By Jim Mauro
THUNDER BAY – OPINION – In the BR time, before retirement, I was in a profession where arresting people was part of the job. But no one told me that I would one day have to “arrest” and handcuff an 8-year-old.
In the early 90’s, I was training a recruit when we received a call to the Lakehead Psychiatric Hospital. The boys’ parents had just left him there and he was completely uncontrollable. Not a temper tantrum; this boy was beyond anything I had seen. A physically strong child for his age who was not willing to come with us to determine the best course of action.
To transport him to the cruiser safely, we had to handcuff him and carry him to the crusier where he was placed in the back seat while we attempted to find out what was happening. He fought us the entire way.
Once in the back seat, the boy began smashing his head into the cage that separated the front and back seat, to the point where the only viable solution was to pull out the back seat. We placed him on the floor of the car, placed the bench on top of him and then had the other officer sit on the bench so that he could not sit up. Some might question this, but it was vital for his safety and most importantly, he was not hurt in any way.
He was transported to an area hospital where he remained handcuffed because his level of violence could not have been controlled without physical force. The safety of the hospital staff had to be considered, something that unfortunately does not appear to be a priority any longer. We can save the abuse and the assault of nurses that rarely if ever lead to criminal charges, for another article.
The longer we waited, the more relaxed the boy became until he reached a point where we could remove the handcuffs and communicate with him for the first time. He was admitted to the hospital and that should have ended our involvement, but I began to visit this young boy during his stay in hospital.
After some time, I was allowed to take him out for a few hours a day. He ate at our house, played with our boys, even joining us for bowling. It reached the point, where we considered fostering this young man who by this time had shown no repeat of what took place that first night. He appeared to need caring, compassion and a sense of normalcy, something that in his young life was in short supply
Unfortunately, fostering was out of the question as the law would not allow us to keep him from his father, who appeared to be the main problem in this young man’s life. Years later, I saw that young man again, as an unhappy guest in the cells at the police station. He did not remember who I was until I reminded him. His life was not on a great path and in reality, he did not have much of a chance at a good life.
I tell this story to give a tiny glimpse into one child, about a life that was damaged almost from birth, something that far too many children have experienced or will experience in their lives.
That leads me to Canada’s Supreme Court and their recent decision in the case of child pornography.
I was not in the courtroom to hear the decision, and my information simply comes from news sources. And if these reports are indeed accurate, is it any wonder that people have less faith in our legal system. I intentionally do not use the term justice system, because there are far too many cases that in my view are void of real justice for many of the victims of criminal activity.
In a 5-4 ruling, the court struck down the minimum one-year sentence for possessing or accessing child pornography claiming that it violates the Charter protection against cruel and unusual punishment because it could reasonably lead to a grossly disproportionate punishment. I had to read the line several times to make sure I was reading it correctly. Cruel and unusual punishment: to the accused? Dear 5 Justices: what about the victims?? Sorry, I forgot; the victims are most often the last group of people considered in a trial.
The example provided by the justices who supported getting rid of the minimum, again, based on the sources I reviewed, used the example of an 18-year-old individual, receiving a nude photo of a 17-year-old and receiving a one-year jail sentence. The justices outlined how debilitating this kind of sentence could be on the accused in such a situation where probation is a more appropriate sentence.
It leads me to ask two questions of these esteemed legal individuals. 1. What about the victims? I know, I already asked that but I think I will keep asking until this legal system of ours provides something remotely close to a reasonable answer and 2. When did this example ever happen in real life because I would be more than shocked that this kind of charge would be laid and prosecuted unless there was additional facts connected to it. Facts like the sharing of the photo or obtaining the photo by looking for them online. That example used to justify this decision, in my view is simply a red herring that I cannot believe most of this county’s population would agree with.
We have seen countless cases reported in our media of someone being convicted of possessing child pornography and receiving house arrest or being placed on probation. I always wanted to ask the judge in the case if they would be supportive of that kind of sentencing if the individuals in the photos were family members? I think I know what the answer would be.
The sad tragedy of this kind of abuse towards children is that often, the images come from other countries and Canada’s ability to do anything about it, is limited.
Given this lack of ability to prosecute those who abuse children, it may seem like nothing can be done when these images come from thousands of miles away but can be shared in an instant thanks to the internet. So, what is a country to do in this situation? I do have a possible suggestion: target the customers.
Now I am not speaking about the direct physical abuse of a child. Those laws already exist but routinely do not lead to harsh penalties. But in the cases of possessing these images, here are some possible steps in suggesting to the “customers” that in Canada, it might not be a good idea to possess these photos.
Knowingly possess one or a few photos depicting this abuse. See you in a year. Possess them and prove that you were actively searching for them, see you in five years. Have dozens of photos, or have shared photos with others, see you in a decade. Produce this kind of horrific trash, see you in in the afterlife after a lifelong stay in a 6 by 6 concrete home, with no chance for parole for any of these offences. Why can’t we suggest to these “customers”, this crime will not be treated as an “oops” by our legal system.
It is important to recognize that police computer experts can determine, if you “accidently” received the photo, or if you actively searched for it online. It does not appear the Supreme Court took that under consideration as it was not part of any news story that I became aware of. No police agency is going to prosecute you because someone sent you a photo that you did not solicit, share, or view more than once. They will however be far more interested in who sent it to you.
When this decision came out, the federal opposition leader indicated he would use a section of the Charter to override this decision if he were Prime Minister. Other Premiers indicated the same. Will our Prime Minister do that? I do not know but I most certainly hope so.
I tend to slide towards being sympathetic to the plight of people less fortunate than myself, even those who have committed crimes. It didn’t always make me popular with some of those I was working with, when I was volunteering for the Shelter House or supporting the John Howard society. But for this issue, that compassion is off the table. I have no capacity for forgiveness or understanding. That may appear cold, but when it comes to children, those who have zero capacity to resist abuse in any way, that is a bridge no one can come back from. I suspect that exists for the majority reading this article.
I don’t expect my “helpful” suggestions will see the light of day. I don’t expect that many politicians will even touch this issue in a meaningful way, choosing instead to deal with the next day’s issue while this disappears from people’s memory. Oh, I am sure that some will express the appropriate outrage but that will be it.
I hope people think about what their lack of concern allows: where those convicted get to sit at home instead of in a prison cell. When they get to watch their TV, hang out with family, or just go outside into their yards, cook their meals, and be free from the confines of four concrete walls. Or when the judge gives a stern finger wave and heaven forbid, puts them on probation. Who are these judges who feel such a strong need to put the needs of the accused ahead of the victim?
I hope those who have the power to impact change will think about that child, or the children that were exploited and ask themselves; “why did I not do something to protect children from this abuse”? At least in Canada, in this one country, let’s take a stand and say we will never tolerate those who traffic in this type of garbage. Maybe it can be an initiative that other countries will follow. Just a thought.
Note: An article in the National Post on February 10th, covered a story where 6 men in the Toronto area were arrested for attempting to lure girls under 18 for sex. All 6 have been released on a promise to appear in court. Bill C-75 passed by the Trudeau government in 2019 was blamed for the reason these types of decisions are made. The article is online. One more flaw in our “legal system”.
