Like Ms. Maria Mourani whose column is translated below, Bambi is a strong believer in the principle of laws for ALL. In addition, she finds the designation and divisions of Canadians as “black” and “white” as being both ridiculous and insulting to “so-called” black or white people and to our collective intelligence, despite any good intention behind the policies established by our governments.
To begin with, there is no such thing as a homogeneous group of so-called black (or white) people. As she has mentioned many times on this blog and during former interviews, including the most recent one with Mr. Tart Vader (https://shorturl.at/lZsyW) , there are unfair or poor living conditions for this or that individual from this or that group (including the so-called white and silent majority). For instance, if you are the personal assistant or political advisor of Mr. Trudeau and you happen to have black skin, you are likely not living in the same socio-economic conditions as someone with the same hue of skin who is homeless or who is a refugee or an inmate, etc.
There are also cultural or ethno-linguistic differences among and within each group. We cannot call all Canadians with darker skin black (or white). A local (so-called white) québécois from Chicoutimi who speaks the French language and likely comes from French-Canadian culture is not like a (so-called white) Toronto-based Canadian who may or may have not been born in Ontario. There are rich and more privileged or poorer and more socio-economically disadvantaged individuals within in each group.
There are African Canadians who are of Haitian heritage. Others locals from Nova Scotia. There are adopted kids with black skins who may have been born in this or that country or who maybe come from just another nearby neighbourhood. Are all these people the same in terms of life opportunities?
With the differences in personalities or in current life circumstances or in early adversity, thankfully, we all can learn to exert personal agency on our own lives to become better versions of ourselves. Of course, we can also all go through crises in life or encounter temptations or sometimes find ourselves attracted to or stuck in certain toxic ways of living or in potentially bad relationships for us, etc.
Despite all these differences, or nuances, that are mentioned above (along with many others, which may have been omitted), Ms. Mourani is right when she writes that one thing must remain unchanged in a democracy: it is the concept of laws, including criminal ones, for ALL (even if we take into account mitigating, or maybe aggravating, factors on a case by case basis in court decisions).
Even if we want to fix an overrepresentation in jails, for the sake of fairness to all (including the overrepresented group itself), we must stick to the basic principle of a law for all. If we start changing the latter, even in the name of more equity, we risk becoming like those third world countries where connections to this or that powerful group could make the difference in determining who goes to jail or not.
Bambi is convinced that the scenario of favouritism mentioned above is not the intention of our government, but sadly this risk being the outcome of such unwise criminal policies in the long-term. Bambi is saying so, regardless of the group in question, of course.
This being said, Ms. Mourani expressed herself in clever and more elegant way than Bambi who will stop sharing her insights here. With the assistance of Mr. Google Translate, she will now translate Ms. Mourani’s column, which was published yesterday in the Journal de Montreal (https://shorturl.at/Ybv3Z). You may or may not agree with this expert and experienced politician. However, her text is surely worth reflecting upon.
—
“Last June, the Trudeau government’s Department of Justice produced a report on its Canadian strategy for justice for black people.
Although it starts from a good intention, namely to act on the overrepresentation of black people in the judicial and prison systems, this report includes several aberrant recommendations which de facto create a two-tier system.
On many points, the framework of this report is more akin to a political pamphlet from a group of activists than to a real analysis of the judicial and prison systems.
On the other hand, the Ministry of Justice seems to have adopted these 71 pages of wandering.
If certain recommendations are not bad in themselves and are obvious, such as offering training on racism against black people (and why not on racism quite simply) to professionals in the justice system, some on the sentencing is discriminatory and contravenes section 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which states that the law “is no exception and applies equally to all, and all are entitled to the same protection and equal benefit of the law, regardless of any discrimination.”
It is still ironic that a report concocted by a group made up mainly of racialized people results in discriminatory recommendations against other racialized people and the French and English Canadian majority.
Sentencing with variable geometry
In my column of May 18, 2022, I already denounced the excesses of the Trudeau government with its Bill C-5, the objective of which was to eliminate minimum sentences for several serious crimes.
The reason this government then gave was that the “excessive incarceration rate of Indigenous people, black Canadians and members of marginalized communities” required this type of measure.
One of the recommendations found in this report is therefore to “remove all mandatory minimum sentences provided for in the Criminal Code.”
Does this mean that there will no longer be a minimum sentence for murder?
Their demands do not stop there!
In the Criminal Code, there is a paragraph (718.2e) which requires the judge when determining the sentence to take into account circumstances specific to Aboriginal offenders, taking into account their colonial history and its consequences.
As a matter of fact, one of the recommendations is to add black people to this paragraph in the name of the segregation of which they were victims in Canada.
Let’s push the logic to the end. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander [translation of “Si c’est bon pour Pitou, cela doit aussi l’être pour Minou!“]! We would then have to add to this paragraph the long list of immigrant peoples who experienced segregation in Canada, notably the Italians, the Chinese, the Jews, the Vietnamese, etc., and to top it all off, the French Canadians who were dealt with…
Since we are remaking history, let’s do it big!
A single justice?
We live in an imperfect world and justice is much more a concept than a reality. Some have more power, more money, more connections. But one thing must persist in this jungle of the absurd: the LAW. And it must be the same for everyone.
Ultimately, it is the only and true justice”.
