More from Michael Harris available More fromavailable here

In the kick-ass rodeo of Canadian politics, Stephen Harper has created a new event: Trojan horseback riding.

C-51 is supposed to confer safety and security on Canadians. Hidden inside are the seeds of a police state.

Before that, Bills C-38 and C-45 were supposed to “streamline” governance. In the belly of these undemocratic monstrosities was legislation designed to gut environmental law, axe the federal spy watchdog and empower the cabinet to approve pipelines over the heads of regulatory boards.

The latest proof that the man from Alberta (by way of Etobicoke) is the best rider in the land is Harper’s latest plan to address a subject near and dear to his … spleen — the sentencing of criminals.

Steve wants certain criminals to stay in prison forever. Under his latest proposal, some convicted criminals, by virtue of the “heinous” nature of their crimes, would never be eligible for parole. Guess who’s left with the responsibility of issuing an exceptional release. The courts? Special psychiatric or medical advisors? Law enforcement experts? Parole gurus?

Related articles Public safety vs. the politics of payback

The federal cabinet, that’s who. Steve and the same bunch of people who now decide whether pipelines get built — and just about everything else.

On the face of it, this is Harper at his worst — out to lunch, dinner and late night snack on his facts. His “life means life” mantra is fear amplification with a political twist. Why would anyone choose a time when the crime rate is dropping to lock people up and throw away the key? Why would anyone mimic such draconian nonsense when the biggest jailer on earth, the United States, is abandoning the Devil’s Island approach to penal theory?

And what on earth does the system need with Harper’s medieval sentencing plan when it already has the power to detain dangerous offenders beyond the expiry of their warrants in the rare cases where that is required?

And what about people convicted of “heinous” crimes by the state who later turn out to be innocent? I wrote extensively about one of them — the late Donald Marshall Jr., who spent eleven years in maximum security for a murder he didn’t commit. According to Steve’s theory, maximum security is exactly where Marshall belonged.

Nor was Donald Marshall the only one. What about David Milgaard, Guy Paul Morin and Steven Truscott? One of the reasons justice must always be tempered with mercy is that the courts are not infallible. Just look into the eyes of anyone who has been wrongfully convicted and no further argument will be needed.

Warden Steve also seems to have forgotten another thing — if these changes are made, Canada’s prisons will instantly become far more dangerous places. As any correctional officer who works in one of Canada’s 52 federal institutions will tell you, it is tough, dangerous work at the best of times. Death can make an appearance over something as trivial as a purloined cigarette, or not enough mashed potatoes on the food tray.

Letting convicts rot in prison is just a return to Stephen Harper’s earlier attempts at lengthening prison sentences to stroke the base. The irony is that he probably knows that what he is proposing is unconstitutional and will be thrown out by the Supreme Court.

So just imagine what it will be like for guards to deal with lifers who know they are never getting out. Think about it. By taking away all hope of parole — no matter how small or distant — you have turned that inmate into a time bomb. He is no longer human — just one of the living dead. He has no reason to play by the rules, no reason to rehabilitate, and absolutely nothing to lose. Double-bunking people is bad enough in the volatile world of prison; burying inmates alive behind bars strikes the match and lights the fuse.

Incidentally, the Harper government just made the streets a little more dangerous by cancelling funding for a program aimed at keeping high-risk sex offenders from committing new crimes. I know, Steve isn’t big on sociology. But the decision to allow funding to lapse for the Circles of Support and Accountability program (COSA) is most peculiar.

Public Safety Canada has the results of a five-year study which shows that recidivism rates were 70 to 83 per cent lower for sex offenders who participated in COSA. The study also showed that every dollar invested by the federal government in COSA saved $4.60 in things like court and medical expenses. So it works and it saves money. Obviously it had to go.

There is always a sub-plot with everything done by the sneakiest prime minister Canada has ever had. And it’s always basically the same: Steve doesn’t care about doing the right thing, he cares about doing the right thing for the base. The Conservative base likes the idea of locking up perverts forever, just as it liked the idea of shutting down free injection sites for degenerate heroin junkies.

Think back to the entire thrust of the Harper government’s law and order agenda — Bill C-10. It was all about building mega-prisons, lengthening jail time and creating mandatory minimum sentences for a variety of offences, including growing marijuana.

In Texas, Harper’s plan had them barfing on their cowboy boots. Why? Because Texas had been there and done that and it didn’t work. The Lone Star state spent billions on jails and there were never any vacancies. At one point in 2004, Texas had the highest incarceration rate in the world. One out of twenty of the state’s adult population were either behind bars, paroled or on probation.

In the end, the crime rate didn’t go down and the costs were ruinous. Texas shifted to the rehabilitation model — ahem, things like COSA — and advised Steve to give his head a shake before passing his calamitous omnibus justice bill. He didn’t.

As eminent criminal lawyer Clayton Ruby told me for my book Party of One, “Harper totally ignored the legal profession on Bill C-10 because we have knowledge. We know how destructive and expensive it would be. We care about justice.”

Steve cares about politics. So letting convicts rot in prison is just a return to Stephen Harper’s earlier attempts at lengthening prison sentences to stroke the base. The irony is that he probably knows that what he is proposing is unconstitutional and will be thrown out by the Supreme Court.

After all, that’s what happened with key elements of his Truth in Sentencing legislation. The Supreme Court ruled 7-0 in its judgement against one of the provisions of the legislation that limited judges’ discretion to give credit to an inmate for time served before sentencing. The court’s reasoning was sound — it knew that more people are in remand, awaiting trial, than are in prison. Judges need the discretionary power to give credit for time served in order to deal with a fundamental injustice.

Harper’s latest slab of red meat for the base does not yet have a name. But it would probably answer to Trojan Horse. What’s hidden inside this time? Another frontal assault on the Supreme Court and the Constitution.

If it wasn’t for the Supreme Court and that damned Charter of Rights, criminals would never get out of jail, there would still be a ban on doctor-assisted suicide, Marc Nadon would be a Supreme, anti-prostitution laws would still be in place, and junkies would be behind bars, not getting free injections on the taxpayers’ dime.

Honest to Jesus, Joseph, and Mary, if they would only leave Steve alone, he would take care of us all.

Michael Harris is a writer, journalist, and documentary filmmaker. He was awarded a Doctor of Laws for his “unceasing pursuit of justice for the less fortunate among us.” His nine books include Justice Denied, Unholy Orders, Rare ambition, Lament for an Ocean, and Con Game. His work has sparked four commissions of inquiry, and three of his books have been made into movies. His new book on the Harper majority government, Party of One, is a number one best-seller.

Readers can reach the author at [email protected]. Click here to view other columns by Michael Harris.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by all iPolitics columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of iPolitics.