FIGHTING CRIME ON EMOTION, NOT FACTS

When you look beyond the paternalism, cynicism, genuine concern --
whatever motives drive the Harper government's punitive approach to
crime -- only one question matters. Is it effective?

Will closing Vancouver's safe injection site, Insite, reduce drug
addiction and related crime? Will imposing six-month minimum jail
sentences on anyone caught with as few as five marijuana plants
inhibit pot-smoking among teenagers? Will expanding prisons reduce
violence in our streets?

Most legal experts, criminologists, addiction researchers and
street-level health workers, along with many police chiefs and past
reports from parliamentary committees, say "no" -- as does the
experience of other "tough-on-crime" jurisdictions.

It may be emotionally satisfying to punish evil, or express revulsion,
with harsher sentences, but it is widely held -- by those who actually
work in the field -- that prevention, better policing, services for
the mentally ill and poverty alleviation are more useful if

the goal is to make communities safer. The Liberals even used to
believe that, before they became bashful.

But this government mistrusts experts, rejects evidence that doesn't
confirm its own beliefs and dismisses critics as weak and deluded. It
seems to believe most criminals, like wilful teenagers, only need the
threat of a few months in the slammer to see the light -- downplaying
the fact that so many crimes are impulsive, and so many criminals
mentally ill, addicted, or scarred by horrific abuse themselves. Not
the types, in other words, to consider consequences before they act.

And curiously, despite its righteousness, the government isn't above
resorting to mendacity itself. Both Prime Minister Stephen Harper and
Justice Minister Rob Nicholson, for instance, have excoriated the
"Liberal-dominated" Senate for, in Harper's words, "eviscerating law
and order measures urgently needed and strongly supported by Canadians."

In fact, as Senate Liberal leader James Cowan outlined convincingly
this week, it was the unexpected prorogation of Parliament that
"gutted" the Conservative anti-crime agenda.

Last session, the government introduced 19 crime bills and 11 were
still before the Commons at prorogation. Of the eight that went to the
Senate, four were passed. Two were still being debated when Harper
pulled the plug, and another -- a Senate-initiated attempt to end the
long-gun registry -- was withdrawn after a similar Commons bill passed.

Another bill, which would prevent convicts from subtracting two days
from their

sentences for every one day already served, was passed by the Senate
in October and only died because cabinet didn't enact it quickly enough.

Nor was a bill cracking down on auto theft stalled in the Senate for
six months, as Nicholson claimed -- at least, not entirely by Liberal
senators. The delay was partly the result of a scheduled summer break.

Only the marijuana bill -- it would impose a mandatory minimum six
months in jail for anyone caught with five or more plants -- was
significantly amended. After hearing from a parade of witnesses that
mandatory minimums are ineffective in dealing with drug crimes (a
conclusion backed by a 2001 Justice Department report), Liberal
senators voted to leave it to judges to decide sentences for anyone
caught with fewer than 200 plants.

An irritated Nicholson has vowed to reintroduce the bill in March,
when Parliament resumes -- but here's another curiosity. The Hill
Times reported recently that, in 1988, Nicholson, then a Progressive
Conservative MP, was vice-chair of a Commons committee that
recommended against mandatory minimums, except for repeat violent sex
offenders. Asked about this apparent change of heart, the minister's
spokesperson noted the drug world and values have changed. But the
facts haven't.

As New Democrat Libby Davies noted: "What they are doing is not based
on evidence, whatsoever. It's a political stance."

The same can be said of Harper's implacable resistance to Insite -- a
modest clinic in Vancouver's downtown east side, where addicts can get
clean needles and access to medical care. The clinic doesn't provide
drugs, but, through a legal exemption, allows addicts to administer
their own narcotics.

Intended to get addicts out of back alleys and reduce the transmission
of disease through dirty needles, the pioneering clinic has
considerable community support: Leading B.C. politicians, provincial
courts, Vancouver police, doctors and, after initial resistance, local
businesses. But the Harper government has announced it will challenge
the special exemption at the Supreme Court, because it believes the
clinic encourages drug use.

It doesn't bother providing facts, or even arguments; it appeals, as
usual, to resentment, ignorance and frightening headlines that obscure
the fact that crime rates have been declining. And, with the brave
exception of Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe, most of Harper's
political opponents, including those who know better, are afraid to
object.

If Conservatives were as concerned with victims as they claim to be,
the effectiveness of crime-fighting measures would be paramount -- not
their political appeal. And they'd be counselling wisdom in this
complex issue, not revenge.