PRISONS ARE A FAILED EXPERIMENT (ESPECIALLY FOR WOMEN)(excerpt)

FromPrisonJustice.ca

The Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies and the Native Women's Association of Canada made the original complaint to the Commission on behalf of women who were being held in Saskatchewan Maximum Security Penitentiary for Men.

This complaint is also supported by the Aboriginal Women's Action Network, Assembly of First Nations, National Association of Friendship Centres, Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations, Strength in Sisterhood, Disabled Women's Network Canada, National Action Committee on the Status of Women, Canadian Bar Association and Amnesty International.

It alleges that the Canadian government has breached its fiduciary duties to federally sentenced women in Canada and has disregarded the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and certain international human rights obligations, including the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, which, in 1975, Canada agreed to uphold. Information on the full submissions made to the Canadian Human Rights Commission can be viewed on line at http://www.elizabethfry.ca Women in Prison

“Most importantly, the risks that they [women] pose to the public, as a group, is minimal, and at that, considerably different from the security risk posed by men” (Arbour, 1996: 228). Women represent a small portion of Canada's prison population and their particular needs are overlooked, especially in the areas of meaningful treatment and life-skills programs. Women's crimes are predominantly non-violent and reflect the social and economic standing of women in society. 75 per cent of women serving time do so for minor offences such as shoplifting, fraud, or drug and alcohol offences. The needs of women in prison reflect the same needs of as those in the community at large. 35 per cent of provincially and 48 per cent of federally sentenced women have a grade nine education or lower, and 40 per cent have been classified as illiterate.

Most of the women serving time were unemployed at the time of their arrest. Consider first that 70 per cent of the world's poor are women, and that single mothers with children under the age of 18 have a poverty rate of 57 per cent: Two-thirds of federally sentenced women are single mothers, many of whom lose their children to social services and must contend with regaining custody upon their release. Seventy-two per cent of provincially and 82 per cent of federally sentenced women have histories of physical and/or sexual abuse. In terms of violent offences committed by women, 62 per cent of these charges are for ‘low-level’ or ‘common’ assault. Most women serving time for violent offences committed their crime against a spouse or partner, and they are likely to report having been physically or sexually abused, often by the person they assaulted. There are only 64 women serving life sentences for murder in Canada.

Discriminatory Correctional Laws and Policies
Correctional laws and policies discriminate against all women. Of particular concern is the over-classification of federally sentenced women as ‘maximum security.’ Approximately 42 per cent of federally sentenced women are classified as minimum security, yet are imprisoned in facilities that provide much higher security than most of them require. Federally sentenced women do not have the same access as men to lower security institutions and halfway houses, programming, education, or family contact.

Other examples of discrimination are the utter lack of adequate programs and services for federally sentenced women at all security levels; women-centred programs, programs for addiction and health, education and employment training such as vocational training, computer maintenance and upgrading education and programs linked to upgrading in the community.

Of particular concern for women in prison is the lack of healthcare services. Women in prison have as much need for specialized care (e.g. gynaecology and maternity that are specific to women) as do women outside of prison. Additional considerations for the proper medical care of women versus men includes dental care services such as prenatal and postnatal care in particular.

Further, treatment services focused on overcoming histories of drug and/or alcohol dependency, as reasons for dependencies are different for women than for men. Psychological, psychiatric and counselling services for overcoming difficulties including but not limited to abuse issues, which should be provided by women healthcare professionals. Finally, because women more often than men are responsible for the care taking needs of their parents and elders, parenting services such as childcare and elder care are also needed.

Since the year 2000 closing the Prison for Women (P4W) in Kingston, Ontario, maximum-security women have been transferred en masse to isolated sections of men's prisons. As a result, there has been a dramatic increase in suicide attempts and other self-destructive acts. As one female prisoner explains: “women try to find a way out of these inhumane conditions, even through death.”

Canada is in the process of ignoring every recommendation made on the treatment of women in prison and is in the process of building five new ‘super’ maximum-security prisons for women. Other concerns for imprisoned women are the virtual absence of minimum-security conditions for women, the labelling of women with mental health problems as dangerous, and the continued use of male guards on the front lines of women's prisons.

More recently, in 2003, women formerly housed in men’s prisons are being transferred into the newly constructed, special maximum security ‘pods’ located in each regional prison for federally sentenced women despite the fact that much research (i.e. the Correctional Services of Canada’s 1992 Regional Facilities for Federally Sentenced Women Operation Plan) indicates that federally sentenced women are not generally a danger to others and do not require maximum-security accommodation. Rather, this research shows that less than five percent of the women warranted a maximum-security classification while the large majority being either minimum or low medium.

These special maximum-security ‘pods’ mean that women must endure more egregious conditions. For example, in the men’s prisons, these women were held to conditions governing federally sentenced men, albeit with considerably fewer programs, movement and benefits. However, after their transfer out of the men’s prisons, these women, while wanting to be closer to families, communities and ‘sister’ prisoners must contend with poorer quality and quantity of recreation and food while suffering more extreme custodial sanctions in facilities for federally sentence women.

One formerly federally sentenced woman comments on the special maximum-security ‘pods’

Imagine your reactions if you were just one Aboriginal woman, incarcerated since 1978 when - after suffering these assaults by uniformed men, in 1994 you are transferred to a men’s penitentiary in Saskatchewan. Termed “therapy.” You manage to ‘survive’ another more than eight years under segregated conditions until transferred in March, 2003 to one of the “new” maximum security units for women.

Here you are denied all rehabilitation-relevant programs including your own rights under s.15 of the 1985 Charter enactment and the 1992 CCRA, which includes the right to full participation in all Aboriginal spirituality. You must complete the mandatory correctional “programming;” you must agree to be handcuffed and shackled and while accompanied by two officers, be degraded and be used to instil fear and from that fear - compliance throughout the rest of the population - all in order to gain a few hours in the gym while the other women are barred from the same gym and locked down during this movement! You are expected to show respect to your keepers throughout this ordeal.

Female Aboriginal Prisoners
Aboriginal peoples are over-represented in Canadian prisons. In 1999, the incarceration rate for Aboriginal people was 735 per 100,000 of the Canadian population, compared to a national average incarceration rate of 151 per 100,000. “Discrimination against Aboriginal women is rampant in Canada's federal prisons”, says the Native Women's Association of Canada (NWAC). Aboriginal women represent 27 per cent of all women serving federal time, yet account for less than two per cent of Canada's population. Moreover, 50 per cent of women classified as ‘maximum security’ prisoners are Aboriginal women.

Aboriginal women in prison often go into federal facilities on lesser charges, and commit infractions in prison that lead to longer sentences. Those federally sentenced women classified as ‘maximum security’ have no access to core programs and services designed for women under federal law, and are denied specific programs designed for Aboriginal prisoners. Many of these female Aboriginal prisoners have been serving time involuntarily in men’s prisons and psychiatric wards. Serving time in a men’s prison not only puts these women at risk to male violence, but also denies them equal access to the programs and services that the men receive.

Kim Pate, the Executive Director of the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies, draws attention to the fact that Aboriginal women and women with disabilities are particularly discriminated against: “Being Aboriginal means you are seen as higher risk; being poor means you are seen as higher risk; and being disabled means you are seen as higher risk. All of this results in women receiving a higher security classification, so if you are a poor, Aboriginal woman with a disability, they literally throw away the key.”

Women Prisoners with Mental and Developmental Disabilities
The Disabled Women's Network Canada states that federally sentenced women with mental and developmental disabilities are being discriminated against under Section 17 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Regulation, which equates mental disability with a security risk. This legislation applies higher security classifications to these women, and perpetuates negative stereotypes and assumptions, which characterise mental disability as dangerous. Because of their higher security classifications based on disability, women who are suicidal or have mental or cognitive disabilities, are often isolated, deprived of clothing, and placed in stripped or barren cells.

Prisons have become a substitute for community-based mental health services. With the increased cutbacks to healthcare and social programs, the law is increasingly coming into conflict with women's lives, as they are relegated into prisons instead of receiving appropriate services within the community.



Canada Sacks Three Whistle-Blowing Scientists

From healthcoalition.ca

The Canadian government fired three high-profile scientists to punish them for publicly challenging federal decisions on veterinary drugs, the scientists' union said on Thursday.

But a spokesman for Health Canada said the dismissal of Margaret Haydon, Shiv Chopra and Gerard Lambert had nothing to do with their whistle-blowing activities. "There is absolutely no connection," said Ryan Baker, a spokesman for the department, where the scientists worked in a section that reviews and approves veterinary drugs. "This is not because of anything they may have said publicly," Baker said.

The scientists have a lengthy history of disagreement with the department, which has reprimanded them in the past. Haydon and Chopra spoke out against a growth hormone for dairy cattle, called bovine somatotropin, that Monsanto Co. unsuccessfully applied to sell in Canada in the 1990s. They said the company did not submit enough information to prove the drug was safe for cows or humans, and complained they were pressured by the department to approve it.

More recently, Chopra and Lambert complained the department approved a new method of use for the antibiotic tylosin, marketed by the Canadian animal health division of Eli Lilly and Co., despite their concerns that it could lead to antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Haydon also criticized livestock feed rules in the wake of Canada's first homegrown case of mad cow disease last year. The precise reasons for the firings were outlined in letters delivered to the scientists at their homes on Wednesday, Health Canada's Baker said, declining to elaborate for privacy reasons. "The individuals in question are able to share it with you if they choose to," Baker said. Chopra declined comment and referred questions to his lawyer, who in turn referred calls to the scientists' union, the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada.

The union's president also declined to discuss the reasons given by Health Canada until a hearing is held, possibly in six months. "We will be addressing what Health Canada has put in the letters and we will be showing that, despite what they say, the real cause of the letters of termination is the public criticism of the department and the government of Canada," Steve Hindle said. "The fact that it's three (people fired) on the same day is unusual, and it also, I believe, lends credence to the argument we're putting forward that (the firings are) a result of them being whistle-blowers," Hindle said.

The firings outraged activist groups who said whistle-blowers need better laws to protect them. "All these scientists were trying to do was protect the food supply, and they got fired for doing their job," said Bradford Duplisea of the Canadian Health Coalition. The federal government had introduced new measures to protect bureaucrats who report concerns about their departments, but the proposed legislation was not enacted before the June 28 federal election.


Fired Scientists Spoke Out on Drug Approvals

By Paul Weinberg
Fromhealthcoalition.ca

The decision to fire three Health Canada veterinary scientists working in the government office that tests new drugs used on animals raised for food was made at the highest levels of the Canadian bureaucracy with the co-operation of the food and pharmaceutical industries.

That blunt statement comes from Michael McBane, co-ordinator of the Ottawa-based Canadian Health Coalition, which represents groups of seniors, farmers, women, labour unions and healthcare professionals. "The animal drug industry basically worked really hard with senior management in Health Canada and with the Privy Council office (which advises senior government leaders and helps set departments' policies), to have the scientists removed," McBane told IPS in an interview.

Adding to the controversy was the timing of the firings of Shiv Chopra, Margaret Haydon and Gerard Lambert --Jul. 14, just weeks after the national election and before a new group of ministers overseeing all departments, including Health Canada, were sworn in. At the time the three scientists in the department's veterinary drugs directorate were on stress leave after alleging harassment by departmental officials.

Health Canada spokesperson Ryan Baker declined to comment on the suggestion that officials and corporate powers colluded to orchestrate the firings, and called the dismissals "a personal matter." But Chopra told IPS his letter of termination cited "disobedience" as the reason for the action. "Given your previous disciplinary record and your continued unwillingness to accept responsibility for work assigned to you, I have determined that the bond of trust that is essential to productive employer employee relationship has been irreparably breached," Deputy Health Minister Ian Green wrote in the letter, reported The Canadian Press on Wednesday.

Steve Hindle, the president of the labour union that represents the scientists, says Health Canada "just reached the end of its rope" after years of reprimanding and suspending the scientists for their public opposition to the approval of specific veterinary drugs.

For example, resistance from Chopra, Haydon and Lambert towards a bovine growth hormone developed by agri-business giant Monsanto ultimately led to a Senate inquiry in the 1990s and a decision to not approve the drug in Canada. Also, before the May 2003 discovery of mad cow disease in a cattle herd in western Alberta province, which led countries like the United States and Japan to ban Canadian beef, Chopra and Haydon had warned that too little was being done by the food industry and its regulators in the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to prevent remains of dead cattle being used as feed for other cows. The Indian-born Chopra, who has successfully launched anti-discrimination cases against Health Canada for failing to promote employees of non-European origin, has no explanation for the timing of the firings, but says the loss in income is creating "new stress" for the researchers and their families.

Because they were dismissed from their jobs, they are not eligible for severance payments, he notes. Hindle's Professional Institute of the Public Service says it will appeal the firings before the Public Service StaffRelations Board, an independent tribunal that adjudicates disputes between the federal government and its employees, if Health Canada fails to reinstate them. Although Chopra applauds the union's support, he says the grievance appeal process will only deal with the technical and legal aspects of the department's action.

Left out, he adds, will be the substance of the issue: the ability of the powerful food and pharmaceutical lobbies to pressure Ottawa to bypass scientific concerns about the introduction of suspected cancer-causing hormones and the excessive use of antibiotics in animals; the latter has been singled out for the declining effectiveness of antibiotics on human beings. "The pharmaceutical companies openly for years kept on going to the Privy Council (and saying) that there are problems within veterinary drugs at Health Canada; they have backlogs of drugs that are not being passed. When we ask (the drug companies) for data, they don't produce any," Chopra adds.

But Jean Szkotnicki, president of the Canadian Animal Health Institute, the veterinary drugs industry association, denies her organisation played a role in the firings. In fact, her industry benefits from a "robust" review of animal drugs, she told IPS. At the same time, added Szkotnicki, Canada is losing potential research and development investment dollars from food and pharmaceutical companies because of the slow pace of testing of veterinary drugs at Health Canada.

The same drugs have been endorsed by officials in other countries after going through "a similar type risk assessment and risk management programme," she added. "We are often one of the last countries in the world to approve a product," according to Szkotnicki. Chopra counters that the animal drug industry has not produced any new products for many years, beyond "spreading and maintaining" the same types of hormones and antibiotics "of questionable safety" in the Canadian meat industry. McBane adds that the European Union (EU) continues to ban imports of Canadian beef because of its hormone content.

The issue is the right of government scientists to do their job, he adds. "At the end of the day, these scientists were performing their statutory duty under the law, in this case the Food and Drugs Act. And their senior managers, the deputy minister, the associate deputy minister and the director general were basically telling them to operate outside of the rule of law, to ignore the laws of Canada, and to expose Canadians to known health risks." Chopra says he expects the Senate to investigate the firings. In 1998 the standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry promised Health Canada scientists that in exchange for testimony on the safety of Canada's food, their jobs would not be jeopardised. "They told us, 'anytime, if anything happens to you, come to us'," recalls Chopra.


Scientist gets congratulatory letter from Health Canada after being fired

BY DENNIS BUECKERTOTTAWA
From healthcoalition.ca


Three weeks after firing Shiv Chopra for insubordination, Health Canada has sent him a gold watch and congratulatory letter praising his 35 years of "dedicated service." Chopra, one of three Health Canada whistleblowers fired on July 14, said he was insulted to get the glowing letter of praise after months of what he calls harassment by the department, culminating in his firing.

"Your years of service have not gone unnoticed and you have earned. . . praise and respect," says the letter signed by Deputy Health Minister Ian Green. "Please accept this special tribute as we honour you and your career. It's an acknowledgement of our sincere appreciation."

In contrast, Green's July 14 letter of dismissal cited concerns about Chopra's work performance and blasted him for "total lack of progress" in a project he had been assigned. "I have concluded that you have chosen to deliberately refuse to comply with my instructions," Green says in the earlier letter. "Given your previous disciplinary record and your continued unwillingness to accept responsibility for work assigned to you, I have determined that the bond of trust that is essential to productive employer employee relationship has been irreparably breached."

In the later letter, along with his gold watch Chopra received a framed, honorary certificate signed by Prime Minister Paul Martin. A Health department spokesman later said the award simply reflects departmental policy to recognize all veteran employees. "The reasons for Dr. Chopra's termination in July are not in any way related to his 35 years service award," Health Canada spokesman Ryan Baker said Wednesday. Chopra and his colleagues Margaret Haydon and Gerard Lambert, who were fired for insubordination on the same day, maintain they have been targeted because of their record as whistle-blowers. The scientists have said publicly they were being pressured to approve drugs despite human safety concerns.

In the late 1990s, they publicly opposed bovine growth hormone, a product that enhances milk production in cows. Their criticism led to a Senate inquiry and a decision not to approve the drug. During the anthrax scare following the September 2001 terror attacks, Chopra criticized then-health minister Allan Rock's decision to spend millions stockpiling antibiotics, saying the fear of bioterrorism was overblown. Chopra and Haydon warned last year that measures to prevent mad cow disease were inadequate. Subsequently a case of the disease was identified, with disastrous results for the beef industry. Health Canada has initiated numerous disciplinary proceedings against the scientists, who in turn filed grievances in a complicated tangle of cases, most of which they have won.

In a letter of grievance over his July 14 firing, Chopra says he was subject to "severe and debilitating harassment" over the 18 months preceding his dismissal. Chopra said that for five months this year, he was given no work to do.

He was then given a project but was separated from other colleagues with whom he needed to consult as part of his research. Chopra said that he, Haydon and Lambert were separated from other Health Canada employees and assigned to work in isolated offices where they had difficulty getting access to department data. All three say the stress of their battles at Health Canada have made them ill; a fourth member of the veterinary drug assessment group, Chris Bassude, died last year. ...Shiv Chopra, one of three whistleblowers who were abruptly axed last month, wasn't impressed with yesterday's home delivery.

"This is a very bad joke. This is adding insult to injury," he told Sun Media from his home in Manotick, outside Ottawa. "I completed 35 years of service on June 20, and on the 14th of July I got fired," Chopra said. "Now they send me this award for distinguished service." (Quotes from Sun Media)