HARPER'S ANTI-CRIME BILL SHOULD BE MORE THAN JUST SIMPLE REVENGE

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 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end the long-gun registry -- was withdrawn after a similar Commons bill passed.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 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.