…..COUNTERS CSC’S MANDATE “to contribute to public safety by actively encouraging and assisting offenders to become law-abiding citizens…..”

“The third form of language discrimination is prison system wide.  Misinformation and disinformation often contaminate inmate files.  The former may be unintentional due to miscommunication, but the latter is always deliberate and calculated, meant to discredit an inmate to meet a Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) generated narrative.”

That is from the December 17, 2023, “Let’s talk prison language discrimination,” which targeted Quebec federal prison practices.  Last August, a Quebec Superior Court judge authorized a class-action lawsuit on behalf of federal prisoners in Quebec over the excessive use of segregation units in the province’s federal institutions.  Yes, segregation.  CSC management were fully aware of this conduct and did nothing.

Likewise, the remedy for the language discrimination spotlit on December 17 must come through the courts.  CSC Commissioner Anne Kelly has shown no interest in enforcing anti-discrimination policies, and while financial penalties at taxpayers’ expense will not eliminate the insidious nature of this discrimination, a court finding of liability is one more censure of Canada’s prison industry.

Also from December 17, “Rectifying errors and fabrications first involve using the tools available through CSC, the grievance/complaints process, along with application for file changes.  It will easily take a year or more to exhaust these avenues, and almost universally will not succeed.  The next move is to seek remedy in federal court, not necessarily an easy route to a win.  And, if the court does decide in an inmate’s favour, there is still the matter of CSC’s compliance.  Redress if changes are not met or don’t fully satisfy the court’s decision means going after the government again.”

Allen Tehrankari’s application before the federal court for relief from Correctional Service of Canada’s refusal to correct his file information was decided in his favour by Ottawa Justice Francois Lemieux in a disposition dated April 13, 2000 (Docket T-1662-98).  That this is often cited as a standard makes the case that actions like these seldom get far.

People of a certain age will remember the days when computer technology in the business community was in its infancy, and it was expected and assumed that stored information was accurate.  That was one of the trumpeted advantages to data processors.  Data input did not easily accommodate human blunders though.  There was and always has been errors in computer files, but it was not uncommon in those early days to be told that “it’s in the computer so it must be right” if someone disadvantaged by faulty specifics tried to correct their bank records, health file information, legal obligations, or whatever inconveniences negatively impacted their lives.  Worse, corrections seemed to be anywhere from laborious to impossible even when a mistake was acknowledged.

Correctional Service of Canada’s Offender Management System is CSC’s “mission critical system, used to manage information about offenders under its care and ensure their safe reintegration into society.”  The status this process is given commands that what is in its files is accurate, reliable, and thorough.  Errors are destabilizing.  Mistakes question the point of the system.  What could happen if something is wrong?  Worse, what happens if a fault is admitted?

Everything in the OMS files is put there by people.  People make mistakes.  People are flawed.  Sometimes a person’s flaws allow them to feed the files with wicked fantasies.  After all, “it’s in the computer so it must be right.”  No fear of reprimand.  Is there a mushy middle between fact and biased opinion?  How far can the envelop be pushed and still support credibility.  What is the test?  What is the standard?

Activist inmates are seen as troublemakers and steps to neutralize their challenges to the system are a typical response.  It’s preferable to ignore the validity of an offender’s cause and instead bury protest, a relatively simple process for someone in a position of power.  One inmate on our radar had his work turned on its head and used against him when the institution’s warden filed a description of his helping inmates correctly file specific grievances as an “insurrection,” and his counselling in the use of the law and CSC policy in interactions with staff as a “reign of terror.”  Prison personnel had little choice but to go along with the sham, and this false scenario, this disinformation, is now a part of that inmate’s OMS file.

Moved to another institution as a result, this inmate spoke to his new Institutional Parole Officer (IPO), who are guards trained for these posts, expressing his concern and outrage over the blatant dishonesty used to discredit him.   This IPO answered his charge by saying that these accusations were written by ‘professionals’ who do not lie.  Circumstances like these are more the rule than the exception.

Is there such a thing as a ‘clean’ OMS file?

“It’s in the computer so it must be right.”

When is right wrong?