Remebering the tortured

      The theologian William Cavanaugh has said “torture is a kind of perverted liturgy, a ritual act which organizes bodies in the society into a collective performance, not of true community, but of atomized aggregate of mutually suspicious individuals.” Cavanaugh holds that is the real point of torture, to create (or rather uncreate) a population of people who are paralyzed by their suspicion of each other, and hence unable to form any bonds of solidarity against the society that has tortured them.
      This is held in contrast to the Eucharist, where those who are broken, beaten, and forgotten are both figuratively and literally re-membered in the body of Christ. As the oppressive state creates separation, the Church unites. In one model we no longer seek to know our neightbour, but protect ourselves from him, in the other we are commanded to serve him.
      This underlying fear of the other, has been the stain that has coloured the 21st century thus far. After the attacks of 9-11 much of the public discourse has been around the themes of protection, security, the rights of the individual’s freedom from interference; our right to be left alone. This has never been the Church’s teaching; we have never promised the world to be a safe place, we have never said that bad things don’t happen to good people (our faith is based on the premise that the worst thing happened to the best person), and we have never promised loneliness in amidst the chaos that is the World.
      And yet as this these whirlwinds of fear, protectionism, and loneliness gather the ideals that we once held onto as a country are being whittled away.  As party to the Convention Against Torture, Canada has traditionally been a country that has honored its obligation to protect those fleeing from torture, but under the new bait-and-switch tactics of the present government, much of what has been considered “traditionally Canadian” is being refashioned. Just after passing bill C-10, that will see the construction of mega-prisons, there now stands a bill that will radically change our country’s approach to refugee rights.  Bill C-31, which is presently starting to go through the Senate, would impose strict, unrealistic new timelines, denying time for refugees to understand the process and to prepare cases, a minimum 1-year detention for irregular arrivals who will now face triple punishment – by their countries, their smugglers, and Canada.
      You will recall how two years ago when Sri Lankan Tamil refugees landed on our shores how we greeted them with a debate as to how we define terrorists. While that debate raged and 40 Tamil children were placed in detention for 4 months, 700 bunnies were “rescued” from the grounds of the University of Victoria. In March 2011, when the Immigration and Refugee Board ordered the deportation of one of the Sri Lankan Tamil migrants, Public Safety Minister Vic Toews called the decision "an unmitigated victory for the rule of law." Would that we would meet our Lord as we meet the bunnies; an unwanted victim coming at an unwanted hour begging for asylum.
      Mary-Jo Leddy, a Catholic activist who founded the refugee shelter Romero House in Toronto, has said that while the middle class can afford the luxury to be cynical about the government, the poor cannot afford a mediocre Church. It is the Church that must speak the truth of Christ’s compassion to those in power, that must show the world through the tears of Mary bearing witness to the tortured. If we can be this uncomfortable voice in the world, then we will be honouring the charge assigned us.

I tell the Senate what I think of Bill C-10

What follows is a letter that I have written and mailed to the each member of the Senate. While it's Conservative heavy these days, I hope to tilt the scales somewhat. 

To the Right Honorable Member of the Senate,

 

            On September 9, 2009 I awoke to hear my wife screaming. She was being attacked by a young man who had wandered into our home intoxicated. He had armed himself with a knife from our kitchen and when my wife went to the bathroom he stabbed her behind her left knee, opening an artery and severing a nerve cluster.

            I ran downstairs to her aid, chased the attacker out, preformed First Aid on my wife, and called 911. We were quite fortunate for the quick response of the paramedics; transporting her to the hospital quickly enough for the surgeons to perform the delicate art of repairing the wound. Today my wife is completing a diploma of fine arts at a local community college and, while she now has a permanent disability due to the attack she suffered, she leads a full life and contributes greatly to the community.

            I write this to you now as I have since been employed at a Community Residence Facility under the Salvation Army, a half-way house for men who are on parole. As such I believe I have special insight into our criminal justice system having seen it through the eyes of a victim as well as one who, as part of the system, has built relationships with men who have committed offences similar to what I have described to you above. 

            Mostly I write this to you as I am scared as to the direction our country is taking when it shifts the emphasis of criminal justice from rehabilitative to punitive. I have been following much of the coverage surrounding Bill C-10 and I do not believe that it will make anyone in Canada safer. The usage of mandatory minimum sentences will only make for first time offenders to be further immersed into criminal culture which will make their reentry to civil society that much more challenging. In my time at the Salvation Army I have seen that it is those associations that are formed in prison that ultimately derail the good intentions of a parolee, and that more time in prison will only strength those ties.

            While I may have been the victim of a crime, I am well aware that Canada’s overall crime rate has been dwindling for 30 years. Why we would choose to invest in the construction of more prisons is a particularly bitter sting for me as, in the aftermath of the attack, I did not feel that my government was there for me. They had helped us to physically survive, but my wife was to start classes at the University of Victoria on September 10th, as callous as this may sound the attack cost us her student loans. She did not qualify for any EI and I was making too much money for welfare. Too much money for welfare was around 1600 dollars a month, not enough to support two people in the city of Victoria. We survived by charity – a humbling place for newlyweds to begin. Ten billion dollars pumped into a safety-net for victims would have gone a long way for us.

            At this point I would highly recommend that you take the opportunity to review the report Shifting the Conversation, recently issued by the office of the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime which, as an overall document, I endorse; especially the part around financial support for the victim.

            I would like to end this letter with what of what my wife said to her attacker as part of her victim impact statement: “I hope your time in prison will be one of growth and fruitful soul searching.” Is this not what we have penitentiaries for? To give men the opportunity that they may repent, and return to us as healed individuals? Should not this be the ideal that our country aspires to? I do not see these ideals represented in Bill C-10. I see it costing us more both fiscally and morally. I implore you, as our sober second thought, let it not pass. 

Sincerely,

Matthew Cook