Canadian Values and the Rest of the World

I used to take some pride in Canada's stance on such things as bribery. It seemed to me that it was important to stand up and say, as a country, that we thought such practices were wrong and perhaps even anti-democratic; that we believed in a level playing field where everyone had an equal chance to succeed. It seem, therefore, quite appropriate that we would lay criminal charges against Canadian companies that used such practices to further their commercial dealings in other countries. I thought that until yesterday morning when I read Neil Macdonald's(*) opinion piece on the CBC's website.

Macdonald was commenting on the corruption and fraud charges facing SNC-Lavalin and two of its subsidiaries as a result of their activities in Libya. He started his piece by confessing that, in his capacity as a news reporter, he had bribed numerous officials in a variety of countries to ensure safe passage through borders or to retrieve equipment from a country's custom operations. He was quite clear - it was the only way that he could have done his job; that bribery/baksheesh was not just common, it was all-pervasive.

As I thought about his story that discusses the economic impact of such policies on the Canadian economy - I started to wonder if we, as Canadians are setting a standard that was not just unrealistic for our companies but that in fact it was inappropriate for us to do so. I am not suggesting that we start to create a culture in Canada where everything cost just a little bit more because we have to bribe the receptionist at the doctor's office to get an appointment or some government clerk so that we can get our licence or health cards renewed, but rather to suggest that the imposing of our values upon another country is as paternalistic or as colonialist as any activity perpetuated by the British or Canadian governments in the 1800s.

In fact, it sounds extraordinarily pompous to suggest that we know the right way - in fact the only way to be ethical in our dealings. It is arrogant of us to tell other cultures that part of their culture is wrong and even worse, that it is criminal. I can think of nothing that gives me the right to judge other people so harshly for an activity that, while it may feel as if it is harmful to that country's population, does nothing to harm me. Bribery may be a harmful practice - it may make the playing field so uneven that the majority of people in that country cannot succeed, but is it my place to pontificate upon the failings of that region's culture?

There are some cultural practices such as genital mutilation or forced marriages of young girls that feel so wrong to me that I am quite content to have my country refuse to deal with regions that allow or perhaps even encourage such activities. But if I am going to sound like some pompous, arrogant 19th century European, at the very least, I should understand that am trying to enforce my values on someone else because I think my values are better than theirs.

I perhaps should not be surprised when they are offended.


(*) https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/libya-snc-1.5014939

Jail Time - What is Enough?

Last week, two Canadians were sentenced for murdering a number of their fellow citizens. Their crimes were different in terms of who they murdered, and why. Their sentences also were different. At least one of the sentences has drawn the ire of one community.

Bruce McArthur, a self-employed gardener had plead guilty to the murder of eight men over a period of years. He was by his own account a serial murderer of gay men. One has to wonder if there were, in fact, more murders - men who have gone missing but their bodies will never be found. The judge sentenced him to eight terms of life imprisonment (concurrently) with no parole possible for 25 years. McArthur will be in his mid 90s before he can apply for parole.

Alexandre Bissonnette plead guilty to murdering six men (and injuring a number of others) in a violent attack on a mosque. He was sentenced to life imprisonment with no possibility of parole for 40 years. Bissonnette will be in his mid-60s before he is eligible for parole.

There are some Muslims who are suggesting that Bissonnette's sentence was not harsh enough, that it does not recognize the violent and anti-Muslin nature of the crime. I understand - how can 40 years be enough to punish an individual for going to a place of worship and randomly killing people that he did not know, that he had never met? There could never be enough years left in someone's life to punish them for this kind of crime. In reading some of the comments from people who had been affected by these senseless murders - it feels as if they were looking for vengeance, that they were hoping that the judge would impose a sentence that would ensure that the individual never got out of prison.

As I have suggested elsewhere, the function of a prison sentence has three components. One is to clearly punish the individual for the crime. In both of the above cases - there is no adequate punishment for intentionally taking another person's life. Even if there was capital punishment in Canada - how could executing one person be adequate payback for killing six individuals? While there may be some individuals who would not mind losing their freedom - forty years in jail for me would be a punishment beyond imagining. Adding another twenty years on the sentence would have little effect.

The second reason for a sentence is to act as a deterrent to other individuals contemplating a similar crime. I cannot ever envision a serial murderer or some near mentally ill mass murderer ever considering what the consequences of murder would be. Deterrent may work for those thinking about robbing a bank (although banks keep on getting robbed) - but not for those who are afflicted by some sort of pathology.

The final reason for incarcerating is to keep the community safe. McArthur's sentence clearly does this. He will in all likelihood die in prison. If by some medical miracle he does live until the end of his sentence and is granted parole the first time he applies - he will not be a risk to the community.

In Bissonnette's case, it is less clear. After forty years in jail, it is unlikely that any rehabilitation will have been effective. It is possible that he will be as angry and as bitter (and as mentally ill) when he is 67 as he is now. Keeping him in jail forever would save the children of the murdered men from having to go to a parole hearing and explain to the tribunal why he should not be released. But what if something happens to him prison and there is a change. Maybe, after forty years he will have shown that he has the capacity to be an agent for positive change. Should he not have a chance? But in all likelihood, if he ever leaves prison, he will leave as a person so heavily institutionalized that he will have lost all capacity to live independently or in any way contribute to his community.

There can be no sentence that would be an adequate response to intentional murder. The families of the victims will never be healed by the consequences given to the offender. That is not the role of the court.

Given the limits of our legal system and our collective need to work towards a society that is less violent - the sentences - the two men will most likely spend the rest of their lives incarcerated. That is all we can expect. The healing is the job of those of us who are free to live in the community.