Canada’s Pardon system is about to see an overhaul. The Conservatives tabled a bill yesterday to make the changes. The most important changes and the ones I believe were absolutely needed is the deny pardons to those convicted of sex crimes against children and those with convictions of three or more serious offences.

In typical Harper Conservatives fashion, they are now trying to ramrod the bill through the house by raising the spectre of Karla Homolka being eligible to apply for pardon this year. Let me say quite clearly, that woman shouldn’t be even walking the streets let alone being eligible for a pardon.

It’s cleared the flawed system needed some fixing and quickly before another serious injustice occurs. So why wouldn’t the Conservatives table a carefully thought out bill with the most important changes included and leave the door open for other changes to follow? Now that would be a tad too civil.

An editorial in today’s Toronto Star says the bill goes too far. It finds that the move to change the name from Pardon to “Record Suspension” as mean spirited. Toews rationalizes that a pardon implies forgiveness and that the state is not in the business of doing so.

To me, forgiveness would mean an expunging of the record, a pardon doesn’t do that. It allows the record to be masked thus allowing the person to get on with the parts of their life which were blocked for them, like travelling internationally or being able to hold some jobs.

Forgiveness is a loaded word for many. In essence, a pardon is the state’s recognition of the convict’s efforts to live as a law abiding citizen and allows them greater latitude to fully join society. That allows complete rehabilitation and reintegration into society. That should be the goal for the vast majority of those who have committed crimes.

Changing the name provides only an avenue for argument and debate and does nothing to move this bill towards a speedy passing.

The editorial argues that the absolute ban on those convicted of sexual offences against minors and of more than three serious crimes needlessly ties the hands of the board. That is the purpose of the bill is to put an unequivocal stop to exactly that breed of convicts from being shielded from the publics’ awareness.

If there should be points of common ground for all parties in this bill, that should be clear common ground.

In the range of other crimes which the board is expected to rule on the bill allows for discretion provided it doesn’t bring the administration of justice into disrepute. While defining what will be disrepute could be debatable, that latitude is clearly needed.

Lengthening the waiting time before being able to apply to 10 years for those convicted of serious crimes seems more than reasonable. The more serious the crime committed the longer it should take to prove an ability to live in our society. Five years for minor offences seems a bit hefty but that could be lived with.

Placing the onus on the individual to prove why a pardon will enhance the rehabilitation is a bit useless. The benefits of a pardon are clear, it is difficult for anyone to fully integrate into society when barriers are in their way.

It seems to me that as usual the Conservatives have stuck enough into this bill to make parts of it contentious thus allowing them to try to paint the Opposition as soft on crime.

It’s more than time that the Opposition and in particular the Liberals need to drop the focus on scandal and grow a pair to stand up for what is right not what is politically flavourful.

If the Conservatives want the heart of this bill passed, they should be pushed into a position of negotiating amendments to make it a good bill. Liberals, the country is watching.

These Articles May Be Related:

notice: The content of this post contains my opinions and my right to express them. I will respect your right to express your opinion in the comments as long as you’re not abusive and you respect my right to my opinion.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Related posts