Tag: justice

  • Justice Minister Vic Toews’ Wilful Blindness to the Ongoing “Crisis” in Justice System

    Please tell me that I am not the only one who is shocked by federal Justice Minister Vic Toews’ idiotic comments tonight on APTN News. Did he actually say that there is nothing wrong with our justice system and that our justice system does not discriminate? I can’t even think of a proper descriptor for his comments – ignorant, racist, wilfully blind, pitifully stupid, unprofessional, and irresponsible don’t seem to convey the depth to which his comments are offensive. http://aptn.ca/pages/news/2011/11/28/the-justice-system-doesnt-discriminate-says-justice-minister-toews/ It is as if he has ignored every single justice report, inquiry, and Supreme Court of Canada judgement that has found, based on overwhelming research and evidence, that our justice system does in fact discriminate, especially against Indigenous peoples. However, we all know that as Minister of Justice he knows about all these reports – he has simply chosen to ignore them because it suits the Conservative party’s racist assimilatory policy towards Indigenous peoples. I hardly know where to start. The Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP) published in 1996 is one of the most comprehensive studies on the situation of Indigenous peoples in Canada. http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/webarchives/20071126051037/http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ch/rcap/sg/cg_e.html In the same year, they released a report entitled: Bridging the Cultural Divide: A Report on Aboriginal People and Criminal Justice in Canada was released which highlighted the numerous problems with the justice system as it relates to Indigenous peoples. Both reports found the fact of over-representation of Indigenous peoples in the criminal justice system to be due in part to ongoing discrimination. Prior to that, in 1989, there was the Royal Commission on the Donald Marshall Prosecution which you will recall was brought about because of the wrongful imprisonment of Donald Marshall Jr simply because he was Mi’kmaq. http://www.gov.ns.ca/just/marshall_inquiry/_docs/Royal%20Commission%20on%20the%20Donald%20Marshall%20Jr%20Prosecution_findings.pdf The inquiry found: “The criminal justice system failed Donald Marshall Jr., at virtually every turn from his arrest and wrongful conviction for murder in 1971 up to, and even beyond, his acquittal by the Court of Appeal in 1983.” They further found that everyone involved, from the police, Marshall’s lawyers, the judges, prosecutors, and appeal judges all failed Marshall because he was “native”. Minister Toews would be shocked to learn that their actions “amounted to a defence of the criminal justice system at the expense of Donald Marshall Jr., in spite of overwhelming evidence that the system itself had failed.” Toews might also be gobsmacked to hear that this inquiry made recommendations to “reduce discrimination in the justice system”. There is also the Report of the Manitoba Justice Inquiry in 1999 which made significant findings in relation to the level of discrimination in the justice system as it relates to Indigenous peoples. http://www.ajic.mb.ca/volume.html They found that there are two primary reasons why Aboriginal peoples are over-represented in the criminal justice system, and both are the result of systemic and ongoing discrimination against Aboriginal peoples. First of all, they found that Aboriginal peoples are more likely to be confronted by the justice system, not because they are culturally pre-disposed to criminal activity, but because of the long history of “discrimination and social inequality that has impoverished Aboriginal people and consigned them to the margins of …society.” However, the Inquiry found that the more serious issue was the ongoing discrimination within the justice system that assumes all people are the same. A system which assumes equality exists “can’t help but discriminate against Aboriginal people”. Just in case there was any doubt about the fact of discrimination in the justice system (which Toews denies), the Inquiry further found that: “Discrimination against Aboriginal people has been a central policy of Canadian governments since Confederation” and “represents a monumental symbol of intolerance”. Aboriginal peoples have been, and continue to be victims of “the openly hostile bigot” and the victims of the systemic discrimination found in our justice system. For Minister Toews to say otherwise is an outright lie according to these legal inquiries, the Supreme Court of Canada and even the Office of the Correctional Investigator. This alone is cause for Minister Toews to submit his resignation because he obviously no longer represents the public interest if he can so openly deny the sickness within the justice system. Most of you will recall the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Gladue. http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1999/1999canlii679/1999canlii679.pdf The TOP COURT in our country found that in addition to Canada being “a world leader in putting people in prison”;  the “serious problem of aboriginal overrepresentation in Canadian prisons is well-documented”, the “excessive imprisonment of aboriginal people is only the tip of the iceberg” because “Aboriginal people are overrepresented in virtually all aspects of the system.” The Supreme Court of Canada goes on to explain (so READ carefully Minister Toews), that “there is widespread BIAS against aboriginal people within Canada” such that “this widespread RACISM has translated into systemic DISCRIMINATION in the criminal justice system.” (emphasis added) They also highlight the fact that the drastic level of discrimination and overrepresentation should be considered “a CRISIS in the Canadian criminal justice system”. But, just in case numerous reports, inquiries and court cases from the top court in the land don’t convince you, what about the research and observations of a federal official like the Office of the Correctional Investigator who has been saying for over 15 years that the discrimination at every level of the justice system against Aboriginal peoples is a full-blown CRISIS. http://www.oci-bec.gc.ca/rpt/index-eng.aspx I invite anyone to read any report from any year and you will note that report after report highlights the discrimination, the suffering of Aboriginal peoples by discriminatory laws and policies and the fact that the problem is getting WORSE not better. These reports call the situation: – “discriminatory” (2001); – a “continuing crisis and embarrassment” (2003); – it is a “grave” situation which prevents Aboriginal people from enjoying equality (2005); – the “inequitable results” stem directly from federal policies (2008); – the situation is getting much worse (2009); and – “inequitable outcomes” are the direct result of federal policies and practices (2010). What does this all mean in terms of numbers? Well, Aboriginal peoples are only 4% of the population, but in places like Manitoba Aboriginal men can make up 79% of the prison population. Aboriginal women fare even worse making up to 83% of all prison admissions. http://www.vcn.bc.ca/august10/politics/facts_stats.html However, the situation is getting much worse for Aboriginal women and are expected to have significant increases. In fact, over a 10 year period, the imprisonment of our Aboriginal women rose by 151%. http://elizabethfry.ca/wwdcms/uploads/Aboriginal%20Women.pdf This of course, ONLY reflects what is happening in criminal justice. This does not include all the overt discrimination faced by Aboriginal peoples in the justice system by way of: – murdered and missing Aboriginal women left to die without adequate police attention; – our people who are taken on Starlight tours and left to freeze to death; – our people who are shot to death, beaten to death or tazered unnecessarily; and – the use of CSIS, RCMP, military and now INAC to spy on our people – even those of us who have never committed a criminal act. No one in their right mind could stand before all Canadians and claim that our justice system is not broken and does not discriminate against anyone. Only a right-wing extremeist, drunk with “white privilege” and power would even have the nerve to say something like that and ignore all the evidence to contrary – including evidence that comes from the very justice system he defends. This controversy all comes about over his defence of Bill C-10 – a massive bill that would make numerous amendments to numerous acts – many of which will have devastating consequences on Canadians. It will make minimum prison sentences mandatory and will take away the discretion of judges to find alternatives to prison. It is widely opposed – by organizations like the Canadian Bar Association which represents lawyers in Canada. Their 100-page submission against the Bill highlights the speed at which this omnibus bill (one that makes many changes to many acts) is being considered, the lack of time for study and comment and the overall dangers of the bill. http://www.cba.org/CBA/submissions/PDF/11-45-eng.pdf The following link is to a radio interview where I first talked about Bill S-2 (matrimonial real property on reserve) and then Bill C-10 and how they both relate to the oppression and assimilation of Aboriginal peoples. http://www.radio4all.net/files/fro.macpho@gmail.com/4356-1-InterviewPamelaPalmaterEdited.mp3 I know I ask a great deal of my readers – to read such lengthy blogs, access numerous links and write e-mails to express our concerns regarding endless bills, policies and actions against our peoples. But, most of us have the education, access to internet and computers and ability to do this. Think of all those who can’t, but who will no doubt be the ones to suffer from this ongoing oppression and assimilation of our people. Please write to Minister Toews and tell him to get real, submit his resignation and NOT pass Bill C-10. libmem@parl.gov.ca bqmem@parl.gc.ca cpcmem@parl.gc.ca ndpmem@parl.gc.ca vic.toews@parl.gc.ca Thank you for all your support and for continuing the battle for real justice and equality. For rabble fans, see my blog on rabble.ca.

  • The Illusion of Justice in Canada – The Conservatives Conditional Support of UNDRIP

    I was having a hard time deciding between several important issues that I wanted to write about in my blog this week. I was really struggling between the injustices against our Indigenous peoples noted in Howard Saper’s Corrections report, the fact that Sharon McIvor is forced to take the plight of Indigenous women to the United Nations or Canada’s hollow endorsement of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). All of these issues are important and deserve far more critical attention than they are getting. That is when I realized that these issues are part of a shameful pattern on the part of the Conservatives. The Conservatives have created an illusion that they are addressing justice issues faced by Indigenous peoples here in Canada by promoting their pretend platform on human rights and equality. Some readers might think this is an overly critical assessment of what seems to be a very progressive agenda – but I would ask those readers to look beyond the media hype and dig deeper to what is ACTUALLY being promised and what is not. I have to start with UNDRIP because Canada’s alleged “endorsement” of it is the biggest illusion of all. As we all know, Canada was one of 4 states that refused to sign UNDRIP along with the USA, Australia and New Zealand. These are some of the countries with the largest Indigenous populations who suffered greatly under the colonial laws, rules, and policies implemented by these States. Their collective refusal to endorse UNDRIP sent a strong message to Indigenous peoples that their colonial rule would continue for some time to come. Australia subsequently changed its mind and decided afterwards to issue a conditional Statement of Support for UNDRIP and New Zealand soon followed suit. That left Canada and the United States on the hot seat, so to speak, and their failure to endorse UNDRIP a major political impediment to Indigenous-Crown relations. Therefore, the Conservative government made a commitment in its speech from the throne in the spring of 2010 to endorse UNDRIP: “A growing number of states have given QUALIFIED RECOGNITION to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Our Government will take steps to endorse this aspirational document in a manner fully consistent with Canada’s Constitution and laws.”(emphasis added) It is now November 2010 and we are only just getting the alleged “endorsement” now. I say “alleged” because words mean everything in the world of politics. We know from our collective experiences with treaty making and implementation, that the Crown does not always act honourably in its dealings with Indigenous peoples. In a letter from T. Bannister to the Council of Trade and Plantations, one European colonist wrote about the shameful ways in which treaties were being “negotiated” with Indigenous peoples: “Their quarrels and wars were not for ambition, empire or bloodthirstiness but to defend their property and bounds… Their injuries have been very great, as divesting them of their land by force or fraud, first making them drunk and then to sign what they knew not what… Ad to this our inhumanity to them … We vilify them with all manner of names, and opprious language, cheat abuse and beat them, sometimes to the loss of limbs, pelt them with stones and set dogs upon them … too often an Article of Peace has run in one sense in English and quite contrary in Indian, by the Governor’s express order…”. I would like to think that Canada has moved past some of its double-dealings of the past, but this limited endorsement of UNDRIP by the Conservatives proves otherwise. From one side of their face they promise to make changes to address our issues and from the other side, they rally public support against us and find creative political spin to keep from acting on their promises. Canada did not truly, in letter and spirit, endorse UNDRIP – they issued a “Statement of Support” that does not change Indigenous rights (or lack thereof) in Canada. This is not my own personal opinion that I am espousing; I am taking this straight from the horse’s mouth. What follows is a summary of Canada’s “Statement of Support”: (1)”The Declaration is as ASPIRATIONAL document…” (the definition of “aspirational” is a “cherished desire”; something for which one “wishes”) (2)”the Declaration is a NON-LEGALLY BINDING document that does not reflect customary international law NOR CHANGE Canadian laws” (emphasis added) (3)”Canada placed on record its concerns with various provisions of the Declaration, including provisions dealing with lands, territories and resources; free, prior and informed consent when used as a veto; self-government without recognition of the importance of negotiations; intellectual property; military issues; and the need to achieve an appropriate balance between the rights and obligations of Indigenous peoples, States and third parties. THESE CONCERNS ARE WELL KNOWN AND REMAIN.” (emphasis added) (4) “We are now confident that CANADA CAN INTERPRET THE PRINCIPLES expressed in the Declaration in a manner that is consistent with our Constitution and legal framework.” (emphasis added) Those are the highlights of what Canada ACTUALLY signed. These are the limits under which it “supports” UNDRIP – i.e., so long as it has NO legal affect in Canada. For those who might think that I am somehow misinterpreting what Canada means by their conditional support, INAC’s own press release again clarified that: (1) “the Declaration is not legally binding” and (2) they are only endorsing it as “an aspirational document” and NOT as a legally binding document. For those who have any further questions about what this all means, INAC also provides a section entitled “Frequently Asked Questions”. In answer to the question of whether a State which originally voted against UNDRIP can change its mind, INAC very clearly says “There is no official way for a State to change its position on a declaration“. All it can subsequently do is issue a Statement of Support. Canada knew this when it originally voted against UNDRIP. In answer to the question of what UNDRIP means: “The UNDRIP is a non-legally binding aspirational document“. I am not sure how much clearer they could have made their position. So, at the end of the day, all Canada has done is publicly support the cherished wish list of Indigenous peoples but that wish list will not have any legal application or effect in Canada. Regardless of this striking fact, one might argue that Canada could still make significant and substantive changes to its relationship with Indigenous peoples and take transformational action to address serious social, economic, political, cultural and legal issues impacting on the well-being of Indigenous peoples, the majority of which it caused through its colonial laws and policies. Sure….Canada “could” do that – the question is will it? Well, let’s see what Minister of INAC John Duncan had to say: http://aptn.ca/pages/news/2010/11/12/canada-finally-backs-un-indigenous-declaration/ You will note in the above interview with APTN, that Minister Duncan re-affirms that UNDRIP is an “aspirational” document only that has NO legal application in Canada. Furthermore, on whether Canada’s endorsement of UNDRIP will bring about significant changes for Indigenous peoples in Canada, Minister Duncan responds that Canada has its “own agenda” and as a result does not “anticipate any significant change”. So, once again I am still asking myself what the heck is everyone so excited about? Why on earth would the Assembly of First Nations celebrate this announcement? Why would First Nations leaders appear in the media and praise Canada for making such a significant commitment to the rights of Indigenous peoples? Did anyone take the time to actually read what the Statement said or what INAC said its alleged “endorsement” means? Here is a brief overview of the state of Indigenous peoples in Canada right now: (1) Indigenous peoples have the lowest socio-economic conditions of all groups in Canada – meaning the lowest education and employment rates coupled with the highest disease, poverty and violence rates; (2) Funding for essential social services like post-secondary education, drinking water infrastructure, and child welfare are all so grossly underfunded and unequal when compared to non-Indigenous funding, that even Canada’s Auditor General has criticized Canada for its lack of action in addressing it; (3) Indigenous women in Canada do not enjoy even BASIC equality rights that are enjoyed by non-Indigenous women and now Sharon McIvor is being forced, after 25 years of litigation and struggle, to seek redress at the United Nations for Canada’s lack of action; (4) Hundreds of land claims remain unresolved despite Canada’s promise years ago to bring about “revolutionary” change to the ways in which claims were handled; and (5) Our people are homeless on their own traditional territories, our women are murdered and missing at alarming rates, our children are taken from our families and communities at rates as high or higher than during the 60’s scoop, our men and women are incarcerated at a higher rate that non-Indigenous people, and racism is still prevalent within our justice system and leads to deaths while in custody, starlight tours, and utter neglect. If Minister Duncan is right and Canada will not make any significant changes to how it deals with Indigenous issues and will simply continue to advance its own agenda, then what good does their conditional support of UNDRIP do for us? Why would our political leaders be so quick to praise Canada for agreeing to do literally nothing on our behalf? At this rate, our reserves will be turned into private property and sold to big business by the Flanagan-Jules plan; those remaining reserves will all be occupied by non-Indians through Bill S-4 MRP laws; and if anyone remains after that, they will all be legislated out of extinction by Bill C-3’s discriminatory status provisions. The Conservative’s conditional support of UNDRIP creates an illusion of justice in Canada – it is our choice whether we stand beside them and accept it. If our leaders won’t stand up for us then it is time that the people told their leaders to step aside and let our people stand up for themselves.