babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
I have nothing against a fair work program, and it might be worth remembering that the federal government just cut an excellent example of one - the work farm program - which many prisoners and ex-prisoners, and a number of communities lobbied to save.
I also don't have a problem in principle with work in prisons. The question is when that turns into what they have in the states - factory prisons, where you essentially have private companies selliing the labour of their slaves to the highest bidder (and they actually do have work fairs for prisons down there.
As for the work gang I saw. I wonder how much of that is for the actual work, and how much is for the humiliation by recreating that stereotypical image of the chain gang. Not a loaded question - I don't know.
And speaking of sterotypes, this didn't happen in the deep south OR redneck Alberta, but in the North East
http://abcnews.go.com/US/mark-ciavarella-pa-juvenile-court-judge-convict...
The federal farm work program was voluntary, and rehabilitative - Hudak's proposal is mandatory and punitive.
And what the fuck is a "fair work program"?
So as long as it's the Harper or Hudak government and not some private corporation that's doing it, it's OK with you?
Arbeit macht frei, eh, Snert?
M. Spector wrote:
Snert wrote:
For the record, I'm not saying "let's do whatever Hudak suggests". But in principle, I'm certainly not opposed to convicts having to do work. Describing that as some kind of slavery is absurd. If work without pay is slavery, then what is room and board and medical care and a weight room and a television without work?
Arbeit macht frei, eh, Snert?
M. Spector, while I understand and even sympathise with where you're coming from, such references a: lower the overall tone of debate, and 2: serve as a distraction from the real issues at hand. Also, a bit tasteless.
Snert, room board medical care and exercise are bare minimal requirements of life which must be provided to anyone whom we, in a civilized society deprive of their liberty and hold in incarceration.
Does that count as a Godwin violation, even though he didn't actually say "Nazi" out loud?
I'm not suggesting we get rid of any of them. I just don't have a huge problem with the idea that while convicts are receiving these, they might also have to do some work.
I agree. The goal of prisoners working should be the introduction of a little bit of responsibility into their lives, and some degree of restitution to society. It shouldn't be to line an individual's pockets.
M. Spector #62
I meant just what I said, and from your response I'd guess you probably agree that the farm program was "fair work".
So you don't have to throw accusatory questions at me.
And can it with the smears and implications that I support ontario's proposal, or the federal governmnent's plan. I said no such thing.
The image of work gangs raises alarm bells for me, as it does for you, but since I don't know that much about the reality of prison work here in Canada I'd rather not fly off the handle with a gut reaction before i know what I am talking about.
Do I think there is a place for productive and rehabilitative work in the prison system? In principle, yes - as I said. Do I think there is a danger of that kind of a situation being abused, or punitive? Also, yes - and if you read my comments in full you might notice I said that too.
Do I think prisoners should be forced to work? No.
This proposal has nothing to do with earning money.
Hudak wants prisoners to work for CREDITS to be used for REWARDS such as watching television.
The proposal puts forth the creation of Canadian sweat shops.
Keep in mind that Hudak is a provincial politician so this proposal is not aimed at maximum penitentiaries housing society's worst and most dangerous offenders but rather those in prison for petty crime.
I wonder how gung ho you'd be with this if you find yourself at the wrong end of an arguement on the computer and are sentenced to prison (which is the actual topic of this thread)
Or someone doing time for getting busted with a dime bag of pot in their pocket....Hard labour?
That's something CHINA does.
This does not have a place in a supposed 'democracy'
Speaking of China:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/video-games/controller-fr...
And I am trying to find that old article on the prison job fair I mentioned in the U.S.
The anonymous man, himself a former prison guard who was incarcerated in 2004 for three years after “illegally petitioning” perceived government corruption, stated that in addition to his hard labour duties — which included mining coal — he was forced to play games for up to 12 hours at a time, performing simple tasks that resulted in game currency.
And this is what Hudak's plan opens the door to.
I'm actually not too worried. I gave up linking to hate sites for Lent. I actually found it relatively easy to make my points without having to send anyone to hate sites.
Anyway, while you may disagree, I generally believe it's pretty easy to NOT end up in prison. And oddly enough, it doesn't even involve having to DO anything, so much as NOT doing things (not assaulting anyone, not robbing anyone, not setting things on fire, etc., etc.)
I see. Whereas you figure they just have some kind of entitlement to watching television? Or else what the hell is the problem with positive incentives for positive behaviour?? When I was a kid, my parents made my allowance conditional on performing certain household chores. I guess I saw that as an introduction to the idea of responsibility, not some kind of draconian slavery or exploitation. Little did I know, I guess.
... not smoking dope
... not living in a part of town where you are surrounded and pressured by gang culture
... not having addiction problems, poverty, or other pressures.
... not being born non-white (generally) or Native (specifically)
I don't mean to take all responsibility off of the person who commits the crime, but it's not quite so simple, or balanced as saying "don't do it".
Even more ironic is that several American jurisdictions are moving away from tough-on-crime policies.
Sorry Snert but the government is NOT your parents.
And,the world is not black and white..it's a shade of grey...Although I'm not quite sure what colour the sky is in the planet you live in but you come across as an ignorant person.
Labour camps are A-OK,eh?
What next,Snert?
Those who are guilty of being unemployed should be drug tested,have no right to 'rewards' such as watching television or eating and be made to clean graffitti off of walls for $600 a month?
As mentioned above by Smith_W....Some portions of the poplace are vulnerable to diseases such as poverty and addiction.
Just because life is roses for you,doesn't mean that is the reality of everyone.
Maybe if poverty were to be abolished and fascist morality laws were to be scrapped,crime rates (as low as they currently are) would plummet.
Your way is a failure...Your stance has nothing to do with rehabilitation and everything to do with condoning slavery.
Poor you.
I made my son save 40% for future use and he could spend the rest. I didn't feel any need to tie his walking around money to domestic drudgery. He learned the lesson I was trying to teach him well and is a very responsible with his money and amazingly saved enough to send himself to Europe and other such rites of passage. He works hard for his money now and he learnt that without having been forced to do chores. Of course he was and is always expected to help without complaint when asked.
That was my bargain. You have no set chores but you must not grumble and when asked to do things. As as a single Dad I preferred to just get the shit cleaned up quickly. It saved me hours of nagging to get things done and allowed me to get help when I actually needed it. Your experience in this world is relevant to you but certainly not the standard I used with success in raising my son. I had friends who adhered to your parent's model and it never ceased to amaze me how most of their relationship with their children revolved around what chores needed doing next or should have been done last.
My parents never bribed me with an allowance because they didn't believe in them. They expected me to help with the chores because I was a member of a family and families work together to get things done. Again another different pattern.
Easy. Just keep making more and more things illegal... Keep making jobs harder to find and keep paying less,* while increasing the cost of food and shelter, and taking apart the safety net. Your kid gets hungry or cold enough, you steal. And maybe the law enforcement agencies don't have to be too, too persnickety about conviction.... Why wait for people to be proven guilty of anything? Why not arrest them on suspicion of planning to protest, or for having an ugly home-made box on top of their car?
See, you're still living in a wold that no longer exists.
*ps which gets easier, the more free labour is available through the prison program, and the work-for-welfare program and the runaways rehabilitation bootcamp program and the other creative shit that will make profits for friends of public officials and help 'save' public moneys by firing more people who used to do those jobs for union wages.
I agree it's not foolproof advice, 100% guaranteed to keep you out of prison. Similarly, telling people to eat healthy and exercise is not 100% guaranteed to ensure you live into your 90s. But it's a good start.
As I've said, I'm not averse to convicts having to work. That's hardly a "labour camp". And the rest is just your fertile imagination -- organically fertilized with bull shit.
Save your sympathies for the carjackers and rapists. Y'know... the REAL victims.
Thanks for unmasking yourself and showing your true colours.
Spoken like a true blue Harperite.
I'm not going to waste anymore time discussing anything with you....It's pointless....You're an ideologue.
Snert you are wilfully blind too systemic discrimination and its effect on who gets locked up for their crimes. Most people break some law or other at least once a week. (I drive more often than that) Who gets locked up is a different story than who breaks laws. If we incarcerated every citizen for all crimes they committed we would have a line up for our prisons that looked like a catholic confessional box the week before Easter. Instead we pick and choose and magically people who fit your demographics are actually under represented in jails.
http://thezeds.com/2009/08/10/canadian-aboriginal-incarceration-rates/
I see. So the goal is to get lots of people into prison, and so the first thing we should criminalize is... making a web link to a hate site.
That's so backward and ineffective that it *almost* makes me think maybe that's exactly what the government is doing. But really, even they're not that absurd.
No, I'm aware that the law is far from colourblind. I just don't believe that systemic discrimination is behind the majority of convictions.
Curious question: men make up only half of the population at large, but about 90% of the prison population. Do you believe that men are being systemically discriminated against by the legal system? If not, how would you explain those numbers?
Interesting question. I'll bet that men commit 95% of serious crimes, and systemic discrimination in their favour reduces their rate of incarceration to 90%.
It is. Just go along with the flow and don't ask questions that make your rulers uncomfortable. That applies whether you live in "free" countries like Canada, the US, or Europe, or dictatorships like Russia, China, Iran or Libya.
The power structure is always more concerned with its own survival than making sure that average people are safe. For example, did you notice that during the G20 in Toronto that thousands of peaceful protesters were treated more harshly by the police than the hundreds of people who smashed cars and windows? Smashing cars and windows is a crime, so why did the police not perform their duties? Peaceful assembly is not a crime, so why were the police ordered to break them up?
Screw that. Watch this...
"Why the hell are our troops still in Afghanistan, Harper?? And why are you so blatantly biased in favour of Israel???"
Hah!
Ok, now who's going to bake me a cake with a file in it?
Snert, you probably think you're provoking thoughtful debate by being provocative, but in reality you're being irritating to the point of trolling. Further, you're pretty much underlining to those who have yet to figure it out that you really don't get the "progressive" part of participating on a socially progressive board. Cut it out.
Now, things were getting a bit away from the topic in the opening post and onto more general issues of prison policy. I thought that was pretty timely, especially in light of some recent suggestions from the guy who could be the next Premier of Ontario, so I started a seperate thread. Please jump in.
I certainly wouldn't want to irritate anyone! But I don't really believe that most people are in jail for "asking questions that make their rulers uncomfortable". If making a bit of fun of over-the-top absurdity like that makes me a bad progressive, I'll take my chances. And that said, I'll also leave this thread to return to the original topic.
Putting a lot of people in prison is only one of several parts of the goal. Toward that, a seemingly harmless little extension to an already accepted law is a small but definite step. I don't know what other subtle extensions to the current legal system are in there, and i bet most people won't find out until too late.
The real purpose of this step, though, is not increasing the prison population, but to inhibit the free exchange of information through intimidation: to make people wary and afraid to post links, to allow links on their fora, or follow links supplied by other people - just in case they'll get into trouble. You chose to ignore that explanation, above.
Absurdist is one way to describe Kafka. Realist is another.
This is not accurate. A comment doesn't need to incite violence to be considered hate speech, it only needs to incite hatred. There are two clauses in the law; one that deals with promoting genocide, and one that deals with inciting hatred. Violence would be implied with genocide, but it's not required at all to incite hatred.
Hatred is very broadly defined as any comment that exposes a protected class to hatred or prejudice. It's not specific or concise at all and covers an absolutely massive range of negative comments.
Now that nationality is on the list, people are going to have to be very careful about what they write regarding Israelis or Americans, for example, and also very careful when linking to any website that is critical of these countries.
Good thing you didn't actually bet because you would have lost. There is a racial and gender bias in the justice system that disfavors minorities and men.
Women are far more likely to receive conditional sentences, suspended sentences and other diversions, even when all other factors are similar to men who committed the same crime. Additionally, women receive lighter average sentences when convicted of the same crime.