FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

Rebranding Canada’s Solitary Confinement Policy Doesn’t Change What It Is

There was a time when an unconstitutional government policy was not something lamented then simply rebranded. Once a court found it unconstitutional, the practice just … ended, especially when politicians had campaigned against it. Not so solitary confinement – an old practice that today’s Canadian Parliament loves to hate, hates to love, but just keeps on doing.

Reading the latest court decision on solitary confinement (R v. Prystay, from Alberta), one doesn’t know whether to sigh with relief that another court got it so right, or cry over what took place. How could it be that a person in our country was held for 400 days in the deplorable conditions and extreme isolation that make up solitary confinement?

Justice Dawn Pentelechuk held that placing an inmate in solitary confinement for 400 days – where he suffered physical and psychological harms – was cruel and unusual punishment in violation of Section 12 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. She wrote:

“Societal views on what is acceptable treatment or punishment evolve over time. Forced sterilization, residential schools, lobotomies to treat mental disorders, corporal punishment in schools and the death penalty are all examples of treatment once considered acceptable. Segregation ravages the body and the mind. There is growing discomfort over its continued use as a quick solution to complex problems.”

And yet our federal government intends to maintain the practice of solitary confinement – now rebranded as “administrative segregation.” While the recently introduced Bill C-83 declares that it would “eliminate the use of administrative segregation,” the actual provisions of the bill would do no such thing. It is true that Bill C-83 would change the name of the “segregation unit” to the “structured intervention unit.” It would add a few daily hours out of cell for some inmates. And it would offer most inmates a shower and a few other minor improvements. However, Bill C-83 also would allow our penitentiaries to keep people in conditions of extreme isolation for at least 22 hours a day for undefined, perhaps indefinite periods.

But Bill C-83 has not yet been passed. The government can amend it, or better yet, introduce a new bill that truly eliminates solitary confinement. In doing so, the government could still seek to include any exceptions it thought necessary. If the government had evidence to support specific, rare, and very brief situations of isolation, this is something reasonable people could discuss.

Instead, unfathomably, Parliament is doubling down on Bill C-83 and fussing over what kind of independent review process is needed to keep someone in the newly named structured intervention units. To be sure, the concern about independent review is important, and is no doubt the government’s response to court decisions that struck down the administrative segregation regime in two recent constitutional challenges by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, respectively. The courts in Ontario and B.C. took issue with the lack of an independent review process when determining if someone should stay in solitary. However, this was not the only constitutional issue before the courts. CCLA and BCCLA also challenged the long, indefinite durations, segregation of people with mental illness, youth and those who simply asked to be safe, and the discriminatory use of segregation against Indigenous people. Many of these issues were accepted by the B.C. court. Most are back before the courts on appeal.

In striking down the administrative segregation regimes, the Ontario and B.C. rulings spend pages detailing the many harms, sometimes irreversible and permanent. These include hallucinations, depression, anxiety, loss of control, paranoia, self-mutilation and suicidal thoughts. These harms were researched and established by doctors and psychologists over many years.

Justice Pentelechuk’s recent Alberta decision attributes these harms to the extreme isolation faced by people in solitary. She wrote:

“Arguably, it is the lack of meaningful human contact that is the most pernicious consequence of placement in segregation. Human beings are not meant to be isolated, particularly not for extended periods. The longer a person is isolated, the more challenging it is to relate to others in an acceptable way.”

In her view: “Informed Canadians also realize that indefinite placement in segregation thwarts an inmate’s chance of successfully re-integrating into society.”

After all, as the Ontario court found, inmates leave solitary confinement deeply traumatized and socially disabled. Since most return to society, how can a practice that disables them in this manner be justified on the basis of safety?

Courts in Alberta, Ontario and B.C. have all found Charter breaches in relation to segregation, and all expressed grave concern over the harms associated with keeping people in extreme isolation. Even our federal government appears to concede these harms and recognize the need to eliminate this practice. Why else change the name of the unit? Why else would the government announce that its new bill will “eliminate the use of administrative segregation”? All we need now is for the government to keep this promise in a meaningful way.

Noa Mendelsohn Aviv is director of the equality program at the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.

This article originally appeared in The Globe and Mail.

More articles by:

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550

June 19, 2019
Matthew Stevenson
Requiem for a Lightweight: the Mayor Pete Factor
Kenneth Surin
In China Again
Stephen Cooper
Abolishing the Death Penalty Requires Morality
George Ochenski
The DNC Can’t Be Allowed to Ignore the Climate Crisis
John W. Whitehead
The Omnipresent Surveillance State
William Camacaro - Frederick B. Mills
Guaidó’s Star Fades as His Envoys to Colombia Allegedly Commit Fraud With Humanitarian Funds for Venezuela
Dave Lindorff
What About Venezuela’s Hacked Power Grid?
Howard Lisnoff
Try Not to Look Away
Binoy Kampmark
Matters of Water: Dubious Approvals and the Adani Carmichael Mine
Karl Grossman
The Battle to Stop the Shoreham Nuclear Plant, Revisited
Kani Xulam
Farting in a Turkish Mosque
Dean Baker
New Manufacturing Jobs are Not Union Jobs
Elizabeth Keyes
“I Can’t Believe Alcohol Is Stronger Than Love”
June 18, 2019
John McMurtry
Koch-Oil Big Lies and Ecocide Writ Large in Canada
Robert Fisk
Trump’s Evidence About Iran is “Dodgy” at Best
Yoav Litvin
Catch 2020 – Trump’s Authoritarian Endgame
Thomas Knapp
Opposition Research: It’s Not Trump’s Fault That Politics is a “Dirty” Game
Medea Benjamin - Nicolas J. S. Davies
U.S. Sanctions: Economic Sabotage that is Deadly, Illegal and Ineffective
Gary Leupp
Marx and Walking Zen
Thomas Hon Wing Polin
Color Revolution In Hong Kong: USA Vs. China
Howard Lisnoff
The False Prophets Cometh
Michael T. Klare
Bolton Wants to Fight Iran, But the Pentagon Has Its Sights on China
Steve Early
The Global Movement Against Gentrification
Dean Baker
The Wall Street Journal Doesn’t Like Rent Control
Tom Engelhardt
If Trump’s the Symptom, Then What’s the Disease?
June 17, 2019
Patrick Cockburn
The Dark Side of Brexit: Britain’s Ethnic Minorities Are Facing More and More Violence
Linn Washington Jr.
Remember the Vincennes? The US’s Long History of Provoking Iran
Geoff Dutton
Where the Wild Things Were: Abbey’s Road Revisited
Nick Licata
Did a Coverup of Who Caused Flint Michigan’s Contaminated Water Continue During Its Investigation? 
Binoy Kampmark
Julian Assange and the Scales of Justice: Exceptions, Extraditions and Politics
John Feffer
Democracy Faces a Global Crisis
Louisa Willcox
Revamping Grizzly Bear Recovery
Stephen Cooper
“Wheel! Of! Fortune!” (A Vegas Story)
Daniel Warner
Let Us Laugh Together, On Principle
Brian Cloughley
Trump Washington Detests the Belt and Road Initiative
Weekend Edition
June 14, 2019
Friday - Sunday
Michael Hudson
Trump’s Trade Threats are Really Cold War 2.0
Bruce E. Levine
Tom Paine, Christianity, and Modern Psychiatry
Jason Hirthler
Mainstream 101: Supporting Imperialism, Suppressing Socialism
T.J. Coles
How Much Do Humans Pollute? A Breakdown of Industrial, Vehicular and Household C02 Emissions
Andrew Levine
Whither The Trump Paradox?
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: In the Land of 10,000 Talkers, All With Broken Tongues
Pete Dolack
Look to U.S. Executive Suites, Not Beijing, For Why Production is Moved
Paul Street
It Can’t Happen Here: From Buzz Windrip and Doremus Jessup to Donald Trump and MSNBC
Rob Urie
Capitalism Versus Democracy
Richard Moser
The Climate Counter-Offensive: Secrecy, Deception and Disarming the Green New Deal
FacebookTwitterRedditEmail