Fabrikant about what really happened at Headingley jail
Fabrikant
Headingley jail in
Manitoba. Media reported that inmates went on rampage, assaulted guards and
other
inmates, set fire to the building, entered the medical unit and got
possession of narcotics there,
tortured and mutilated many inmates from protective custody floor.
On May 7, 1996, Manitoba Minister of Justice R. Vodrey has commissioned
retired judge E.N.
Hughes from Victoria B.C. to investigate the circumstances surrounding this
riot. He made his
report public on November 29, 1996. It is the same Hughes, who took over
the Police Commission
Inquiry in RCMP brutality in Vancouver and successfully buried it. Instead
of using his power and
ordering Chretien to appear and testify, he sent him an invitation, which
Chretien, of course,
declined. Now you know who he is. If you have a scandal at hand, and you
want to bury it, call
Hughes. This is how he got his title of Queen's Counsel.
I got his report, according to Access to Information Act, and I give below
my review of what is in
his report, and most important, what is NOT in the report. I got interested
in his report for one
reason: I have been in Jail for over 8 years and have seen quite a number of
riots, and each time it
was obvious that it were jailers, not inmates, who ordered, orchestrated and
organized these riots.
Whenever guards have problems with management, their weapon is usually a
riot. For example,
they demand increase of their salary, say, 2 millions, and management
refuses, then they create a
riot, which would cost 10 million to repair, so next time management would
think twice before
refusing 2 million; and management would never tell the public the truth
about riots, because it
would make them look bad in the first place.
So, what do we have in the report? In the Introduction, Hughes writes
Many of the Correctional officers on duty the night of the riot were
traumatized, almost
beyond belief. Some of them sincerely believed they would not escape alive.
Given the
viciousness of the assaults, first on staff and then on inmates, it is
miraculous that there was
no loss of life.
I read report very attentively several times, and I found not a single name
of a guard, who would be
seriously harmed. There is mentioning of guard Deobold, who was "badly
beaten", but when I
wrote to Hughes, asking him whether he saw any independent medical evidence
that Deobold was
indeed badly beaten, he simulated bad memory. As far as inmates are
concerned, there is no doubt
that those in protective custody were tortured and mutilated, indeed, beyond
belief.
You may ask, why should public care about those in protective Custody,
majority of them are
rapists, pedophiles, informants. This is so, but one of them could be Guy
Paul Morin, innocent
man convicted of most heinous crime. But even if all of them were guilty as
charged, in a society,
which calls itself civilized, protective custody should mean exactly that:
protective. Torture and
mutilation of one human being by another should not be allowed under any
circumstances in a
government run facility.
Hughes describes the work environment in Headingley Jail as "the staff was a
dysfunctional
conglomerate torn apart by strife, hatred, bitterness and nastiness". Why
was it so? Significant
part of guards were hired many years ago, mainly for their size, had no
education, got accustomed
to treat inmates "as dirt". In 1991, Ministry started introducing the case
management approach in
corrections, which meant that guards were no longer turnkeys, they had to
talk to inmates to find
out what were their problems, etc. The Ministry went even further: guards
were required to take
their meals in the same cafeteria, as inmates. People, who were hired for
their size, got scared:
they knew, how to beat up people, but did not know how to be social workers.
They had a very
nice job, where they needed just to show up, and then get their fat
paycheck. Had they been fired,
they had no marketable skills, so they felt like fighting for their
survival.
Of course, their fears were unfounded, nobody was fired, but some did not
get the promotions, and
the reason was - they did not get this "case management" thing. In
addition, a new warden was
appointed in 1992, one Krocker, who had little experience in jail
management. Here is what
Hughes writes about Krocker (page 27):
Krocker had success on the business side of the Headingley operation. He
tackled issues that
had been left without attention. Abuses had occurred in overtime and sick
leave. He applied his
talents in bringing those issues under control. Placing inventory control on
food was a very
positive step, given the losses that had occurred over the recent past.
Hughes uses language, which a person, not familiar with Jail, would not
understand, and he does it
deliberately, so I shall translate it for you. Translation: guards used to
be paid overtime, without
working a minute extra. This is how it is done here. A guard comes and
works 16 hour instead of
8, he gets paid 8 hours overtime, though during a week he did not work more
than normal 35
hours. Abuse of sick leave: I worked at school with guard Racine and it was
at least 4-5 times
every month, that he called in sick. No proof of being sick required, and
he is paid in full.
Translation of Hughes' expression losses of food: Jailers steal prisoners'
food, and they steal big!
Krocker curtailed all three. I can tell you for sure: if the warden of this
jail curtails overtime, sick
leaves and stealing of food, there will be a riot in Cowansville of the same
size, as in Headingley
Jail.
Here is how Hughes describes the reason, why previous warden left Headingley
Jail (page 42):
He was burnt out. ... he was basically faced with a militant staff ... there
was a lot of
harassment... And he just had enough.
Translation: prison guards are criminals, worse than ordinary criminals,
because they are on the
wrong side of prison bars. "Militant staff" means that the former warden
might have had all sorts
of troubles, of which slashing of his tires would be the least important. I
have noticed that they
sincerely believe that getting overtime, without working a minute more than
norm, calling in sick
whenever they please and stealing food is like their birth-right.
Hughes devotes separate chapter to proliferation of drugs in Headingley
Jail. Gang members
forced other inmates to demand from their family members to bring drugs
during jail visits. He
tells about numerous severe beatings of inmates who refused to deliver
drugs. He also tells about
extortion telephone calls to the family members threatening beatings if they
do not bring drugs to
jail. What Hughes does not say, is how on earth the gang members would know
the telephone
numbers of the family members. There is no doubt that this information came
from the guards,
there is no other source in jail: guards at the Visit Department have access
to the most intimate
information about inmate's families. These beatings were very easy to stop:
instead of contact
visits introduce no-contact visits through a glass wall. The fact that this
was not done is indirect
evidence that guards were involved in this drug trafficking and certainly
shared the profits.
It is well known that visitors very often bring drugs with them, but I did
not observe in any of
Quebec jails the kind of extortion which seem to flourish in Manitoba.
Usually, the visitors give
drugs to an inmate, and he can sell it to whoever he wants, but some
"muscular" guy might
demand that he gets from him "permission" to sell, which means that he
should give certain
percentage of the sale to the "muscular" guy.
And now about the night of riot. There is plenty of evidence, which Hughes
involuntary provides
for an observant reader. We read on page 45
Program personnel who worked with Headingley staff members felt that the
matter reached
crisis proportions. They said that within a two or three-day period in
April, several employees
stated, in confidence, that they had reached the point where they were going
to take some very
drastic steps to deal with matters themselves.
Pay attention, they did not say that the inmates were about to explode,
EMPLOYEES were to take
drastic steps. Translation: they will organize a riot, and they did.
On pages 32-33 we read the testimony of an unnamed nurse:
The morning just before the riot, the 25th, a.m. there, I was the first one
in for the 7:30 shift,
and I came down with a pile of stuff in my arms, keys, and I noticed an
inmate down the end
of the hall talking through to the psych area, yelling at the psych patients
through the door,
and I said to him, I said, "What are you doing up here by yourself, like
where did you come
from?" He said, "I came from the basement, I'm one of the predators, I came
to see you, I
want some Epsom salts". I said, "Well, who are you?" He says, "I'm [inmate
gives his name]."
He was one of the individuals out of the Block 1 area that started the riot.
So he had come up
from the basement on his own, no one knew he was there, came to see me, and
was quite
willing to hold my coffee and my stuff, so I could open up and let him in.
The nurse presented this testimony as evidence of lack of security in jail,
but let us analyze it a little bit deeper. Something does not fit
here. A nurse arrives to open up medical unit. She sees an inmate, who
presents himself as a
maximum security guy, there is no guard around, and she OPENS UP MEDICAL
UNIT and
LETS HIM IN !!!! She is alone with a maximum security inmate! No nurse
would do that, and
if she really did it (which is a grave breach of security), I can explain it
very simply. Guards
were planning a riot that night. Inmates are ready to go along, but they
want payment in
advance, and payment is usually in drugs. A lot of drugs are stored in
Medical Unit, and they
need keys in advance. This is why the inmate was waiting for the nurse: she
was to give him all
the keys, while nobody was there yet, and that he could check that the keys
do work. She
probably also explained to him where exactly the drugs were located.
A good question here is: why would the nurses cooperate in creation of a
riot? Hughes blurts it out
in a different context (page 117):
The venom pouring out of the majority of staff members working there
(medical unit), mostly
professional nurses, during discussions with me, left me with the impression
that, in addition
to the general attitude permeating the whole jail, some further agenda was
at work, which I
was unable to identify.
I do not believe that he was really "unable to identify", but one thing is
clear: the nurses were as
angry, as guards, and this is why they joined forces. But the drugs from
medical unit would become
accessible after the riot started. Inmates wanted also drugs before they
start the riot, and they got
it. We read on page 50:
On the night of riot, a large quantity of pills had come into Block 1,
but the dog could not detect this drug in that particular form.
Hughes takes his readers for dumbheads. Dog can detect narcotics in any
form. Would you believe
in such a coincidence that numerous visitors on the day of riot all colluded
to bring drugs in one
special form, not detectable by a dog? If such a form existed, who would
need the dogs? The truth
is: guards deliberately allowed huge quantity of drugs as an advance payment
for the riot.
Next, Hughes describes an incident at the canteen at 7 p.m. Inmates from
Block 1 were in line,
each holding $5 token, each asking the same thing: a bag of peanuts and a
drink, which total
$0.90, and each wanted their change - four one-dollar tokens and a dime.
Canteen officer felt that
something was going on and that soon she will be out of one-dollar tokens.
She called her
superior Haasbek and asked her what to do. Haasbek decided that inmates were
collecting one-
dollar tokens to pay to get someone assaulted, and she ordered to serve only
those, who had exact
change, which made inmates very angry.
Let us analyze this incident. Would you believe that "predators" from Block
one would pay
anyone to get someone assaulted? They can beat up anyone themselves, and
also collect money
for the beating. Another thing: how much would it cost to have someone
assaulted? I do not
believe anyone would do it for one buck. The whole story of Haasbek does not
make sense. So,
what was the purpose of this spectacle? Inmates needed to create a
situation where they would be
abused, denied the right to make a legitimate purchase, so that a riot after
that would look more
natural. Canteen officer mentioned that majority of these people had no
money on their accounts,
but all had $5 tokens. If you ask, who gave them those tokens, the answer
is clear: the guards,
who organized the riot.
At about 9 p.m., Hunt decided to do search of Block 1, because he saw them
intoxicated. There
is no description of how the riot started. There is a detailed description
of guard Bartley being
late for search, because of coffee break, and when he arrived, the riot was
already on. Then we
see detailed description of why guard Hillstrom was late, that she had to
use a bathroom, and
when she arrived, the riot was on. I wrote a letter to Hughes, asking him,
how the riot started
exactly, and he again simulated amnesia.
One thing is clear: they tried to do search in a manner, no guard ever does.
Usual search is done
this way: between 2 and 4 guards are searching one inmate. Head of the
search team Hunt
decided to get all 17 inmates together, and 8 guards would search them. Does
this make sense,
especially when guards noticed that inmates were intoxicated?
Obviously, this was a spectacle, they pretended to have fight with inmates,
during which inmates
got the keys from every floor, after which guards retreated, and Hughes
calls them heroes.
Obviously, guards did not have the keys from the medical unit, and this is
why the "predator" in the
morning went to get his set of keys. When Hunt was asked, why did he do the
search in such a
reckless manner, he responded that he was under pressure from his superiors,
who accused him of
not doing his job and having too many sick leaves. Even Hughes does not buy
this explanation.
Hughes does as much white-washing, as one could imagine. Here are some
quotations. On page
63:
On this occasion (riot), the divisions and the bitterness that divided so
many at the jail were
put aside and, for the next 24 hours, teamwork took over.
Excuse me, what "teamwork" is he talking about? For the next 24 hours,
nobody did anything to
save tortured and mutilated people, they just stood around waiting for
rioters to surrender. What
kind of teamwork is needed for that?
Here are some quotations from pages 64-65:
In my view, the R.C.M.P. acted expeditiously and professionally ...
I am sure that I speak for many in expressing appreciation of the R.C.M.P.,
and I include
their proficient Emergency Response Team and Tactical Operations Team.
Likewise, I
commend the efficiency and contribution of the Emergency Response Team of
the
Corrections Division of Manitoba Justice and also all those Headingley
employees who
responded willingly and quickly.
I am sure, he speaks for many guards, I doubt that tortured and mutilated
prisoners would share his
opinion. We have two Emergency Response Teams, which were waiting for 21
hours before doing
anything, and such a behavior is called efficient, proficient and
expeditious! I wonder, how long
would it take for a Slow Response Team to start acting. Indeed, the level of
Canadian hypocrisy is
unsurpassed in the whole world.
There is one more detail, which is not in Hughes report. I read about it in
one nurse's notes, which
were published in corrections journal. She writes there about selfless and
dedicated work of nurses
who, according to her, provided medical help to the tortured and mutilated
prisoners. She mentions
there, that the liberated prisoners were obliged to get out of jail and
approach the medical team on
their own, nurses were not allowed, "for security reasons", to help them.
Quite a number of these
prisoners had their legs broken. Now, imagine the picture: a prisoner with
broken legs is trying to
get to the medical team, and nobody is allowed to help him. Nazis would
turn in their graves with
envy.
Fabrikant
Mike
Will the real Fabrikant please stand up!
How many are there of you...2,3,4....etc?
