Teenager jailed for his 'imagination.'

January 8, 2001 2:15 PM

Teenager jailed for his 'imagination.' A 15 year-old boy is beaten repeatedly by school bullies. His parents complain about it, but no one does anything. He writes a short story describing a bullied boy blowing up his school. Rumours swirl. Police raid his house but find no weapons or bomb-making stuff. Regardless, the boy is charged with "uttering a death threat." Today he was found guilty and sentenced to thirty days in jail.
posted by tranquileye (36 comments total)

Did I read that last paragraph correctly? His brother is being held *without bail* for uttering so-called "death threats"?

Remind me to avoid opening my mouth when in Canada.
posted by salsamander at 2:22 PM on January 8, 2001

Yikes...
i know short little posts aren't very helpful...but i'm sort of speechless.
[as recommended by legal counsel]
posted by th3ph17 at 2:28 PM on January 8, 2001

Police stopping a serious crime from being committed OR playing big brother in one hell of a breach of a person's rights?
posted by Zool at 2:28 PM on January 8, 2001

Charming. Writing about violence? Verboten!

Actual violence? Go ahead! He was getting bullied, for God's sake. It wasn't the smartest thing for the poor kid to vent his anger publicly in this post-Columbine age, but Kee-rist . . . "uttering death threats?" So if I tell someone "Fuck you," is that a "rape threat"?
posted by Skot at 2:31 PM on January 8, 2001

This somehow reminds me of that other story last year about Tony Blair's wife and how England doesn't need a blabbermouth, or something of that sort.

Same stuff is being done in US, here, maybe not as severe, but, schools generally don't see the big picture, they only respond to something that can look bad for them. Like a shooting. God forbid they ever try to resolve or prevent the problem that causes these kids to do these things. It's like punishing a child after he tries to slash his wrists for attention.

You could see that I didn't at all enjoy school, any of it.
posted by tiaka at 2:32 PM on January 8, 2001

Well Zool, i'm going to save my Lifeline(tm) on this one and guess, B?
posted by th3ph17 at 2:33 PM on January 8, 2001

i think the inquisition of the next millenium will be with-hunts against "threats" such as this.
posted by th3ph17 at 2:39 PM on January 8, 2001

There seems no protection of civil liberties unless a lawsuit is brought. Alas, this may end soon enuggh in America when the GOP gets cracking on its long-held dislike of trial lawyers and its hope to put caps on damages awarded to plaintiffs who win in court.
posted by Postroad at 3:01 PM on January 8, 2001

blame canada
posted by cell divide at 3:12 PM on January 8, 2001

Reminded me of a favorite poem by Diane Di Prima:

"w/out imagination there is no memory
w/out imagination there is no sensation
w/out imagination there is no will, desire...

THE ONLY WAR THAT MATTERS IS THE WAR AGAINST THE IMAGINATION
ALL OTHER WARS ARE SUBSUMED IN IT"
posted by dnash at 3:45 PM on January 8, 2001

You know, if this had happened in the states, the parents would have already filed some sort of massive counter-suit against the police for defamation of character or whatnot, or unreasonable imprisonment.

Of course, it's Canada, so people just take their licks and continue on.
posted by PWA_BadBoy at 3:51 PM on January 8, 2001

Has it really come to this? RIP for the First Amendment, that's for sure. If one looks at history this were it all begins, a case here, a person there. The Terror in the French Revolution, Stalin's Russia, Nazi Germany, etc. they started with very small, and very gradual cases such as this. Hum, a right taken away here, a right taken away there. Before you know it we will all hailing the Bush the Dux and Ashcroft the Grand Dragon. Well Ashcroft is already the Grand Dragon, but that's another post for another time. The point is that the Fist Amendment is absolute, period! And without due process, this country is no better than other dictatorship or absolutist country.
posted by Bag Man at 3:54 PM on January 8, 2001

Uh, Bag_Man... it didn't happen in the US. Last time I checked, the US Constitution only applied to US territory.
posted by Steven Den Beste at 4:05 PM on January 8, 2001

PWA_Badboy, I wouldn't say that people are taking their licks, they're just waiting until a verdict is reached before starting to file the various suits.

You know as well as I do that there's a tendancy here to let things follow the normal course - let the cases go to court - before all the really good mudslinging starts happening.

Personally, I to am shocked by this. But in a way I'm happy about it. Rather than numerous suspensions of trenchcoated kids who say bad things, the first real nationally-publicised case is a big one.

There's been suspensions in Canada, too, by people who should know better in the unfortunate "post-Columbine" era than rocking the boat, but not nearly as many issues as I've heard about with zero-tolerance rules in the States.

By this one going to court so quickly, comparatively speaking, and being so astoundingly mishandled by the people in charge, it'll be struck down as terribly unconstitutional and a certain freedom of expression will be brought back.

Well, hopefully. We're just as much prey to cries of "Think of the Children" as America, but if the kid's lawyer raises enough noise - and I don't doubt someone will hop aboard the chance to raise noise about this and gain some national noteriety - there's an awfully good chance that in the future kids will again be able to write fiction that's to some degree based on themselves without fear of being sent to jail.

I'll say it again, it's most certainly not right and shouldn't have happened in the first place, but it's been building up all over North America. Hopefully this will stop it.
posted by cCranium at 4:25 PM on January 8, 2001

Bag Man has a point, you would expect the same kind of freedom in Canada as in the US, after all Canada isn't, to my knowledge, known for human rights violations. I guess it is now.
posted by Zool at 4:26 PM on January 8, 2001

Canada doesn't have the same type of free speech amendment we do though. I guess they're just selective on what they don't allow.
posted by swank6 at 4:40 PM on January 8, 2001

I go to school in Canada in the "post-Columbine" era and it is tough. At my school we are not allowed to say anything about bombs or the teachers have been instructed to send us off for a suspension or worse. What is the world coming to. I have huge problems with out school system, but what has happened after Columbine has been unbelievably bad. I hope this case will clear some things up and make the administrations of schools across north America re-think there "post-Columbine" policy.
posted by bytecode at 5:09 PM on January 8, 2001

"Hoo boy, I just bombed that test.."
"Sorry, but I'm going to have to ask you to go to the principal's office"

posted by zempf at 6:43 PM on January 8, 2001

umm...why does "Columbine" get to define an era?

It sounds like people believe that it's okay to alter the world if someone's misbehavior gets enough press to make people sensitive to the issue. Never mind trying to assess what's logically right and/or appropriate.
posted by rushmc at 7:08 PM on January 8, 2001

I think that Steven Den Beste missed my point. The fact that it is happening in Canada (i.e. the taking of freedoms) can, and will happen anywhere. Although the US Constitution is only legally applicable in the US, it still contains universal truths that a lot of people outside US think are valid. Be very weary, this how we all slide into dictatorship.
posted by Bag Man at 7:08 PM on January 8, 2001

I'm not nearly as afraid of dictatorship as I am of 'the voting majority believes whatever you tell them'-ship.
posted by sonofsamiam at 9:34 PM on January 8, 2001

Good point rushmc.

It's scary to think that more than one nation can be so affected by a remote event sensationalized by the media.

Kill your TV?
posted by Neb at 9:43 PM on January 8, 2001

"Same stuff is being done in US, here, maybe not as severe, but, schools generally don't see the big picture, they only respond to something that can look bad for them. Like a shooting."

Good Point. I would like to add that some schools, like many other social structures, also don't really care about the person being bullied, but about their own image.

It's not unusual for the person who is being bullied to wear the blame for the problem or end up being punished twice for no reason. It seems that many institutions are first and foremost worried about their image, and they will protect that image in the most expedient way.

posted by lucien at 10:22 PM on January 8, 2001

Sonofsamiam, you make a great point. Like the Federalists of old (take look at Federalist #10) who assert that the will of the majority or the minority in a democratic regime can become tyrannical, we should all be concerned and aware of such issues. They are an ever present danger to our democratic governments that are based on majority consent.
However, I'm not sure how your comment applies to what I said. A universal "good," such as freedom of speech, is just that, universal. It is not as if 75% or 50%+1 more vote has been used to established such freedoms. We have come to embrace these trues not via a vote, but by our hearts and rational minds. The freedom of speech is the basis of any democratic regime and to remove it would be like taking away the foundation of house. History clearly shows us that oppression starts with the crackdown on this particular freedom.
Besides, I'm not sure about Canada, but in the US the tyrannical tendencies of the majority and the minority are mitigated by such things as the Electoral College, Division of Power, and the inclusion of a wide verity of dissenting opinions.

posted by Bag Man at 1:16 AM on January 9, 2001

Hasn't Canada always been much heavier-handed with censorship than the U.S.? IIRC, they have much broader definitions of pornography and obscenity than the U.S.
posted by harmful at 6:25 AM on January 9, 2001

You can be sent to jail for joking about a bomb when checking through airport security in the US or Canada -- and how many people have actually been killed by bombs planted on planes departing US or Canadian airports? (Answer: zero confirmed, with a few accidents being subject to debates of varying degrees of credibility.)

But, by contrast, how many kids have been killed by fellow students who believed themselves, with or without substantiation, to be oppressed or neglected? Dozens, and all over the place. Parents have a very legitimate reason to fear from these kids ... and using law enforcement to restrain them is far better than allowing the law of the jungle -- the other kids, the neighbors -- to act in prophylactic self-defense, which could be pretty ugly.

Under current social circumstances, writing clear first-person-fantasies of murderous revenge against student oppressors falls within Holmes's classic exception to the freedom of speech: shouting "fire" in a crowded theater.

The kid's story is pretty sad -- but it's his parents who are the real villains. "Gentle, creative kids" aren't a good fit in a tough public school, and they never have been: it's a fixed and immutable principal of behavior. No amount of complaining to the principal can ever change that ... yet they let him be harassed for years and years. Sending a kid who isn't physically strong or socially adept enough to protect himself in even the most minimal of ways is just plain child abuse.

(I have always thought that the worst thing that parents who fancy themselves enlightened can do for their boys that they think are "gifted" is not to push them into sports at a young age -- sports is where people learn to be physically assertive, to form bonds, to compete, and, especially, where smart kids learn the very important lesson that the world is not just handed to you on the basis of intellect.)
posted by MattD at 6:56 AM on January 9, 2001

Besides, I'm not sure about Canada, but in the US the tyrannical tendencies of the majority and the minority are mitigated by such things as the Electoral College...

All hail the checks and balances against the tyrannical citizens! We are saved!
posted by rushmc at 7:16 AM on January 9, 2001

You can be sent to jail for joking about a bomb when checking through airport security in the US or Canada -- and how many people have actually been killed by bombs planted on planes departing US or Canadian airports?

One gigantic difference: you are not legally required to go through airports. You are not legally required to sit in an airport for upwards of six hours a day, five days a week.

But, by contrast, how many kids have been killed by fellow students who believed themselves, with or without substantiation, to be oppressed or neglected? Dozens, and all over the place. Parents have a very legitimate reason to fear from these kids ...

Aaargh. Pathetic. So we should persecute everyone who resembles the kids who have committed murder? Are you sure you're not my old English teacher? As I recall, she had a very similar ideology, except the basis was the riots in Detroit in 1968 and she hates African Americans. But by your standard, her racism would be perfectly acceptable.

sports is where people learn to be physically assertive, to form bonds, to compete, and, especially, where smart kids learn the very important lesson that the world is not just handed to you on the basis of intellect

No, the world's handed to you if you can throw a football and run into guys, and you learn such valuable skills as hating people from rival teams (and their schools) for no apparent reason, that girls exist to cheer you on and show off their legs and breasts, and that violence solves everything.
posted by dagnyscott at 7:50 AM on January 9, 2001

MattD, some boys just aren't athletes, and pushing such boys into sports is probably more abusive than not. Because if they aren't good at it, they'll just get even more beat up by the bigger boys. (I speak from experience. Yes, I sometimes wish I'd been more athletic at a younger age, but back then, nothing anyone could have done would have convinced me otherwise. I was the skinny wimp who was easily picked on by the other boys, and the last place I wanted to be was anywhere they were.)

Why isn't it the other way around? Why isn't it a bad thing for parents of athletic children not to push them into academics, where they will learn that the world isn't handed to you based on athletic prowess?
posted by dnash at 7:53 AM on January 9, 2001

I'll say as a geeky "sensitive" kid in my day that as an adult I wish I had been given a better introduction to athletics. (My athletics-hating parents didn't help.) Putting aside team sports, there's a great deal to be learned in terms of goal-setting and patience and self-satisfaction, things I still struggle with.

But I don't think that pushing kids into team sports is right, and pushing kids into one "all-American" mode of thinking is just wrong. MattD's suggestion has some merit, but suggesting that it's ideal for everyone is ludicrous.
posted by dhartung at 8:00 AM on January 9, 2001

There are lots of group-oriented activities that can help socialize us sensitive kids. I was lucky, my parents encouraged my interests in music and I was playing in various bands (concert bands, drum & bugles corps - which are nifty in this scenario because they do have a physical aspect) from the age of 8.

I went to computer camps as a child in the mid-80s, how's that for nerdy? And no, they didn't give each of us a terminal and have us spend 8 hours in front of them, there was a lot of group activity there, too. If you're able to help your kid out by sending them to extra-curricular activities, then being attuned to your child's likes and dislikes can make the experience beneficial for both you and your kids.

I think MattD's right in principle, I'm just trying to expand the possibilities for interested folks.
posted by cCranium at 8:27 AM on January 9, 2001

The school's mission statement starts with the following three aims:1. to foster the pursuit of knowledge in a friendly and caring atmosphere. 2. to nurture a sense of confidence and positive individual self-worth.3. to nurture a sense of caring for others as well as the environment in which we live.What do they say? Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach...
posted by Cobbler at 8:39 AM on January 9, 2001

. . . and those who can't teach, teach gym.

--Woody Allen
posted by Skot at 9:36 AM on January 9, 2001

sorry !
posted by MattD at 11:41 AM on January 9, 2001