|
I
apologize for my skepticism, but I can no
longer get enthusiastic about governments'
declaration of war on organized crime.
For years, top justice officials of the
Group of Seven democracies have been saying
that all too easily. Recently, they said it
again in Russia, where they had met to
discuss efforts to combat transnational
crime.
What they didn't say is how they think they
might be able to combat the spreading
tentacles of organized crime in
international finance, the Internet and
global terror networks.
There's no joint strategy to tackle these
problems and often, in many of the most
industrialized countries, a lack of
political will to do so. Above all, there's
no other explanation for our country's
hypocrisy on this issue.
Ever since ``vice,'' as organized crime was
called in the 1920s, began to spread into
Canada more than eight decades ago, Ottawa
has made loud noises about this issue. But
it has never adopted efficient laws to fight
against it.
Police forces repeatedly underscored the
need to establish and implement an effective
anti-organized crime strategy. However,
Ottawa has made only promises, and cuts to
the budgets of many specialized law
enforcement units that focused on organized
crime.
Justice Minister Anne McLellan, the same
minister who in Moscow reiterated the
government's determination to combat the
mobsters, has no clear ideas about the
complexity of transnational crime, if she
does, she should explain how it could be
possible to strike at crime syndicates when
there are no laws in Canada that target
organized criminal membership, nor any
instrument sufficient to combat financial
crime.
The United States, thanks to the RICO Act,
managed to send bosses like John Gotti and
Vincent Gigante to jail. In Italy, after
politicians ceased to ``tolerate'' the
Mafia, tens of wanted people were arrested,
such as Riina, Brusca, Santapaola. In Japan,
after the introduction of a law against
money laundering, it became possible to put
the Yakuza in a corner, forcing it to give
up its ``semi-official'' status. In Canada,
on the contrary, new statements are issued,
and promises made. Meanwhile, the presence
of organized crime is more and more
pervasive.
According to the Canadian Security
Intelligence Service, at least 18 different
criminal organizations are active in our
country. Until now, the only reaction from
our government was the introduction of the
so-called anti-biker law, a messy piece of
legislation that makes no distinction
between international criminal organizations
and squeegee kid gangs. Bill C-95 was
passed two years ago. It was an instrument
that lawmakers hoped would give police
officers ``more tools to fight the growing
threat of biker gangs and other types of
organized crime.'' Two years
after its approval, the Act has yet to be
tested in court. In Winnipeg, they're trying
to use it against an aboriginal gang, but
nobody seems to show great optimism that it
will succeed. The reasons are simple: the
anti-gang legislation does not differentiate
between sophisticated and emerging crime
groups, since it can be applied to ``any
group, association or other body consisting
of five or more persons, whether formally or
informally organized.'' This is not the
definition of the Mafia, the Triads, or the
Colombian cartels.
As is well known, one of the main criteria
of Mafia-like criminal organizations is
organization itself, t. he separation of
tasks, the existence of rules. In a word,
they are formally organized. By comparison,
many other groups of criminals are similar
to packs of wolves. Experts on the Mafia and
other main criminal syndicates know
perfectly well that the definition of
criminal organizations introduced by Bill
C-95 has no connection with reality.
Then there is another unconvincing aspect:
why ``five or more persons?'' What if
they're three. Can't they be a criminal
organization? These remarks can appear
irrelevant to somebody, but they demonstrate
a woefully limited knowledge of organized
crime and its characteristics. Let's
consider the biker gangs, which were the
original target of this law.
They operate on an individual basis.
Belonging to a biker gang guarantees each
member the possibility of running an illicit
activity. Club colours are a sort of
passport to enter the underworld .and deal
personally with other bosses.
People had been discussing for decades the
need to prepare legislation against criminal
organizations. The Act passed in 1997 gives
no guarantee and does not help in
understanding and fighting this phenomenon.
Now even the Americans have taken notice,
and they threaten to place Canada on their
``major list'' of those countries that don't
do enough to seriously hamper drug
production and trafficking. The list usually
has such countries as Colombia, Nicaragua
and Panama on it.
South of the border, Canada is seen as a
sort of strainer, leaking from a thousand
holes. In Canada there is no mandatory
jail-term. Increasingly, big drug dealers
leave jail after only a few years. Yet
nobody seems to worry.
In Ottawa, the Chretien cabinet keeps
playing with words and promising initiatives
that never materialize.
But Canada's hypocrisy pales in comparison
with Russia's. How can anybody believe the
declarations of a president who's at the
core of a International Monetary Fund
scandal that saw fund money ending up in the
hands of Russian Mafia? It's a scandal that
risks involving some of his relatives. Maybe
someone will one day explain that. And then
we shall understand why it's easier to talk
than to act. |
