quote:

---

Justice minister hints at jail time for pre-teen offenders

Janice Tibbetts
CanWest News Service

Monday, August 14, 2006

ST. JOHN’S, N.L. -- Federal Justice Minister Vic Toews said Monday that 10- and 11-year-old children who get into trouble with the law should be brought before the courts.

Speaking to delegates at the Canadian Bar Association Toews said: "We need to find ways of ensuring that children are deterred from crime. We need to give courts jurisdiction to intervene in the lives of these young people."

Such a proposal would broaden the age of criminal responsibility, which currently begins at age 12.

Speaking to reporters later, Toews did not rule out incarceration of children under 12, but he said the courts’ primary focus should be treatment programs outside the jail system.

---

It's obviously stupid. There are ways of dealing with delinquent kids that young right now, they just don't involve the criminal justice system. Despite Toews advertising his idiocy on the issue, I'd bet money this doesn't go anywhere. It'll get zero traction in most of the government -- wanting to put young kids in jail doesn't get votes.

For the age of consent thing, the new proposed law doesn't say 15-year-olds can't consent to sex, just that they can't consent to sex with someone older than 20.

---

Here's one I like to use, though:
The United States of America deems that you are old enough to be sent into combat 3 years before your are old enough to drink a beer.

[ 15 August 2006: Message edited by: Proaxiom ]

toews is a rabid prohibitionist from Manitoba,,

He's not saying kids should be prosecuted, he's saying the courts should be allowed to intervene if nothing is being done to help delinquent children.

quote:

---

“I'm sometimes provided with anecdotes about people coming to court by age 12 and they've had a horrendous involvement with the police and other social agencies. But the courts have been unable to intervene until age 12, and I would like to see courts being able to intervene, especially in terms of treatment, at an earlier age.”

---

So I think we have to talk about whether this is something that often happens. Then, as long the law makes it clear that the courts are to assist these kids and not prosecute them, this doesn't sound too bad.

quote:

---

Dr. Pepler acknowledged that currently there is no way of ensuring that at-risk youth get involved in these programs. When police apprehend children under the age of 12, they can only recommend to the parents that they seek help, and she said it may be useful to ensure that they do get into these programs.

“I agree that we need to identify the children that are at risk – they need all the resources our society can put into place – but labelling them, identifying them may not be a positive way of ensuring they get the support they need,” she said.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Proaxiom:
Okay, I've read a full article on this and now that I have some more information this issue looks a lot different.
He's not saying kids should be prosecuted, he's saying the courts should be allowed to intervene if nothing is being done to help delinquent children.
The devil is in the details The law would have to be clear that the objective is to help these kids, not protect society from them.

---

haha, i expect vic will give you an extra serving at dinner tonight for that favorable parsing proaxiom!

Vic Toews is a right-wing law and order nutbar. When he was Justice Minister in Manitoba, we were treated daily to his insane musings, some of which he pursued, like Boot Camps for youth offenders, which failed miserably and the super court for gang trials which sits virtually unused today. He is an evangelical christian anti-abortionist and homophobe in the anti-same-sex-marriage tradition, and if the cons were to get a majority we would see attempts to outlaw both.

The devil is in the details as you say proaxiom....

quote:

---

“I'm sometimes provided with anecdotes about people coming to court by age 12 and they've had a horrendous involvement with the police and other social agencies...

---

quote:

---

The law would have to be clear that the objective is to help these kids, not protect society from them.

---

The Youth Criminal Justice Act (which replaced the demonized Young Offenders' Act) has the objective of helping young people, too.

No, this extension to ten year olds is simply an extension of the YCJA to even younger kids.

The rhetoric of Toews was this: why should anyone in his constituency support the Province of Manitoba, legitimately worried about the foreign biota and such being pumped into the Red River watershed, when they got such a "bum deal" in 1997? It was a hymm to indifference. "Who cares if pollutants are being pumped into Manitoba? " There's not much room for the public good there.

He's the same guy who got caught and convicted of cheating (overspending) in the 1999 Manitoba provincial election. At the time, Reg Alcock had the following to say:

quote:

---

"Mr. Toews has now admitted to breaking the law in Manitoba, which I think would at least cause him to question whether he should remain as justice critic, so I'm actually calling on Mr. Harper to ask Mr. Toews to step aside," says Alcock.

---

quote:

---

He's not saying kids should be prosecuted, he's saying the courts should be allowed to intervene if nothing is being done to help delinquent children. The devil is in the details The law would have to be clear that the objective is to help these kids, not protect society from them.

---

In fact, this has the hallmarks of a very progressive initative, one that sound like it came more from the bureaucrats who have been dealing with the issue for ages now. Unfortunately, right-wing government are not very good at being 'progressive' and the devil is, indeed, in the details.

There are thousands of youngsters that spend much of their time on their own and vulnerable to all sorts of negative and harmful influences. Many because both parents are too busy working, or the single parent is too busy working, or the parents are too busy enjoying their lifestyles to actually put any time into their kids lives.

Consequently, the children become susceptible to peer pressure, gang pressure, blatant hedonistic examples, inappropriate behaviours and a myrid of other influences. There is also the very real knowledge that serial killers and other violent and deviant personalities can manifest themselves in early years as unusual or violent acting out and, if caught, in time their deviancy can be dramatically reduced.

quote:

---

In fact, this has the hallmarks of a very progressive initative, one that sound like it came more from the bureaucrats who have been dealing with the issue for ages now.

---

Well, what he said was meaningless pap. "The courts should assume jurisdiction" doesn't tell you what they are expected to do, or how.

I am in court about four days a week and have been doing this for the past 25 years. I assure you that courts are very poor at doing social work or watching over children.

He said: "There doesn't necessarily have to be a charge, but there has to be some kind of a mechanism that you can bring the child into the context of the court."

Toews has a point, as far as the need for making sure something is done about kids who are breaking the law at age 10. If nothing is done, many will be breaking it again when they're older and going to jail then.

I took this earlier to mean that he wants to add special provisions to the YCJA to accomplish this. Notwithstanding Toews' political leanings, if this was true, then it could be a good thing. If he's just lowering the age to group 10- and 11-year-olds with older kids, then that is a bad thing. I'm not sure there's too much point in arguing over exactly what he meant in his media comments, because what's important is what gets read to parliament.

quote:

---

The child welfare system allows for intervention when things get out of hand with ten year olds. I'd prefer to keep the courts away.

---

LOL, so-called child welfare systems all across this country have been notoriously scandalized with scores of youths and adults coming forward with story after story of neglect, abuse and outright torture and murder at the hands of government sanctioned care givers.

Intervention for troubled and problematic youths is a very real priority. But neither the courts which are lousy "care givers" or "child welfare systems" that treat the kids as commodities, have every shown themselves to be adequate to the task.

quote:

---

I'm sometimes provided with anecdotes about people coming to court by age 12 and they've had a horrendous involvement with the police and other social agencies. But the courts have been unable to intervene until age 12, and I would like to see courts being able to intervene, especially in terms of treatment, at an earlier age.”

---

Let's be clear this is nothing to do about helping children and everything to do about expanding business opportunities in criminal justice system. This is the work of reactionary fanatics that will spend billions on punishment and policing while simultaneously destroying community supports.

The emphasis on "treatment" is eerie considering that forced confinement whether it be a correctional facility or a "treatment centre" or group home is still forced confinement and generally means environments where youth are brutalized and traumatized. There are plenty of private treatment centres south of the border that already operate in this fashion and are in actuality more like boot camps combined with high doses of psychiatric neuroleptics and sadistic regimens of behavioral interventions with a strong emphasis on punishment over reward.

For god's sake children don't need "treatment" or the criminal justice system, they need love, compassion, support and connection.

Many children displaying behavioral problems are either victims of trauma or witnesses to domestic violence. Not only have slimy reactionaries like Toews already made cuts to programs that support and counsel youths in school and the community, thousands or women are forced to remain or return to violent domestic situations due to punitive and harrassing social service agencies.(Walking on Eggshells

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
This Minister is really quite awful. When Manitoba, along with the State of Minnesota and the "along for the ride" Government of Canada, was dealing with the North Dakota Governor in regard to the Devil's Lake outlet to the Cheyenne River and the Red River watershed, Vic Toews used the opportunity to attack the Provincial Government of Manitoba for mishandling the flood of 1997.[/URL]

---

quote:

---

Aristotleded24: Wasn't he a part of the Government of Manitoba at the time?

---

You're right. Is that ever weird! I just checked. You can check for yourself at the
Elections Manitoba website.

Perhaps I misunderstood Toews public attack at the time. Maybe he was attacking the Federal government and not the Provincial Government of Doer? But the Feds had been keeping a very low profile and Doer was the one making the public statements.

Criticizing himself? I guess it's possible. Nothing is too stupid or mean-spirited for these neocons and social conservatives. But then you would think that the media, or the Provincial NDP, would pick up on the contradiction?

[ 16 August 2006: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

quote:

---

He's not saying kids should be prosecuted, he's saying the courts should be allowed to intervene if nothing is being done to help delinquent children. The devil is in the details The law would have to be clear that the objective is to help these kids, not protect society from them.

---

Case in point: Accepting that Jeff House has debunked this premise, let's accept it for a moment. Let's accept that all Vic Toews really wants is to ensure these kids get treatment. Through what programs?

One aspect of the neo-con agenda is to transfer funds from those who need basics to those who need a bigger yacht. So, for example, we see this:

quote:

---

Dick Rastin said the new Conservative government promised to extend for one year $513,000 in funding under the National Homeless Initiative that began in 2000. As well, the agencies were expecting $541,000 promised from previous years.

Instead, officials with Service Canada say the only funding available for 2006-07 is the $541,000 owed previously and an additional $136,000 for the existing year, of which $96,000 is already spent, leaving a balance of $40,000 to spend.

http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/CityandRegion/2006/08/16/1757925-sun.html

---

In the fucked up minds of neo-cons and social-dysfunctional conservatives, poor and homeless parents do not have poor and homeless children. They, apparently, exist in another dimension defined by abundance.

So, I ask again, to what programs slashed and burned by neo-cons and their brain-dead fundamentalist followers will children be directed?

The reason, for the most part, that children at risk do not get help is because the help does not exist because the funds have been siphoned off in a boot strapping excercise to prove that needy children will do better when in greater need while those with more than anyone can imagine are always deserving of more.

[ 16 August 2006: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

quote:

---

Finally, some funding for child care

---

Its a brain washing technique that has been popular in military styly organiszations for years. First you tear down a person's self esteem and then you rebuild it in whatever image you desire.

Link

quote:

---

But if Toews had done a bit of study, he would have learned that provinces, including Ontario, already give child protection agencies, with court approval, the power to force children younger than 12 who have committed serious crimes into treatment if their parents fail to act.

---

I missed the mark on defending his statement. It certainly seems like he's inventing a problem to solve here.

quote:

---

Many because both parents are too busy working, or the single parent is too busy working...

---

When both parents work, it's true that we are often at a disadvantage in terms of having time and energy to address the needs of our children, our community, and ourselves. It is exhausting.

However, the default position when one parent stays home is usually the mother so the implication is that misbehaviour is the mother's fault. Ditto for single parents being busy (been there, done that, it was hell, thank god it's over)...most are women. Many, many families who have two working parents are doing so out of the need to provide a roof over the family's head, food in everyone's belly, perhaps something set aside for their children's education, etc. This is obviously also the case with single parents.

quote:

---

Vic Toews' thoughts are truly ignorant.

---