https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-mosque-shooting-victim-compensation-widow-children-ivac-1.4995014
Interesting.
After I read the article, I carried on and read the commentary section. As usual the people commenting were arguing about pretty much every aspect of the article. I guess the primary topic of discussion was eligibility for victim status and how we as Canadians fund the claims of the eligible.
One comment writer was adamant that all compensation is funded from surcharges applied to people convicted of a criminal offence. This is only partly true. The actual language says that victim compensation is funded through either consolidated revenue of the province, surcharge revenue, general tax revenue, or a combination of these three.
So, if you’re a mosque multiple murderer, then in theory your assets should be used to compensate the victims of your actions. But It’s kind of hard to pay when you’re sitting in the penitentiary and judges know that. So, most of the time the surcharge is waived because it’s ridiculous to think that it can be collected. If you just got sentenced to life in prison I think it’s a safe bet that you don’t give much of a fuck about the additional fine the courts imposed. In fact and in theory, the more heinous the crime, the more hefty the fine should be, but if a person is looking at life in prison they can’t earn any cash to pay that fine even if they were inclined. Even if a rare occurrence happens where the convicted is a millionaire then you would have to decide if taking that persons property is just. Maybe the seizure just creates more victims from his family who had fuck all to do with making him or her strangle hookers or disappear gay men or native women.
So, along comes Andrew Sheer and the hard on crime Conservatives vowing to double the surcharge, and make it’s payment mandatory because you know, they’re fucking criminals right? Now remember we’re dealing with politicians here. Politicians like to find a way to tax the general population. Politicians also like to be seen as hard on crime. So you kill two birds with one stone by advocating for a criminal tax.
No problem right?
Yeah, there’s a problem. First of all, problem number one is not clearly stating that the victim compensation fund is underfunded and we need more money. Say that and stop hiding behind the bullshit that we’re going to put the screws to these vile criminal fucks. Because the murderers and rapists aren’t going to pony up cash they don’t have or assets they don’t own. The bulk of the surcharge is going to come from your average Canadian who receives a fine for speeding or littering or having an opened beer in their car or boat. Almost none of these people will ever have raped or murdered anyone and their actions likely didn’t create any victims. But they are the people that are going to pay for the victim compensation.
Also, if the punsihment for a crime isn’t adequate in our estimation then why the fuck are we applying a tax to a conviction instead of just changing the provincial or federal criminal codes?
It’s kind of a sneaky tax grab I think.
But we have to be inventive because the victim count just keeps increasing. Which leads me to my next thought.
Is there a cut off line for victims?
This is important because if we’re going to supply the dollars then we need to understand what kind of victim volume to expect now and in the foreseeable future. We can’t predict what mayhem the criminals are going to leave in their wake, so it’s tough to estimate how many actual victims of criminal acts will surface in the Dominion each year. But we do have available statistics and trends that put us at least in the ballpark on guessing how many murders and other assorted felonies Canadians will commit.
So, we need to decide on what constitutes a for real victim. Then we can do some rough math around funding. Say for example that 500 murders occur in Canada each year. That number can be tracked and trended. The next question is how many victims does one murder generate? The dead person obviously, but the question gets subjective after that. In the case of the wife of the Quebec mosque, the panel or whoever the fuck decides, decided she was legit. Each Province has different rules for eligibility of compensable victims and it would seem to me we could use some thought and alignment to those rules.
If we leave it up to a case by case situation then the lawyers win. They can happily argue and litigate on behalf of a litany of victims requiring compensation. If you’re a witness or were in the general area where a crime was committed can you be eligible for compensation for your trauma? If you were in a bus crash in Ottawa and weren’t injured but are having nightmares about the crash, are you eligible for financial assistance for a psychologist and for your pain and suffering? Are all family members and close friends of a victim eligible for therapy costs and pain and suffering reimbursement? Should all of the Humboldt families, the first responders and the hospital staff be eligible for compensation? Were the families of the Ecole Polytechnique killings compensated and if not, can people retroactively apply?
Lots of questions. I don’t think we’ve given enough consideration to the answers.
We’re trying, but the definition of victim seems to be expanding all the time. I think that people being people, that nine out of ten will agree they’ve been victimized if there’s available compensation. Why not, it’s free right?
Well no, it’s not free. Someone has to pay and consolidated revenue means that the citizens of the country pay one way or another. So, we’re going to continue to grapple with the definition of a victim. Like it or not I really believe this definition is going to be decided in court and constantly challenged and amended.
I think in some respect we’ve already set the framework for the business of victim representation and it looks like the victim market is going to continue to boom.