Justice Archives | Elizabeth May

Protecting Women’s Work and Civil Society in Aghanistan

Elizabeth May — Wed, 04 Jan 2023 16:05:00 +0000

Elizabeth May and Mike Morrice signed onto this open letter to address the impacts of the Taliban’s order to suspend women employees from working in local and international NGOs in Afghanistan.

Strategic Advocacy Human Rights (SAHR) is a peer-led network of human rights defenders fueling a worldwide movement of women and diverse human rights defenders working to end gender-based violence through law and policy reform.www.sa-hr.org

For more information about the letter, click here.

Click here to read the Open Letter to Muslim and International Communities.

From SAHR:

“It was painful to tell our female staff not to come to work the following day. We immediately called for an emergency meeting to deal with the operational impact of the ban. It changes everything for us,” said one of our colleagues, an Afghan human rights lawyer.

The NGO sector in Afghanistan was ultimately the last remaining safe place for women to be sustainably employed in. Tens of thousands of Afghan women were employed as educators, advisors, mediators, aid workers, surveyors, midwives, doctors and first responders.

The Taliban’s decree essentially forced women to a state of permanent unemployment and poverty.

“Few months ago, when I was in court helping my client, I got into a discussion with a Taliban judge about women’s work. I challenged him and said: if women cannot work, how are we going to feed our children? He said: either get married, or ask for zakat (charity) but women cannot work,” said one of our colleagues, a human rights lawyer.

Despite international condemnation, Taliban spokesperson Zabihullah Mujahid indicated no sign that the ban would be reconsidered or lifted:

“All those institutions wanting to operate in Afghanistan are obliged to comply with the rules and regulations of our country. We do not allow anyone to talk rubbish or make threats regarding the decisions of our leaders under the title of humanitarian aid.”

Kabul and other major cities were under high-security and surveillance after the decrees were announced.

“I had a drive around the city today morning to assess the changes and security surveillance. There are small groups of Taliban surveillance moving in the city watching women’s movements in the roads, streets and localities,” said one of our colleagues in Afghanistan.

Our colleagues are affected mentally as they are experiencing an unexpected and sudden change. But the current constraints push us to be more committed, motivated, courageous. We are prepared to work harder and to work with a vision. Such challenges and limitations should not stop us from supporting the women in our community who are the most affected and marginalised in the country.

We are calling on the international community for a more serious coordinated response against the systematic violence and gender persecution of women in Afghanistan and to pressure the Taliban to reverse their decision.

The post Protecting Women’s Work and Civil Society in Aghanistan appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Elizabeth May introduces private member’s bill to abolish mandatory minimums

Elizabeth May — Thu, 05 May 2016 15:01:47 +0000

(OTTAWA) May 5, 2016 – Elizabeth May, Leader of the Green Party of Canada (MP, Saanich-Gulf Islands), today introduced a private member’s bill in the House of Commons that aims to abolish most mandatory minimums in the criminal justice system.

“As we face crises of overcrowding in our prisons and overrepresentation of Indigenous and Black inmates, we need to re-examine the role that mandatory minimums play in perpetuating overincarceration and systemic discrimination,” Ms. May said. “The Supreme Court has found multiple times that mandatory minimums constitute ‘cruel and unusual punishment.’ This private member’s bill addresses the crisis imposed by mandatory minimum sentences. We cannot delay the conversation any longer.

“As Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin has noted: ‘[Mandatory minimum sentences] function as a blunt instrument that may deprive courts of the ability to tailor proportionate sentences at the lower end of a sentencing range.’ And a recent report from the Office of the Correctional Investigator found that Aboriginal and Black incarceration grew by 50% and 69% respectively between 2005 and 2015. Clearly, this is a crisis that needs to be addressed,” Ms. May said.

Dimitri Lascaris, Green Party Justice Critic, said: “It is inhumane to subject a broad range of conduct to significant terms of imprisonment, even where the conduct does not merit severe punishment. Mandatory minimum sentences deprive courts of the discretion they ought to have to order punishments that fit the crime. Such sentences are particularly inappropriate in the drug context, where effective rehabilitation, and not prolonged imprisonment, is often the best way to address the conduct of the offender.”

The post Elizabeth May introduces private member’s bill to abolish mandatory minimums appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Elizabeth May welcomes Supreme Court of Canada decision on mandatory minimums

Elizabeth May — Fri, 15 Apr 2016 16:44:50 +0000

(OTTAWA) April 15, 2016 – Elizabeth May welcomes two decisions today by the Supreme Court of Canada that key “tough on crime” measures brought in by the previous Conservative government are unconstitutional.

“Today’s ruling serves as a stark reminder that the damage of the Harper years still needs to be fixed,” said Elizabeth May, Leader of the Green Party of Canada (MP, Saanich-Gulf Islands). “As we face crises of overcrowding in our prisons and overrepresentation of Indigenous and Black inmates, we need to re-examine the role that mandatory minimums play in perpetuating overincarceration and systemic discrimination. The Supreme Court has found multiple times that mandatory minimums constitute ‘cruel and unusual punishment.”

“I will be introducing a Private Member’s Bill in the coming days to address the crisis imposed by mandatory minimum sentences. We cannot delay the conversation any longer,” Ms. May said.

Dimitri Lascaris, Green Party Justice Critic, said: “The Court’s decision today highlights the inhumanity of subjecting a broad range of conduct to significant terms of imprisonment, even where the conduct does not merit severe punishment.

“Mandatory minimum sentences deprive courts of the discretion they ought to have to order punishments that fit the crime. Such sentences are particularly inappropriate in the drug context, where effective rehabilitation – and not prolonged imprisonment – is often the best way to address the conduct of the offender. The Green Party of Canada welcomes today’s decision,” Mr. Lascaris said.

The post Elizabeth May welcomes Supreme Court of Canada decision on mandatory minimums appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Stephen Harper’s cruel and unusual mandatory minimums

Elizabeth May — Tue, 14 Apr 2015 20:49:35 +0000

OTTAWA – Elizabeth May, Leader of the Green Party of Canada and Member of Parliament for Saanich – Gulf Islands, issued the following statement concerning this morning’s Supreme Court ruling on mandatory minimum sentences:

“The Harper administration has yet again been rebuked for its persistent refusal to create laws compliant with our Constitution. Today’s ruling validates those experts who opposed, and continue to oppose, the mandatory minimums that this administration pushes through Parliament and onto Conservative election brochures. Chief Justice McLachlin’s writing is crystal clear: mandatory minimum sentences ‘function as a blunt instrument that may deprive courts of the ability to tailor proportionate sentences at the lower end of a sentencing range.’

“The Supreme Court has confirmed what the Green Party has been arguing for years – mandatory minimums are draconian, unconstitutional and harmful public policy.”

The Supreme Court of Canada ruled this morning that the Harper Conservatives’ mandatory minimums for certain firearms offences, introduced in 2008, violate the Charter. The Court struck down two mandatory minimums related to gun offences because they constitute cruel and unusual punishment, prohibited by s. 12 of the Charter.

Bruce Hyer, Deputy Leader of the Green Party of Canada and Member of Parliament for Thunder Bay – Superior North continued:

“We do need to do everything possible to deter crime and protect our citizens. However, a central principal of the Canadian sentencing process is that the punishment should fit the crime. The criminal code directs judges to consider the circumstances of the offence and of the offender. A one-size-fits-all solution may seem appealing but sentences are inherently unjust when blind to the facts of the case.”

The post Stephen Harper’s cruel and unusual mandatory minimums appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act (Bill C-54)

Craig Cantin — Mon, 27 May 2013 20:47:51 +0000

Elizabeth May : Mr. Speaker, I want to return to the concern that I have expressed this evening, that despite good intentions perhaps in the way this legislation is drafted to deal with a concern the public has, which I feel is driven by the headlines as opposed to empirical evidence, we may inadvertently make the situation worse.

The courts have been very clear that the not criminally insane provisions and much of the law that surrounds them must be seen in the context of mental health and treatment and not in a more punitive approach.

In evidence of this, I would just cite briefly from Mr. Justice Binnie in the Owen case, who said:

It is of central importance to the constitutional validity of this statutory arrangement that the individual…be confined only for reasons of public protection, not punishment.

I put it for my friend from Langley, that this bill, in many areas, seems to trespass from the preventative mental health focus to one that is treating mentally ill persons as criminals and subject to more severe punishment.

Mark Warawa: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for being here during these late hours.

As parties, we have the opportunity to take a breather, but she is here, faithfully representing her community. I want to thank her for that. It takes a lot of effort for her to do it by herself.

To the member’s question about whether this is punitive, it is absolutely not. This is reaching a balance where the courts still have discretion to put a classification on somebody who presents, or could present, a very high risk of reoffending. The paramount consideration is whether this designation needs to be put on an individual to protect the public.

The courts have the discretion. If the designation is put on, it would only be the courts that could remove it.

The post Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act (Bill C-54) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act (Bill C-54)

Craig Cantin — Mon, 27 May 2013 20:46:02 +0000

Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Vaudreuil-Soulanges. That was a very fine speech indeed.

I want to turn our attention to another piece of this. As much as we can say we want to address the problem and that the problem is the people who are held not criminally responsible, if the legislation that is passed is not compliant with the charter, it will make things worse, even with the aims that the Conservatives claim they want to address here.

If my hon. colleague is familiar with the position of the Canadian Bar Association, its members have looked at this and at the removal of the language of the “least onerous and least restrictive” requirement, which is essential in their mind to constitutional validity of the provisions that we now have. The Supreme Court of Canada has underscored this: that if we remove, as Bill C-54 would, the language of the “least onerous and least restrictive” requirement, we may well find that this legislation would be susceptible to a constitutional challenge and that it would fail to survive.

Jamie Nicholls: Mr. Speaker, these are definitely matters that we would like to discuss with the government side in committee. We would like to talk about the balance between the rights of individuals and the rights of victims. These are things that can be explored and debated in committee. We can discuss the serious questions about the charter and the balance between the rights of victims and the rights of individuals. That is why we are supporting it at second reading: so that it can get to committee and we can discuss these issues.

The post Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act (Bill C-54) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act (Bill C-54)

Craig Cantin — Mon, 27 May 2013 20:43:26 +0000

Elizabeth May : Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that I am not yet at the place where I think this legislation would actually do more good than harm. I am trying to debate that in my own mind, looking at the evidence and the expertise that comes forward.

One of the experts to whom I referred earlier, Dr. Anne Crocker, professor of psychiatry at McGill University, put the statistics this way, so we really can focus on this. She said that, of all those offenders considered not criminally responsible, in B.C., Ontario and Quebec, less than 10% of that group were responsible for violent crime. Within that group, getting down to very small numbers, less than 15% went on to reoffend.

Therefore, what happens is that we have some very high-profile, extremely upsetting cases. It is devastating when we have the kind of cases that we all have on our minds as we debate this legislation. I do not need to mention the names. However, this legislation would do nothing to prevent somebody with a mental health issue who had no previous record from committing the offence. Surely, when we have experts in mental health and in the criminal justice system who are saying that the current system is not letting us down in terms of handling NCR cases and avoiding recidivism, where we are being let down is that we are not putting in place the structures to support those people so that mental health issues can be streamed into the health system and not into the criminal justice system.

Michelle Rempel: Mr. Speaker, I am glad my colleague opposite has admitted that she is looking at this bill and trying to decide whether or not it should pass at the committee stage.

I implore her to at least get it to the committee stage for a few reasons. First of all, yes, we can talk about recidivism, absolutely. However, the point I am trying to make here today is that when we talk about percentages of reoccurrence, we have not acknowledged the fact that there are high-profile cases, and the lack of legislation we have in this area can lead to deep distress and a deep sense of non-peace in the minds of victims.

For that reason, it is very important that we at least examine the merits of this bill at the committee stage. I fundamentally feel that, as legislators, we cannot fail even one person in this regard, in this context. That is why it is so important.

The post Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act (Bill C-54) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act (Bill C-54)

Craig Cantin — Mon, 27 May 2013 20:39:22 +0000

Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up on some of the points that have been made.

It is hard when battling statistics are raised in debates and people are left to wonder what the actual state of evidence is. I am persuaded by the various briefs by the Canadian Bar Association, scientists and people who have dedicated their life’s work to this area, such as McGill University psychiatrists and others.

The rate of recidivism for people who actually have been found not criminally responsible is extremely small. Therefore, I was baffled by the statistics used earlier in the debate by the Minister of Natural Resources, and I wish I could have gotten a question to him. However, the best statistics I can find say that only 7.3% of designated NCR accused actually return to commit a violent offence within the next three years.

The experts in this area are saying that this is not where we need to fix the problem. They are not saying that there is no problem, but they are saying that where we really need to focus resources is on adequate treatment and identification of people with mental health issues to ensure that both they and society are protected.

Bernard Trottier: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Natural Resources cited a few recidivism statistics, and whether it is 27.3% of NCR accused who have had past findings of NCR, or 4%, or 7% as the member stated, what is important in this legislation is that prosecutors would have some additional tools at their disposal, and we leave it to the people with the expertise to decide where and when the appropriate time is to use those tools. Ultimately, the protection of society is paramount.

I think we can all agree that these are all terrible tragedies, whether it is 4 out of 100 people who experience recidivism or 25. We need to do everything we can as a society and as a justice system to make sure that the experts and the prosecutors who deal with these kinds of things, using the advice of mental health experts, can decide whether these kinds of tools need to be applied in each individual case.

The post Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act (Bill C-54) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act (Bill C-54)

Craig Cantin — Mon, 27 May 2013 20:36:06 +0000

Hon. Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I would tell those young people, as I have told young people, that it does not get any better anywhere in the world than right here in Canada. Nobody is fairer. Nobody has better, more open debates. Nobody is more reasonable. This country is an example of what the world should become. Indeed, all of these matters will be debated and since we are talking about this particular bill, yes, we can debate this again for five hours and I am open to questions. Members do not have to ask me anything about the substance. I appreciate this is a democracy.

They can just ask me about procedure if they like.

But again, for me it is the content of this legislation that is very important. Once this debate goes for second reading, as I pointed out, it will go to committee, there will be witnesses and great debate. I have complete confidence in my parliamentary secretary and all those who work with him on the justice committee that there will be good and fulsome debate. I would say to the hon. member to tune into those debates. The good thing about CPAC is that it continues to broadcast those committee meetings over and over again. If people miss it once, they will have the opportunity to get it later on, and to see politics in action.

Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wanted to know if the Minister of Justice had meant to use the word “fulsome”, which in relation to debate means noxious and disgusting?

The post Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act (Bill C-54) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act (Bill C-54)

Craig Cantin — Mon, 27 May 2013 20:34:07 +0000

Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, we are now debating time allocation on the bill and the Conservative majority will get the time allocation they want. Whenever there is time allocation, the position I hold being a member of a party with one seat is that those of us in the backbenches over in this corner will not get any opportunity to participate in debate. Over and over again time allocation means that we do not get a speech on the key issues.

I am surprised the Minister of Justice believes the bill has been well received. I have seen from the experts in the area of mental health and the experts in criminal justice that there is no evidence whatsoever for the changes that are being proposed and that the bill needs a proper, full and thorough debate in this House.

I ask the Minister of Justice how he could miss the comments of Professor Anne Crocker, who did a report for his own department, and said, “I would say there’s no current evidence indicating the need for changing the way things are being done at the moment”.

Then she went on to say, “You wonder why you commission reports [referring to the Department of Justice] if you’re not going to use them”.

Hon. Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, we have actually commissioned a couple of reports and I referred to some of the statistics in the final report that was given to us in November 2012. Indeed, there was one from 2006 that underscored some of the challenges that we have.

The member asks who we have been listening to. I make no bones about it, we have been listening to victims. We meet with victims groups. I would give the member the same advice that I would given to the NDP on a hundred different occasions. Sit down with victims groups across this country. I know members are busy and have lots of things to do, they have a constituency to look after. Even if they are down to one seat, as the Green Party is, they can still make time for victims groups across this country. I think they will be very impressed. I believe once having sat down with victims groups, members will be very supportive of what this government is doing to better protect victims.

The post Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act (Bill C-54) appeared first on Elizabeth May.