 |
| Jeffrey Hartman |
“All I want is the truth, just give us some truth”
– John Lennon, Gimmie Some Truth
– John Lennon, Gimmie Some Truth
Like most (all?) Canadians, I did not read the budget introduced by the federal government in the House of Commons on April 7, 2022. I was, however, bombarded by the key talking points — housing, housing, housing — and assumed this is a budget about housing. I also assumed the budget wouldn’t have much of anything to say about vaginas.
April 11 rolls around and I see this CBC story: “Dry cells to be banned for women prisoners suspected of carrying contraband in bodies.” Naturally, as a prison lawyer, I was intrigued so I read the article and stumbled upon this:
In the budget tabled last Thursday, the federal government said it will amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to prohibit the use of dry cells for those suspected of concealing contraband in their vaginal cavity. The document makes no mention of doing away with the controversial practice of dry cells altogether.
A dry cell is a form of housing, so I guess it makes sense to deal with it in a budget that is about housing, housing and more housing.
What form of housing is a dry cell? Let me tell you. A dry cell is a small cell with 24-hour lighting and video surveillance, a thin mattress and a tough blanket. On admission, a person is frisk-searched and strip searched. One’s feet and mouth are examined.
Oh, I almost forgot, you also have to bend over and touch your toes to enable a visual examination of the rectum.
Once you’re in, the idea is that you stay there until you produce contraband. This is really hard to do if you don’t have any, plus I imagine quite frustrating for the guard tasked with finding it in your feces or menstrual discharge.
In the case of people with vaginas, a Nova Scotia court recently found dry celling unconstitutional because it can, and does, cause very long periods of solitary confinement due to differences between the menstrual and digestive processes.
Limiting, or even doing away with, dry cells has been a long time coming. The Office of the Correctional Investigator (OCI) has recommended limiting confinement to 72 hours for years now. The OCI’s recommendations are not binding and frequently ignored. In fact, correctional investigator Dr. Ivan Zinger said as much in February 2022:
Canada’s prison watchdog says he is consistently disappointed by the government’s responses to his reports, which keep revealing significant and systemic problems with the country’s correctional system.
“It’s been two years in a row now that I’m very disappointed with the response of the Correctional Service of Canada,” federal Correctional Investigator Dr. Ivan Zinger said during a press conference marking the release of his office’s latest annual report.
“Absolutely, I’m very disappointed.”
“It’s been two years in a row now that I’m very disappointed with the response of the Correctional Service of Canada,” federal Correctional Investigator Dr. Ivan Zinger said during a press conference marking the release of his office’s latest annual report.
“Absolutely, I’m very disappointed.”
So what will happen next? Probably nothing. Well, maybe not exactly nothing. Sooner or later I imagine Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) and our feminist PM will pat their collective backs for championing women’s rights. But besides that? Yeah, probably nothing. We’ve seen this before, and recently. As you might recall, several Canadian courts declared solitary confinement unconstitutional and everyone rejoiced because we got structured intervention units, but it was all for show:
Correctional Service Canada states on its website that administrative and disciplinary segregation — solitary confinement — no longer exists in Canadian federal penitentiaries. This is true only because Parliament changed the name to structured intervention units (SIUs). CSC has ensured that the practice still exists, notwithstanding court decisions prohibiting it and Parliament’s rebranding.
Does our feminist PM really believe it is really appropriate to deal with the power to examine someone’s rectum, feces and menstrual discharge like some housekeeping item in an omnibus budget? Why is this conversation not worth having because the Canadians in question are prisoners? When is it politically viable for this government to talk about prisoners and why not now?
Jeffrey Hartman is a Toronto-based criminal lawyer at Hartman Law, with a special focus on prison and police law. You can reach him at jeff@hartmanlaw.ca or call 416-316-2234.
Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to The Lawyer’s Daily, contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.