ABUSING POWER: THE CANADIAN EXPERIENCE

Edited by Susan C. Boyd, Dorothy E. Chunn, and Robert Menzies
Halifax, NS: Fernwood Publishing, 2001

I found it difficult to read this book. Indeed, I found a number of the observations and comments quite startling and I was reluctant if not wholly predisposed against assigning much credit to many of the conclusions the authors advanced. Nevertheless, I was determined to review the book for the Journal and so I persevered in my study of the fifteen articles that make up Abusing Power: The Canadian Experience. At the end of this exercise, however, I found on a personal level that I profited immensely from the guidance and instruction contained in the forceful and thought-provoking essays compiled by the editors and I conclude as well that I must surely be better positioned to understand and to evaluate fairly certain theories and beliefs that are submitted to me in my professional capacity. In other words, I am a different person by reason of having read this book and that is after all the ultimate objective of scholarship. That is not to say that I agree with all or even with the majority of the comments and conclusions suggested by the editors and authors. Nevertheless, it is hoped that I will no longer so easily dismiss the opinions that are dismissive of my core values and beliefs in our polity and especially those that consider the potential abuse of authority in the field of criminal justice.

The review that follows can only seek to identify a brief number of the core conclusions found in this excellent text, faute d’espace, in order to encourage others, as I have, to consider the wisdom of radically opposing perspectives. One may then be in a position of demonstrating the fallacies of such beliefs which is the objective of academic debate; of course, one may come to examine more carefully, as I have undertaken, whether certain fundamental beliefs in the domain of criminology are based on flawed or skewed perspectives grounded in abuses of power.

At the outset, I wish to commend the editors for including a closely reasoned introduction bearing the evocative title, “Of Crime Waves and Crime Tsunamis”. What follows is a critical and challenging view of what constitutes the real threat to the peace and security of Canadian society and serves to introduce and explain the “other side” of the coin that is presented throughout the 287 pages of text. By way of limited example, the brief overview of “lawandorder” talk is made to heighten our understanding of what is political rhetoric, aided by statistical léger de main, as contrasted with the real life fear of harm and injury that is a consequence of government cutbacks or inaction as demonstrated ably in the chapters devoted to the Westray disaster and to corporate power. In the former, Professor Laureen Snider presents a skilled analysis of the transformation of our collective understanding of corporate good citizenship versus criminality to underscore how often the thought process that would lead us to decry the irresponsible drunk who neglects and abuses his family but not to demonize the corporation that demonstrates the same “criminal” lack of concern. Why the double standard she asks? Moreover, how to explain the relative disappearance of the notion of corporate crime? If it is a crime for the homeless person to steal an apple from the fruit market, why is it not of greater concern for a company to make away with the entire market? I commend in particular pages 124-127 touching upon crimes against the environment.¹ All in all, Professor Snider appears to justify the assertion found at page 112 that “Today, potentially profitable acts cannot be wrong.” [Italics in original]

The same general theme is evident in the chapter devoted to the deaths of the Westray miners on pages 130-145. Although the focus selected by Professor John McMullan is the “spin” placed on factual information and the resulting media reports, for purposes of a journal devoted to criminology, the lessons of this tragedy are instructive for jury studies, reporting of crime rates, and media influence on Parliamentary initiatives touching upon what Professor Kent Roach decries as government’s invariable reaction to any concerns respecting criminality within the community: the enactment of yet further legislation that mirrors if not duplicates existing legislative proscriptions.² The ultimate lessons for criminologists found in Professor McMullan’s contributions are that we must be vigilant to denounce situations wherein “… reporters and journalists typically overestimate the criminality of those most vulnerable to authoritative labeling and sanctioning…” (see p. 133).

Turning now to the most important contributions to readers of the C.J.C.C.J, they are found in Part Five, “Criminal (In)justice”. The first chapter, number 13, addresses racism in the criminal courts as discussed by Professor Toni Williams and serves as a useful reminder of how much work remains to be accomplished in light of R. v. Khan (2004), 189 C.C.C. (3d) 49, [2004] O.J. No. 3819, 244 D.L.R. (4th) 443 (Sup. Ct.) and other cases concerned with racial profiling.³ This is followed by Professor Dianne L. Martin’s text, “Unredressed Wrong”. It may be read as the submission of what amounts to a brief to an, as of yet, unavailable higher court seeking relief for Leonard Peltier. The final chapter and perhaps the most valuable in light of the unusual “insider” status essay is titled “Women’s Imprisonment and the State: The Praxis of Power”. Written by Gayle K. Horii, it lays bare some of the most damning accusations that could be advanced against our prison system and contains devastating insights of abuse of power as suffered by victims.

In the final analysis, one does not readily welcome an indictment of any system one holds dear but one cannot evade the task of examining evidence of abuse of power. If such evidence is made it, it must be acted upon; if it is not made out, it must be opposed.

^1. Refer to Professor Snider’s related article, “Poisoned Water, Environmental Regulation, and Crime: Consulting the Nonculpable Subject in Walkerton, Ontario”, found in What Is a Crime? Defining Criminal Conduct in Contemporary Society, edited by the Law Reform Commission of Canada, (UNC Press: Vancouver, B.C., 2004), at pages 155-184.

^2. Refer to September 11 Consequences for Canada, McGill-Queen’s University Press: Montréal, 2003, at pp. 54-55 and his article “The Dangers of a Charter-Proof and Crime-Based Response to Terrorism”, in The Security of Freedom Essays on Canada’s Anti-Terrorism Bill, edited by R.J. Daniels, P. Macklem and K. Roach, University of Toronto Press: Toronto, 2001, at p. 133.

^3. See the valuable paper by Me N. St. Pierre, “Le ‘profilage’ racial devant les tribunaux” in Développements récents en droit criminal Volume 211), Barreau du Québec, Éditions Yvon Blais : Cowansville, QC, 2004, pages 75-122.