Saturday, July 30, 2011

Multiculturalism and its Enemies - Part 1



If you take a look around North America, the case against multiculturalism seems baffling. The most multicultural cities on the continent - New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles in the US, Vancouver, Montreal and Toronto in Canada - are also the most economically vibrant, the most dynamic and generally considered the most desirable places to live. Crime rates are not particularly low, but they aren't particularly high either, with some more "national" cities much more dangerous, to defuse one of the most common reservations. Also, even in the multicultural world city, no one can force you to get close to those you don't want to get close to, or eat a type of cuisine you dislike, or observe some holiday you disapprove of - you can always decline the invitation, eat elsewhere, opt out.

Multiculturalism just means more flavours of sexy

But the problem that people have with multiculturalism isn't about the present, and can't be found by looking at present conditions. It's about the past - an imagined past - and a future, usually a dreaded one.

Before Multiculturalism

The rational approach to questions of policy is guided by utilitarian considerations, cost-benefit analyses on a grand scale that are meant to capture all the effects that a given policy change may have on the welfare of individuals. Arguments concern the premises for your analysis, or its coherence of its model, or its predictive power, but no one, the recent Onion piece notwithstanding, challenges the utilitarian framework. To argue that policy should be formulated for a purpose other than benefiting the public - or at least some segment of the public, or to remove some injustice being done to the public - would be crazy. And not even bad crazy, but incomprehensible, weird crazy. Imagine trade policy being debated on non-utilitarian grounds. Or environmental policy. Or health policy. But when it comes to multiculturalism - or other issues deemed "cultural" - the frame breaks. Practical considerations are put aside, and support can be mobilized for policies that make no one better off and some people - the multis, to coin a term - much worse off. For committed liberals, libertarians, and conservatives that just care about money, that type of nativism is ugly and confusing, and tends to be chalked up to racism, homophobia, resentment or some generalized repugnant atavism. Once psychologized, the nativist reaction against multiculturalism can be dismissed as an irrational derangement. I think this is a mistake. This thing is deep, and it's smart.

Multi-culturalism week

I'm writing this from the balcony of my apartment in Vancouver. I live in the West End, a neighborhood of low-, mid- and hi-rise apartment buildings, 90% of which consist of rental units. Also, it's right next to the gay village. Like a block away. And the Gay Pride parade is tomorrow. This alone foregrounds the idea of diversity, but when you add in the ethnic and racial mix of Vancouver - a dozen languages on every street corner, improbably ethnic combinations of romantic couples, fusion food that God never intended - you end up with a paradigm multi-cultural city. Drawing inspiration from my new (though likely temporary) home, this week I'll be writing about multiculturalism, diversity, and their enemies. Actually, mostly about their enemies. Enjoy!


Blogging Again...

Readers,
Dear, special, wonderful readers.
I always intended for this blog to be an everyday thing - an exercise in writing, and in thinking through certain issues. After the convention, I fell off the wagon for a while. I offer no excuse, but here I am again. Incidentally, my four followers, blessed be your cyber-hearts, may spam never breach your filters, is there anyway we can get a few more people reading this? I have no aptitude or appetite for self-promotion, which would be my Achilles heel were it not for a dozen other character defects, and so I worry that I'm hiding my light under a bushel, and keeping my wisdom from wisdom-starved, Kuba-deficient readers. So I'm going to incentivize you to do this for me. I'm assuming that if you're following the blog, you appreciate Kuba prose, so here is the deal:
Anyone who brings in two or more followers will receive, from me, a quill-written letter suitable for framing (frame not included) on stolen hotel stationary describing the superhero or villain that I imagine they would be, if they were a superhero or villain. It will include a name, description of powers, origin story, etc. and I'll put like a whole day's worth of thought into it. If you don't like superheros and villains, then I can supply a list of book/movie/music recommendations. Two or more followers!

And with that, I start again...

Wednesday, June 22, 2011

Conventioneering: Conclusions

Here is a Jack Layton bobblehead, hand-made out of great Canadian plaster in some Quebec riding, available for a limited time for the low introductory price of $20. I did not buy one.

The convention was a fascinating experience - it was my first time seeing one live, and I had no idea of the centrality of Robert's Rules of Order and how much damage a vaguely composed agenda could cause. I also got a lot of insights into the institutional configuration of the NDP as a party - there is no pool of federal members, but instead the party is stitched together from subsidiary organizations, like the riding associations, youth groups, unions, and vulnerable identity representation (for aboriginals, gays, women, the disabled, and visible minorities, though I may be forgetting something). Therefore, if you join the party outside of these constituent groups, you're kind of on your own, which is a tough place to be.

Are the NDP ready for prime time? Smartly dressed Quebecois parliamentary aide wearing hipster glasses and acknowledging the need for compromise says yes, but elderly man in tie-dye handing out leaflets on marijuana legalization says no. The balance is not yet on the side of the former. The usual knock on the Conservatives is that they are out of touch with regular Canadians - it could be said that the NDP is out of touch with reality. There's truth to both statements, which places voters in a tough corner.

Also, there is no one to replace Jack Layton.

Tuesday, June 21, 2011

Conventioneering: Day 3 (Stephane Dion)

Stephane Dion, former head of the Liberal party and current schadenfreude superstar after his successor's colossal defeat, attended the convention as an observer at the behest of Bob Rae, his new boss. The big story here is that he was very warmly received - when his presence was announced, he got a round of applause, and name-checking Dion - the former head and current MP of a rival party, mind you - would get you another smattering of hand-claps. When the hipster socialist caucus were busy getting their Marat-style denunciations out during the debate on the merger clause, they were careful to distinguish him from those they were targeting. And when the anti-anti-merger side gave him credit for proposing the green shift, he received a standing ovation. I doubt he could be any more popular at the Liberal convention.

Conventioneering: Day 3 (Substance)

I arrived late, and missed nothing - the first session was dedicated to passing feel-good resolutions promising do-gooder solutions to all the world's problems, payable once the NDP took power. Most passed uncontested (the only controversial ones, related to Israel-Palestine, had been banished to the end of the list, the convention equivalent of the land of wind and ghosts, whence they would never reach the convention floor).
Then a funny thing happened - the debate got interesting. The second session was about internal party affairs. Normally, given the homogeneity of PC-thinking among NDP delegates, the hipster socialist caucus can do little damage - they complain that resolutions don't go far enough, the forward paranoid conspiracy theories, they overreact. This time, it was different - the ballot resolution forbade any merger talks with the Liberals. For the hipster socialists, this was an opportunity to be leftier-than-though, and stick it to the moderates and the pragmatists, insisting on a vow of political chastity. They were all there in line to speak - beardo, dreadlock dude, keffiyeh guy, all insisting on purity of essence. They received fitful applause, and booed the speakers for the other side, twice getting reprimanded by the chair. Also, this was when the crowd showed some ugly, with the term Liberal getting tossed around like a slur.
It ended up being the only close vote of the convention, which required a real stand-up-and-be-counted resolution as volunteers passed through the crowd to tally up the delegates on either side of the issue. The resolution was defeated by an approximately 60/40 margin, wide enough so that the yes side didn't insist on a paper ballot.
Then they dodged the other big, soul-of-the-party resolution, about dropping "socialist" from the party constitution. It got referred back to committee.
Then Jack Layton gave a speech and we all got to go home.

Monday, June 20, 2011

Conventioneering: Day 2 (The Speeches)

There were a number of important ones today - I only remember two, one very good and the other very bad.

The bad: Andrea Horwath, leader of the Ontario NDP. Ontario has a provincial election scheduled this year, and so they have brought her to speak before the party faithful. She went on for about 10, 12 minutes, but in terms of effectiveness the speech was front-loaded - the only goal she managed to achieve was to inform non-Ontario NDP that Ontario has a provincial election scheduled this year. What followed was a positively anachronistic feminist speech celebrating the breakthroughs of women in Canadian politics, and insisting that she would challenge the "old boys club" in Parliament. It would have killed at a suffragette convention, but this is 2011, and the NDP convention to boot - the party has already had two female leaders, while Canada has had a female prime minister and dozens of prominent female politicians. This antique message was also poorly delivered, with the forced levity and cheer that comes from a mix of terror and loathing. Her big applause line was a penis joke.

The good: Stephen Lewis, former leader of the Ontario NDP. This guy had soooooooo much charisma. He opened with a joke comparing himself to Castro, and then proceeded to dominate our hearts much like Fidel. He also gave a feminist speech, but a timely one, about the prevalence of sexual violence (he said "rape" like a dozen times. It was a very rapey speech, disconcertingly so) throughout the world, commending the NDP for insisting that a quarter of Libya-related aid go towards victims of rape. Arguing that violence against women had reached devastating proportions world wide, he called this epidemic "femicide." I doubt that will catch on.
He also says he knows how to eliminate AIDS - a program called treatment-as-prevention, which demonstrated that if HIV carriers are given anti-retroviral drugs, their likelihood of spreading the disease drastically decreases (by 96%). So, there's also that. Between style and substance, his was an impossible act to follow - you'd need Obama-in-2008 levels of charisma and the cure for cancer. Good luck with that.

A Much Better Conspiracy Theory

This one is my own.

Hypothesis: On reason for the ambitious, long-term spending plans of the Conservatives (fighter jets, militarizing the Arctic, prisons) is that they want these things. Another reason is that, once begun, these projects get locked in and cannot be scrapped without significant penalties for the government, which must either continue to spend to get them finished (and thus bankroll projects they don't actually want) or be seen to throw money away. Further, the spending commitments eat in to the budget, meaning that there is much less room for a possible future NDP government to enact its expensive social democratic reform agenda without raising taxes. If they don't move on their agenda, they lose party stalwarts - if they raise taxes, they lose everyone else.

Harper, you diabolical...

Conventioneering: Day 2 (The Postal Conspiracy)

Ah, hipster socialists. Red keffiyehs wrapped around your necks, Trotsky glasses wrapped around your eyes, Che beards scraggling from your chins... It would not be an NDP convention without you.

One of these gentlemen, stalwart of the socialist caucus, peddler of tract-filled magazines, brought me up to speed on the evil conspiracy against the striking postal workers union. This union had sought a resolution in support of their strike, and a condemnation of the Conservative governments back-to-work legislation. One had originally been introduced through the economic committee, but had been withdrawn because an understanding was reached that it would be introduced as an emergency resolution instead. But, when a union activist tried to make an announcement about the strike, she was ruled out of order and her mike cut off! Quelle horreur! This was clearly the result of a nefarious campaign by party moderates to stab the union movement in the back. Careful comrades, NEP men, former aristos, bourgeois sympathizers, foreign agents - enemies of the people are everywhere! Enemies of the people are among us! Clearly this is a plot by infiltrators to steal the party from the union movement! Unless it's a procedural issue related to the fact that emergency resolutions were slotted for day three, when they would get great prominence between speeches by Jack Layton and Stephen Lewis (a well regarded former party leader). I guess it could be that. Could it be that? Yeah, that was it. Still, infiltrators!

Conventioneering: Day 2 (Procedure)

I had spent the night before blogging about the day before, which left me exhausted and irritable the next morning. I slept in, arrived late and it didn't make a difference - judging by the empty seats in the formerly-packed hall, many other people did the same thing. The most significant consequence of this was a damping down of the debate and, as a result, a much more productive session, with resolutions being passed every five to seven minutes, allowing us to get through three or four times as many per topic area as the first day, despite each session being shorter. If you want to ram something through, put it to a vote on a Saturday morning.

On a tangentially related note, the NDP may want to tighten up requirements for delegates. Right now, any jackass who signs up for the party and pays his registration fee can come in and vote on the party platform, and in the internal elections. Given that turn out at the convention was approximately 1,500, and that youth (under 25) and unwaged early-bird registration was down around $50, an opponent with deep pockets (cough... Harper) could theoretically stack the convention floor with a majority of their own supporters for $75,050 in registration fees + $30,020 in membership dues. That's a pretty penny, admittedly, but you'd get to vote for the treasurer responsible for spending it, and pick the leader of the party receiving it. Not that anyone in Canada would do anything so underhanded for political gain (like proroguing Parliament, say).

All total, something like 70 minutes was lost in procedural bickering, similar to yesterday, including challenges to the chair. It was no longer interesting to me, and I will not elaborate on it, except to say that the chairs (Steve Morin and Maura Parte, btw) had that shit under control this time, and the challenge didn't stand.

Saturday, June 18, 2011

Worthwhile Canadian Initiative

It occurs to me that in the post marked (substance) I didn't actually get to the substance (the procedure being pretty awesome to write about). There was one proposal that got through which represented some new and potentially constructive thinking. Andrew Cash (MP Davenport) introduced a resolution that would extend the CPP and other benefits to workers with "precarious occupations," meaning those on contract, the self-employed, entrepreneurs, etc. There's the problem of how to pay for it, of course, but if this is a move towards decoupling social benefits and protections from formal employment, then so long as it's somehow indexed to net tax contributions it could be a politically viable path towards the generalized welfare state.

Which would be awesome.

Friday, June 17, 2011

Conventioneering: Day 1 (speeches)

Here is a simple fact: if you are committed to universal respect, if you value the dignity of every human being, if you seek consilience and chase the elusive middle-ground so that everyone can feel well-treated, you will not be funny. For a reason I cannot fathom, they began the convention by bringing out two MPs - one anglophone, Kennedy Stewart, and one francophone, I can't remember her name - who, alternating language, delivered what seemed like a stand up routine, but minus all of the punch lines. The most hilarious exchange between the two:
Anglo: In Quebec, it's very cold.
Franco: But here in Vancouver it rains more.
Anglo: But we have the Rocky mountains
Franco: ....
Anglo: We did very well in the last election.
If there were any hint of edge, this could have been a wickedly dark discomfort anti-comedy routine. Instead, it was just two of the more photogenic MPs exchange lines that seem drawn from an unsuccessful Mormon first date. Or an undiscovered Beckett play, set for some reason in the furthest Canadas.
Then there was a First Nations welcome ceremony. I snickered when it was first introduced - Kennedy Stewart reminded us that we were on unceded Aboriginal land, and that he was grateful for the hospitality and welcome of the local First Nations. I then realized I was the only one who thought it strange, and felt immediately guilty, especially when the ceremony - delivered by a local chief of a band whose name I cannot remember (take better notes tomorrow) turned out to be very lovely, a musical chant in his people's language expressing welcome, long enough to be mesmerizing and memorable but not so long as to drag. He had great teeth, and the kind of glow that happy old men carry when they've outlived their enemies. Really commanded the stage too.
We then got the deputy mayor of Vancouver, who tried some words in French earning the muttered contempt of the Quebec table, and a greeting in Chinese that only the BC people cheered. The real mayor was busy apologizing for the riots.
The head of the BC NDP delivered a speech-shaped pitch for our labour and money. I didn't like him.
And then Jack Layton spoke. He came in without a cane, smiling, waving, springing across the stage. His energy was there, he ad libbed some improvements to the text on the telepropter, and he nailed it. He's the show - the charisma and the charm and the gravitas of the NDP, all of it, while the others on stage were gavel wielding would-be tyrants who couldn't quell a revolt of rules dorks or some vanilla-flavored rice cakes talking about the weather. I'm worried about what happens when he's gone, because he can't last forever - he's already old and, you know, cancer. Oh well, maybe we can get the Native chief. I bet he smells good, like sage and saddle leather.

Conventioneering: Day 1 (substance)

Day one was action packed - it began with topic area committee meetings to discuss proposed resolutions relating to the various themes of the NDP program, continued with speeches from various party luminaries, and ended with the first full plenary session, when the entire convention bickers, debates, and then finally votes on the individual resolutions (like supporting the ship-building industry, or banning supertankers from the inside passage of Haida Gwaii).

I've said it once, and I'll say it again - democracy just doesn't work.

There is no real screening process for delegates - any yahoo (like yours truly) willing to join up and pay the registration fee can come in with full privileges equal to party leaders. As a result, there are many, many yahoos here - from the geriatrics who walk with the timid gait of the ineffectual, to the hipster contingent from Quebec (I counted three funny moustaches and a half-dozen porkpie hats. Presumably the crew rode in on fixed gears all the way from Montreal), to the slightly unhinged, obviously unemployed middle-aged crowd, who everyone humors and no one likes. Since this is a social democratic party, anyone who wants to speak, gets to speak - and boy do they love to speak! Every resolution, even the least controversial one, was an occasion to trot out your pet project or, if you're a newly minted mp, mug for the cameras to get some air time. As a result, in a committee session, in 90 minutes we managed to agree on the order of the resolutions and endorse four of them - a record for the convention, where the average number of committee resolutions voted on was 2.4. To give you some sense of scale, there were 54 resolutions slated for our committee. In full plenary session, we managed to pass 8. Now, these were resolutions everyone favored, and the discussion tended to be about tangentially related issues and complaints that some favorite verbiage was missing from the second bullet point. It's enough to make you nostalgic for the fuhrerprinzip.

I want to tell you the story about one of these debates. It is exception partly because it isn't even about a resolution - one of the lengthiest and most acrimonious disputes of the convention had to do with a procedural point. After the speeches, a pair of chairpersons (chairpeople?) officially convened the convention - I am angry with myself for not getting their names, damn I could have snapped some pictures too - with a vote on the agenda. Someone actually challenged that, but they were cut off by the chairs for being "out of order." So the agenda passed without comment. What followed was the pro forma delivery of reports by party leaders - the president, the treasurer and the national leader. This was mostly symbolic, since there was nothing controversial in their reports, but someone wanted to ask a question anyway. If 2,000 people rolling their eyes as a crotchety old man insists on questioning the selection of auditor, that was what rang out when the man started speaking - no one wanted to humor his suspicions. But then he got cut off by female chair, who explained he was out of order - there was no time for debating the reports in the agenda passed, so they were not subject to debate. This provoked other people - Dan Rishi, federal council member and troublemaker extraordinaire, insisted that all previous conventions included debate, and that she was breaking from past practice. She tried to silence him, arguing that he was out of order, but he stood his ground - he wasn't debating the substance of the report, he was making a point of order, and those were ALWAYS in order. Instead, she tried to rush along the vote on the reports, then ruling any of the point of order protests out of order since voting was underway. The rules lawyers in the crowd were having none of this - one clamboured up to a mike, and insisted that he was outraged and disturbed by this turn. She tried to shut him up, saying the agenda had no room for questions. SO HE CHALLENGED THE CHAIR! (the piano player stops, everyone holds their breath, the tension mounts - you just don't challenge the chair) But, the gauntlet had been thrown down (and the gauntlet throwing was, in point of fact, in order), so the female chair sat down and her partner took over. He had to call a vote on the challenge, and the sea of voting cards told the story - to his surprise, probably to everyone's surprise, the challenge stood, and they had to open up the reports to debate. And what a debate! People asked if fundraising was up in Quebec, and if the leadership had any ideas on how to inspire Canadians, and someone asked why the 2010 financials weren't out yet, and someone told Peggy Nash that she was doing a great job, and we all had a very nice chat while on stage the former chair, flushed red with humiliation, quietly wept.

(I didn't notice at first, since the other chair had taken over and there was a lot going on on stage. But after a minute, I'm like - wait, didn't we just see a strong woman humiliated by the democratic process? I wonder how she's doing? Oh, she's completely devastated! It's taking all her will power not to run screaming from the stage. Hey, Pierre, take a look - this must be like the worst moment of her life.)

Welcome to VanCon 2011!

The Orange Alternative

For some reason, the NDP have insisted on selecting Orange as their political color:

Orange: It screams gravitas. Also, Orange Crush

I am not a fan. Orange for me conjures up images of Dutch princes or, worse yet, Protestants. It has none of the power of socialist red, or the dignity of conservative blue. Indeed, Orange is such an apolitical - even ridiculous - color that the only political parties that use it are either Protty nationalists or weird outliers, and it's considered so neutral that in New Zealand it's used exclusively by the non-partisan electoral commission.
But now, as will usually happen when I am narrating, the story turns to Poland. Because orange was so politically weird, an absurdist dissident group - the Orange Alternative - mobilized right under the noses of the Communist Party, in the middle of the repressive 80s. Although their slogans were subversive (one pamphlet read "citizen, help the militia and beat yourself up"), the vast majority of their actions and demands made no sense, disquieting the authorities without quite giving them enough for a crackdown. They were most famous,
perhaps, for introducing the character of the little orange dwarf as a mascot, which they spraypainted over the concealing coat that the authorities had spraypainted over dissident graffiti (thus taking the whole thing to the meta-level). This culminated in the 1988 "Revolution of the Dwarfs," when they gathered a crowd of 10,000 to march through Wroclaw in orange dwarf caps. This is their leader:

No, the hat is not photoshopped. Now imagine Jack Layton wearing it. Disturbingly easy, right? And all because they had to go with orange.

Thursday, June 16, 2011

A Funny Prison Story

One feature that I'll put up intermittently on the site are stories about terrible things, ranging from frightening and upsetting to crime against humanity (this is for you, Lexi). I was going to skip it for prison week because, well, the topic is dreadful enough and I had trouble coming up with material. But then I remembered this particular tale and it's too good not to share.

In the best tradition of third-hand hearsay, this is something that totally happened to a friend of a friend of mine (thanks Graeme!). This was a clean-cut young man, white, living in southern California. Like many other young people, he was very cavalier - insouciant even - about traffic violations, parking wherever he pleased and racking up considerable parking fines, which he then proceeded to disregard. Notices would arrive in the mail, each more sternly worded than the last, and he would immediately file them away with Abercrombie & Fitch catalogues and fundraising messages from the Sierra Club in his "take no action" stack (which I image as being a heap of paper next to moldering pizza boxes). Now, with traffic fines there comes a certain threshold - a magic number, if you like - which, if reached, triggers more forceful action than mere rebukes. I imagine the moment like this: while the number rolls up in some police computer, this young man is in a daze of cannabis smoke, reclining in a sofa while listening to Pink Floyd, when a sudden chill goes down his spine for no clear reason. At that moment, though he knew it not, he was IN TROUBLE.
I'm not clear on the details of how the law caught up to him. It likely wasn't a S.W.A.T. team busting down his door, attack dobermann hounds pouncing, men in heavy armor barking orders, but it would be funny if it were. No, I imagine him at some office - maybe renewing his car insurance, maybe taking some routine screening for a job application, maybe stopping by his college to sort out some administrative matter - and his name triggering a flag on the computer screen of an office worker. She adjusts her glasses to make sure she isn't misreading the file, and then looks at him with an "uh-oh" expression before calling it in, as she must. He gets taken into custody and charged with a misdemeanor - his infractions have piled high enough for this to be a criminal matter - and discovers that he doesn't have the means to settle his fines. Done with trusting him to cough up the money eventually, the system turns its gears and he's placed into custody at the county jail until some family member or collection of friends can ransom him out.
And so our nameless protagonist, the clean-cut white boy, goes to jail, in the same holding cells that house gang members, murders, rapists and thieves. He is terrified, and should be.
This is not real prison - turnover is high, with no one in there for more than a week or two pre-trial, and those inside haven't yet been convicted of anything. The outside world is close by, almost at hand, and he just has to bide his time. But these are real criminals, and they, much more than the guards, determine what will become of him, and they know softness when they see it.
He discovers that the jail is strictly segregated by race. It's small, and split roughly evenly between black gangs and Hispanic gangs, with a negligible number of inmates of other races (this was apparently the result of prison gangs, with the white skinheads sequestered at a different facility). Each gang (or perhaps federation of gangs) had its own hierarchy, with leaders and enforces. Upon arrival, he was greeted by two members of the Hispanic crew, a hulking giant and a small talker. The talker introduced himself, and asked if our protagonist would prefer to speak with him or the brute beside him. "I'd rather speak to you, sir."
Rules were laid down. The two bathrooms were divided up between the two camps. He was never to enter the bathroom claimed by the black gangs. He could use that controlled by the Hispanic gang, but only if it were empty and he had to leave if anyone else came in. He should eat separately from both groups, and refrain from small talk. Finally, he was asked if he had any money. What little he did have was claimed by the pair, and he was told to get more, quickly. And cigarettes. Then they left.
He passed the rest of the day either in desperate activity (trying to call friends to bring him cash, super quick) or anxious waiting. I imagine him lying prone on his bunk (bottom, of course), staring up at the quilt of wires supporting the upper mattress, trying to come up with some existential argument for why this couldn't actually be happening. It then became night, and he did not sleep.
The next day, he discovered his one and only advantage. Newspapers were distributed by race - one was given to the black gang, one to the Hispanic gang and, as a member of neither group, he was entitled to one for himself. The newspaper was valuable - everything is valuable under the condition of artificial scarcity created by incarceration - and he could barter the different sections in exchange for favors (the number one favor being, of course, don't beat me). This bought him time, enough time so that resources outside the jail were motivated and brought to bear on his predicament, and he was finally sprung from the prison.
Of course, seeing what terrible conditions prevailed inside the penal system, he decided that from that moment on his life would be dedicated to improving the welfare of inmates. No, just kidding, that didn't happen, but he did become much more careful about where he parked.

Resolution Reading List

The NDP have released the first document of resolutions to be voted on at the convention. This is not all of them, mind you, just the "top ten" from each of the 7 topic areas (delegates will be split up and only vote on one set). They come in four flavors. First, there's left-wing goal setting of the vaguest and least controversial order - there's a resolution on eliminating violence against women, as though passing an NDP resolution will help on that goal, another on strengthening multiculturalism, one on protecting public land and water, etc. Then there's measures to bolster the social safety net, with a strong emphasis on veterans, former RCMP officers and families. There's also some interest group politicking by farmers, Atlantic shipbuilders and others, who offer remarkably specific proposals to amend the party program. And finally, there's one-issue resolutions, some on relatively hot topics (the InSite program in Vancouver) and some somewhat obscure (a ban on tankers sailing along the interior passage around Queen Charlotte Sound). We'll see how this all adds up, and if anyone will actually vote against stopping violence against women. My guess is no.

NDP conventioneering

Sad to say, but prison week is coming to a close, but you have something new to look forward to - NDP convention blogging!

In an uncharacteristic fit of civic engagement, I joined the NDP (for those of you thinking "Is that a credit union?" the New Democratic Party is the Canadian social-democratic party, to the left of the Trudeau/Chretien Liberals. The did REALLY well in the last election, and are now the official opposition) before the last election. Then, wondering what I had gotten myself in to, I decided to sign up for the party convention happening this weekend (being social democrats, they allow any member to show up as a delegate). If you are curious to see if they have any potential to govern, any succession plan for Jack Layton, or are just as crazy as the Conservatives would have you believe, stay tuned! And I'll let you know I can glean this weekend.

How they do it in Scandinavia...


The Scandinavian social democracies are always making the rest of us look bad with their humane, effective, egalitarian social policies and disproportionate prowess at hockey, and prison policy is no exception. The New York Times ran a piece on the Finnish prison system in 2003, and around the same time the BBC examined prison practice in Denmark. Perhaps the broadest introduction to Scandinavian penal practice actually comes out of Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, where the protagonist faces a prison sentence for defamation, and spends the time getting in shape and learning some practical skills from his fellow inmates. But conditions are not cushy enough to satisfy everyone - apparently believing that jail should be less like the gulag and more like a vegan co-op, plans for a new prison in Denmark include programs for animal husbandry and gardening.

The sheep double as guard animals

In terms of practice, what the different prison systems have in common is a respect for the inmate, an emphasis on rehabilitation and an aversion to real or symbolic coercion. Relationships between inmates and jailers are cordial, with the Finns especially egalitarian - in "open" prisons, staff don't wear uniforms and are addressed by convicts by their first names. The whole approach is intended to make the transition to life outside as easy as possible and to develop attitudes among prisoners which will discourage them from reoffending.
Assessing the success of the Scandinavian model is a little tricky - different countries collect and code crime-related data differently, and the most pertinent statistic - recidivism, or re-offending, rate - is extremely difficult to compare given the diverse definitions used. One indisputable achievement is the low incarceration rates that come with the model - Scandinavian countries, by and large, imprison their citizens at one tenth the rate of the US, and about 30% lower rate than Canada. As for re-offending versus rehabilitation, there the results are less clean cut. The most often cited and thorough report on the topic, a report released by the American Bureau of Justice Statistics, using a three-year time frame, concluded that 67.5% of released inmates are re-arrested for a new crime and that 51.8% return to prison, either for a new offense or for violating terms of their parole. The Finnish Criminal Sanctions Agency released a similar report, and using a five-year horizon found that 59% of released inmates returned to custody. The comparison then falls on the favor of Finns, but only because of the extra two years in their time scale, with the results otherwise being a statistical wash. However, this is not to say that the two systems are comparable - remember, the proportion of those incarcerated in Finland is much lower, and conditions much more humane. Rather than finding an equivalence between the two, it would be fairer to say that to achieve the same results as the Scandinavians, US authorities need to imprison ten times as many offenders at great expense, and then subject them to much harsher, more arbitrary and more demeaning conditions. And when you put it that way, it's not much of a contest.

Prison-related culture


There's something fascinating about prison life, a combination of intense
psychological desperation and lurid criminal brio making it a great inspiration for art, high and low. Prompted by all the carceral rumination I've been doing as a result of these posts, I started asking people about their favorite prison movies, figuring I could compile a top ten list. It turns out that someone's beaten me to the punch (www.prisonmovies.net) and ranked 230 US and international films by quality, complete with snarky one-line reviews. I will let their list stand, but I make the following comments:
1. The Shawshank Redemption is a little over-exposed, but it's still pretty awesome
2. The list missed Blood In, Blood Out, which though a little over-the-top, made quite an impression on me as an adolescent. The main take home message: Californian pr
ison gangs are really scary.
3. Papillon got enough love so that I would remark upon it.

Prison has also been a great subject for music, with Nick Cave's Mercy Seat a personal favorite of mine. But, despite a life best described as "completely punk," his convict growl is a bit of a pose - he never spent an (serious) time behind bars, though it's not inconceivable he overnighted at a city jail after a particularly nasty bender. Johnny Cash is perhaps the best known prison bard, due partly to such classics as Folsom Prison Blues and partly because of a willingness to identify with convicts, as in his two prison records, Johnny Cash at Folsom Prison and Johnny Cash at San Quentin. Though never in jail for long, he successfully cultivate an image as an outlaw, a badass, an all-American desperado type, and he certainly had more than enough grit to back it up.
But Lead Belly, for all Nick Cave's punk-rock posturing and Johnny Cash's country
-western swagger, makes them both
look like backup dancers for hair metal bands. A pioneering bluesman credited by some for innovating the beginnings of modern American music, he had the hardest history of the three, born a penniless black man in 1888 and coming up in the Deep South when segregation and white supremacy were at their most intense. He did not merely sing about prison, he spent all together 11 years in lockup, 4 in Louisiana's notorious Angola prison for knifing a white man, and 7 in Texas for murder. His musical talent became known to his captors early on, and the governor of Texas would occasionally bring guests to the prison to hear Lead Belly preform. It was only late in life that Leadbelly reached broader audiences, mainly through the efforts of folklorists who wanted to promote traditional American musical culture, and save it for future generations. On some of the early recordings, made while he was still behind bars, his clapping is accompanied by the jingle of his manacles as the he moves. So, despite my love for Cash and Cave, in the prison authenticity olympics the gold goes to Lead Belly.

Wednesday, June 15, 2011

The Prison-Industrial Complex

Prison week (because that's what it's become) continues!

Although the establishment of private, for-profit prisons is not part of the Conservative omnibus crime bill, there's been anxiety on left ever since 2007 about the potential for a shift in that direction. For Canadians used to penal issues being a strictly government matter, private prisons may seem novel and counter-intuitive, but the for-profit jail business has a long though inglourious tradition (Fleet Prison, one of London's most Notorious, was operated by subcontractors on a for-profit basis, charging prisons for food and board, with fees for removing irons and turning keys). In post-Reconstruction Mississippi, convicts could be leased out to private interests for their labour, and the state prison at Parchman farm, though government-run, turned a profit as a cotton plantation. It was only the progressive reforms of the late 19th and 20th century that brought those kinds of practices to an end.

Well, until the 80s. A side-effect of the "tough on crime" politicking of the post-Nixon Republicans was a massive surge in the inmate population in the 80s and 90s, creating an over-crowding crisis in state prisons across the US. These were the days of Reaganism, so rather than building up the government penal apparatus, the free market was unleashed to work its magic, creating the modern American prison-industrial complex, in which private businesses take government money in order to build, maintain and operate prisons. Every dime that can be saved by, say, reducing programs for inmates, or reducing their space allowances, or any other privation great or small, translates immediately into improvements in the bottom line. Likewise, the prison operators partner with other firms in order to make the most lucrative use of their unfree labor. Depressed communities, eager for the corrections jobs that come with a private-built prison, compete to house the jails, with local representatives serving as lobbyists in the state house for the private prison industry. The results are predictable - overcrowding, violence, and inmates unfit and unprepared for life after release. Predictably, they tend to reoffend, perpetuating the system, and supplying the private prison companies with a steady stream of profit.


Prison Travelogue - Louis Theroux goes to jail

In keeping with the topic of the last post, here is Louis Theroux in San Quentin Prison:


For those of you unfamiliar with him, Louis is the son of Paul Theroux, the travel writer, and a successful tv journalist in the UK, specializing in long-form documentaries on difficult personalities, difficult places, difficult communities, or all three at once. I recommend anything by him, but on this topic you can also check out his pieces on crime in South Africa, Philadelphia and the California super-prison for child molesters (for some reason available only in German).

Saturday, June 11, 2011

Prison, Harper and the Carceral State

Given the Conservative majority in Parliament, the omnibus crime bill is virtually a done deal. It's ambition is hard to overstate - the reforms, taken together, represent both a vast expansion of the Canadian penal system and a shift in the principles that underpin it - we have both an estimated $1 billion per year increase in spending to pay for 2,700 new prison spots and the imposition of tougher sentencing requirements to fill them. It should be pointed out that these changes are not prompted by any uptick in Canadian criminality - indeed, after peaking in the early nineties, the violent crime rate has been on a 20 year decline.
The inspiration for these reforms comes clearly from south of the border. The American penal system is famous for having the highest incarceration rate in the world (more than twice that of the next Western country on the list, Latvia) and for its harsh sentencing procedures, to say nothing of the brutal conditions that prevail in maximum security prisons, where prison rape is a matter of course. For all its ferocity, the American penal system is simultaneously one of the least effective in the world, if effectiveness is measured in crime rates and recidivism. So why emulate what looks to be a failed model, and which has drawn the condemnation of no lesser a Canadian conservative than Conrad Black (who knows a thing or two about US prisons)?
There are two possible motivations underpinning that decision: either the reforms reflect a Conservative embrace of the ideas behind American penal practice, or they represent a cynical attempt to emulate Republican political gains through law-and-order posturing. I don't know which is worse.
At rortybomb, Mike Konczal has a series of posts outlining the main currents of American conservative thought about crime (here, here and here). You should read the whole thing, but here's the gist:

A lot of conservative energy, thought, money, infrastructure, ideology and worldview is built around the idea of a high prison population, harsh sentencing minimums, and a casual disregard towards the idea of “Rights” in the maintenance of order...
[One major school of conservative thought about crime] is Incapacitation Theory, a theory that says, in the words of James Q. Wilson: “Wicked people exist. Nothing avails except to set them apart from innocent people.”
In short, criminals - "wicked people" - are natural offenders, essentially different from decent people, and can only be kept from committing crime by "incapacitation," effectively incarceration. Note that since their problem is being "wicked," they are fundamentally incapable of reform or rehabilitation, and must always be the objects of state surveillance and coercion. In other quotes pulled from Wilson, a key conservative intellectual, Konczal makes it clear that he explicitly links "wickedness" with low socio-economic status. Incapacitation theory ends up justifying a law-and-order policy explicitly targeting a segment of the poor population for preemptive monitoring, profiling and, should they step out of line, harsh punishment, including complete separation from the broader community. This is a bleak vision, and something of a self-fulfilling prophecy - the harsh treatment meted out to American convicts renders them less and less able to transition to the legitimate economy (they are often explicitly barred by state law from dozens of professions) and more and more likely to return to crime once outside. Enough such individual stories and you create an entrenched criminal underclass, which must (under conservative theory) be met with even harsher repression. The theory is twisted, and so it also twists the world when applied.
The alternative view is that the reforms are motivated by cynical political calculation. Regardless of their failure to decrease crime or improve security for Americans, law-and-order policies have proven very effective at mobilizing support for conservative electoral campaigns ever since the sixties. Further, their popularity and salience is more or less perennial - once primed to fear ubiquitous crime, a large and electorally valuable chunk of the public stays scared regardless of the movement of crime statistics or the conclusions of penal policy experts, instead tuned in to the occasional sensational criminal outburst breaking out in the mass media. Further, once the issue is framed in terms of "criminals vs. law abiding citizens," the opponents of punitive criminal reform are effectively disarmed, risking association with child molesters and murdersome drug gangs through their opposition to tough-on-crime policies. Perhaps the whole law-and-order approach is all about creating this permanent winning conservative issue, and the $1 billion per year of extra spending and 4,000 more inmates nationwide are just a by product.

Friday, June 10, 2011

Adam Curtis, my favorite BBC Bolshevik

Adam Curtis is kind of my hero. He left academia and joined the BBC, where he makes this remarkable documentaries detailing various schemes, plots and fantasies by different segments of the financial, security and political elite. Also, he hates rational choice theory, which gets you a lot of points in my book. He's been working for 25+ years, and most of his stuff is on youtube, but here is the first part of his latest series, All Watched Over By Machines of Loving Grace, which features Californian techno-utopianism prominently:


Disclaimer: To my knowledge, Adam Curtis is not a Bolshevik

Thursday, June 9, 2011

Successful Alcoholics

For those unfamiliar, funnyordie.com is a site hosting short comedy videos, some user-generated, some written by a professional staff, some featuring complete amateur talent, and some starring remarkably famous Hollywood types (Don Cheadle, Will Farell [whose production company also owns the site], James Franco, etc.). You can vote the pieces "funny" or "die," and they gain profile and prominence based on those votes. It's been quite successful commercially (Sequoia, a big venture capital fund, bought a giant stake in it) and produced some seriously amusing pieces -Drunk History, Acting with James Franco, and Between Two Ferns to name a few. The pieces are almost all short (seven minutes tops), goofy and light. Nothing to take too seriously.

And now they've made this:


Funny. Painful. Brilliant.

Nth time's the charm

After trying to launch blogs with big thoughts on politics and world affairs, I found that they weren't that fun to write and they weren't that fun to read. This time will be different - the theme is "cool stuff I like" and it will sometimes be nerdy, sometimes be wonky, sometimes be personal, and sometimes be lame. I'll try to tag appropriately, but consider yourselves warned.