanely. This was the lesson learned painfully through the events in B.C. Pen, Millhaven, Archambault, and Kingston Penitentiary in the 1970’s and early 80’s. Some in the CSC today choose to irresponsibly forget that those lessons were paid for with the blood of both prisoners and Correctional Officers. A more pleasant lesson CSC has both learned and preached since that time is that when accorded greater dignity, human inclination is to conduct oneself, and treat others more humanely. In the 20 years since the creation of CSC’s Mission and the subsequent inception of the CCRA, incidents of prison violence in general, violent recidivism by parolees, and violent crime committed by successful beneficiaries of CSC correctional programming have reduced dramatically. Of equal interest is the anecdotal evidence that exceptions to these downward trends in violence exist most strongly at penitentiary sites where UCCO opposition to the therapeutic healing environment proceeds unchecked. Inversely, incidents of prison violence (against staff and offenders), criminal misconduct, and recidivism are lowest at sites designed to promote human dignity and social healing. Foremost amongst these sites are the minimum-security institutions and native healing villages. Yet, it spite of some evidence supporting the CCRA’s efficacy in validating dignity in criminal offenders, it too - like its parent the Charter - is doomed to failure. Mankind’s history with the ‘rule of law’ shows clearly that no written code, be it the CCRA in its current form nor a version modified according to the “Roadmap” recommendations, can govern the human heart. Our model of cognition states that thoughts lead to feelings, and feelings lead to actions. The rule of law cannot govern the feelings that lead to human indignity. Only when the “rule of law” gives way to the ‘rule of love’ will we in retrospect realize how ridiculous our attempts to “codify” human dignity were.

Only when humanity writes the Golden Rule on its heart instead of paper will our starvation for dignity finally be satisfied. I, for one am FULL OF HOPE that I will see that realized in my lifetime. But it will not come about through “the rule of law”, as the Charter’s opening words allude. Rather, my confidence lies in the other statement made in the Charter’s preamble – that through the “Supremacy of God”, all citizens will attain to dignity. While we await that Supremacy, I strongly encourage anyone hearing or reading these words to reject fear, reject dehumanization, reject those who would sacrifice the safety of Canadian citizens in exchange for narrow political and financial agendas, and instead embrace HUMAN DIGNITY. When we dignify others – even more so than we feel they deserve - we in truth dignify ourselves. In dignifying ourselves, we dignify ALL humanity. This is the vision that Canadians must welcome and promote – even for those guilty of our society’s greatest indignities.

Coach Elouise

604-794-3218

Skype elouise.lord

Email: rascal60@shaw.ca

http://tinyurl.com/6jhsm5

And the beat goes on...

It is the end of August, but Derik remains at Matsqui. His case managemnt meetings have been postponed now for 4 weeks. The paperwork is not done yet either. The carpentry course he wants to get into at Willam Head starts in a week, but he wll not be there.
His passes for which he received appoval last February are not progressing at all. He has had 1 pass in 6 months. He goes to check on Mondays and Fridays to see if he is going to the meetings (L.I.N.C.), but it has become just another joke. The staff just laugh when they see him coming.
Way to go guys!
Nice rehabilitation going on here!

How do you get a loved one out of prison?

Derik should now be at a minimum securtiy prison. Actually, he should have been out on parole 6 years ago. He still sits in Matsqui, his home away from home for nearly all of the 17 years he has been incarcerated.

His IPO once again asked that he wthdraw his application for a transfer. When he asked why, she could only say William Head does not want him. So he asked what do I have to do next. Her reply was "I don't know" The usual.

He has not had an IPO who appears to understand the job or know what to do to get him on the way out of prison. That pat answer has been the one he has heard for at least 10 years now. I ask the same questions when I call, but I get the same pat answer.

There is nothing left on Derik's correctional plan. There are no further programs, no further education, no further work experience that can be had at Matsqui.

He is way past his parole date. He has been warehoused for nearly half his life. The only reason that I can see for him still being there is racism. He is Metis. He does not lie, he does not cheat, he does not shirk responsibility, he maintains his innocence, he stays in prison. It is beyond time that he was released.

He was granted escorted passes to go to LINC meetings. Last February. He has received only one pass since and gone out one time. Apparently no more are forthcoming. His IPO wants more passes before she does anything. He cannot get more passes without overtime for guards. That is not coming any time soon. It is time for Michelle to get off her butt and set something in motion for him. Do your job!

Elouise
http://www.canadianinjustice.com
http://coachelouise.com

We still carry on and Derik is still behind bars.

Derik has now completed the programs he was sent back to medium security to do. He was approved for scheduled escorted passes last February. It is now July and he finally received one outing to a linc meeting. His IPO will not do the paperwork for his transfer until he has a couple more passes, but those are not forthcoming. So, there he sits. 16 years into a life-10 bit and he is still no closer to getting out. They are not demandig a confession since we pointed out that is contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada. But, they are not facilitating his release.

What does it take to get out of jail in this country?

Apparently it takes a lot of money, lies, sex and videotapes.

If you have any ideas, please post.

Coach Elouise

The day goes on.

It has been some time since I posted on this blog. You would expect that much has happened. To the contrary, nothing has really changed. Derik Still sits at a medium security even though the program that he took has been completed for a couple of weeks, nearly a month actually. His transfer request is in, his passes have been approved since February, but nothing has really changed. He gets no passes for staff shortage reasons. He is not getting transferred yet because it will take about 6 months of paperwork. Not that it takes 6 months to do it, but it takes that long to encourage the staff to complete their obligatory paperwork. It can take even longer if the staff decides, as his last internal parole officer did, that she/he is not going to do anything at all for several months.
Can you hear my frustration? Multiply that by 100 and you get some sense of his frustration levels.