Warrior Life Studios

Pam Palmater

Tag: RCMP

  • Explosive Report Finds RCMP Toxic Culture of Racism, Misogyny & Homophobia

    Explosive Report Finds RCMP Toxic Culture of Racism, Misogyny & Homophobia

    “This process has forever tarnished the image of the RCMP as a Canadian icon.”

    The Honourable Michel Bastarache, Independent Assessor

    RCMP’S TOXIC CULTURE

    Racism, misogyny and homophobia – these are the characteristics of Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) toxic culture according to a new report released this week. 

    The report: Broken Dreams Broken Lives was written by former Supreme Court of Canada Justice Michel Bastarache, who had been engaged as an independent assessor to review the more than 3,000 claims of sexual harassment experienced by women who worked for the RCMP. He found that the experiences of these women in the RCMP were nothing short of devastating.

    In addition to those women who suffered from violent sexual assaults by their male RCMP colleagues, many women have been left with deep psychological injuries which range from major depressive disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder to substance dependence and even suicide. Bastarache emphasized that “it is impossible to fully convey the depth of the pain that the Assessors witnessed” and that “no amount of financial compensation can undo the harm” these women and their families experienced at the hands of the RCMP in all provinces and territories.

    RCMP CULTURE EATS POLICY

    The real tragedy is that none of this is news – not to the RCMP or the federal and provincial governments. All of them have known about this long-standing, widespread problem of racism, misogyny, homophobia and violence within the RCMP for many decades – through both internal and external reports and litigation.

    The RCMP are a male-dominated, para-military organization whose powerful, toxic culture has prevailed despite internal policy changes. They are impervious to change because “Culture eats Policy every time”. The RCMP are invested in the status quo and will not change.

    “Indeed, there are strong reasons to doubt that the RCMP has this capacity or the will to make the changes necessary to address the toxic aspects of its culture.”

    Canada Should Declassify, Deconstruct and Defund the RCMP

    SEXUALIZED VIOLENCE

    One of the most disturbing aspects of the Broken Dreams report is how male RCMP members and leaders saw women as “fresh meat” to be used and abused as they saw fit. Th

    The stories told to the Assessors “shocked them to their core”. In addition to “serious acts of penetrative sexual assaults”, male RCMP from all over Canada engaged in horrific acts of sexual harassment and abuse including:

    • unwelcome sexual touching,
    • men exposing their penises,
    • making degrading comments about women’s bodies,
    • humiliating name-calling,
    • spreading violent & obscene pornography forcing women to watch it;
    • being handcuffed to men’s toilets and locked in cells,
    • leaving dildos and used condoms on their desks;
    • being accused of selling sex;
    • outing their sexual orientation without their consent; and
    • stalking and bullying by male RCMP demanding sexual favours from women.

    National Action Plan to End Violence Against Indigenous Women and Girls

    RCMP TARGETED INDIGENOUS WOMEN

    The report details how the RCMP treated Indigenous women even more poorly than other women. 

    In addition to the humiliating and degrading behaviours experienced by other women in the RCMP, Indigenous women were also referred to as “squaw” and “smoked meat” and “were, at times, forced to watch RCMP members treat other Indigenous people brutally.”

    Their male RCMP colleagues took advantage of the fact that many of these Indigenous women were young and came from small or remote communities and were not accustomed to this type of toxic culture.

    “Indigenous women, particularly those who had been abused as children, were preyed upon by their male colleagues for sexual favours.”

    Those Who Take Us Away: Human Rights Watch

    FEW BAD APPLES MYTH BUSTED

    The RCMP has long relied on the “few bad apples” justification to protect their organization’s status quo which has resulted in so much pain and suffering by women in the RCMP.

    Despite the fact that RCMP members and leaders have long denied the systemic and cultural nature of their racism, misogyny and homophobia, this report found that sexual harassment in the RCMP exists “at every level of seniority and in every geographic area of Canada” and is “deeply embedded in its culture”. Even those members and leaders who are well-intentioned make choices to accept this culture and stay silent on the injustices.

    “The reality is, however, that even honourable members (and well-intentioned leaders) have been required to conform to (or at least accept) the underlying culture, which they have, for the most part, had to adopt in order to succeed in their career. Those who do not accept the culture are excluded.”

    Brenda Lucki Must Go: Maclean’s

    RCMP CANNOT BE FIXED FROM WITHIN

    This report makes it very clear that the RCMP cannot be fixed from within. They simply refuse to acknowledge that there are significant problems that are systemic and deeply rooted within their culture.

    Their toxic culture of racism, misogyny and homophobia is “powerful and presents an obstacle to change”. Furthermore, “Financial settlements of class-action lawsuits will not change this culture”. The Assessors found that the RCMP “are invested in the status quo and will not likely want to make the necessary changes to eradicate this toxic culture”.

    In fact, many of the women that had been interviewed felt that there was no chance for reform within the RCMP and some suggested it was time that it be replaced. This is what many Black and Indigenous peoples have been saying for decades and why the calls for the RCMP to be abolished have grown stronger in recent years.

    And finally, the report concluded that the RCMP are not able to either investigate or remediate these problems.

    “These men were often not held accountable for their actions. Indeed, the Assessors were told that one tactic used by the RCMP to resolve complaints of sexual harassment was to promote and transfer these men.”

    Inquiry Needed into Police Violence against Indigenous Peoples

    WHAT’S NEXT?

    It is clear from this report that the RCMP has neither the will nor the ability to address its toxic culture and its widespread sexualized violence within its ranks. 

    It must also be kept in mind that this is just one of many class actions against the RCMP. The RCMP’s toxic culture of racism, misogyny and homophobia, together with widespread sexualized violence, represents a major public safety issue for women generally, and especially for Indigenous, Black and marginalized women and girls.

    We need Canadians to call on Canada to:

    • Open the books at the RCMP so we can hold those who preyed on women to account;
    • Conduct an independent investigation into the RCMP’s similar actions towards Indigenous peoples; 
    • Make reparations to Indigenous peoples who have suffered from RCMP harassment, over-arrests, racism, brutality, sexualized violence and killings; and 
    • Dismantle the RCMP once and for all.

    Pamela Palmater: Educating the Resistance.

  • Cannabis legalization ignores First Nations

    Cannabis legalization ignores First Nations

    *This article was originally published in The Lawyer’s Daily on Jan.30, 2019. For decades, federal and provincial governments, through their local, regional and national police agencies and court systems, have arrested, charged and imprisoned thousands of First Nations people for engaging in the cannabis trade. Many had hoped that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s stated commitment to renewing the relationship with Indigenous peoples and his desire to legalize cannabis would help address many issues, one of which being the crisis-level over-incarceration of Indigenous peoples. Despite legalization of cannabis in 2018, Trudeau’s Liberal government has not yet seen fit to provide relief for Indigenous peoples languishing in prisons for cannabis-related offences. This is disappointing on two fronts: the first being that Trudeau has not kept his promises to Indigenous peoples; and second, that the first ever female Indigenous Justice minister didn’t take steps to get Indigenous peoples out of prison. We know that the over-incarceration of Indigenous peoples is a real crisis — one that continues to grow without abatement. Despite being only five per cent of the population in Canada, they represent more than 27 per cent of those in federal prisons. Indigenous women make up a staggering 43 per cent and Indigenous youth are now over 46 per cent of admissions to youth corrections. Yet, even these statistics don’t show the whole picture. The provincial incarceration rates, especially in the Prairies, are astounding. Provincial prisons can be as high as 80 per cent Indigenous peoples and for Indigenous girls in Saskatchewan, that rate is an unbelievable 98 per cent. We also know that more than half of all drug offences in 2016 were cannabis-related (58 per cent) and the majority of the charges were for possession. To say that we have a real incarceration crisis is an understatement, but the limited cannabis legalization scheme, which does not substantively address over-incarceration of Indigenous peoples, is yet another broken promise. While a handful of First Nation businesses have been specifically “permitted” to engage in this new trade, the majority are under a very real risk of legal sanctions — both as individuals and as First Nations — who assert their jurisdiction in this area. It is a cruel colonial irony that the very same people who have been imprisoned for their role in the cannabis trade — First Nations peoples — are now largely prohibited from engaging in the trade without permission from provincial governments. Neither the federal nor provincial governments engaged in nation-to-nation dialogue with First Nations over how to best bring federal, provincial and First Nation laws into harmony in relation to cannabis. Despite the many calls from First Nations for collaboration, First Nations were left out of the legislative drafting process and any good faith attempt to provide a trilateral, good faith path forward. In May 2018, prior to the legalization of cannabis, the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal peoples released a report on Bill C-45 An Act Respecting Cannabis and to Amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and Other Acts, which noted a real lack of “meaningful consultation” with Indigenous peoples and recommended that legalization be delayed for one year. The Standing Senate Committee recommended that Canada use the year to engage in negotiations with First Nations about tax collection and revenue sharing on reserves, recognition of the right of First Nations to enact their own legislation and funding for substance abuse and healing centres. They further recommended that no less than 20 per cent of all cannabis production licences be issued to First Nations. This would have provided sufficient time for First Nations to draft their own laws, rules and regulations and develop their own business policies and public safety protocols. While the Ministers of Health and Indigenous Services penned a letter to Senate claiming that their government “respects the jurisdiction of Indigenous communities”, Justice Canada officials previously clarified in Senate hearings that their position is that First Nations cannot enact by-laws in relation to cannabis on reserve and that provincial laws would apply. The federal government can’t have it both ways. Incredibly, Trudeau has missed yet another opportunity to engage with First Nations on a nation-to-nation basis and decided to forge ahead on cannabis legislation without properly engaging with First Nations or meaningfully considering their inherent Aboriginal and treaty rights to pass their own laws. Instead, the federal government assumes provincial jurisdiction setting the stage for the legislated exclusion of First Nations and conflict on the ground. This isn’t the first time the government of the day has blockaded First Nations from engaging in their own business and trade endeavours to support their communities. It wasn’t that long ago that the Conservative government under former Prime Minister Stephen Harper enacted Bill C-10 An Act to amend the Criminal Code (trafficking in contraband tobacco) to create the new offence of trafficking in contraband tobacco and prescribed minimum mandatory sentences for repeat offenders. It was very clear that the bill was intended to target First Nations and their long practice of growing, manufacturing and trading in tobacco despite their inherent, Aboriginal and treaty rights to do so. The RCMP defined contraband tobacco as product that is primarily manufactured on First Nations reserves. This bill effectively acted as a legal blockade attempting to criminalize First Nations for engaging in their own traditional economies — an economy not even known to Europeans prior to contact. Settler governments have long engaged in the colonization of Turtle Island through the theft of First Nations lands and resources, but also through the appropriation of their lucrative trade practices, products and routes. The criminalization of the tobacco trade for First Nations went hand in hand with the transfer of control and benefit from tobacco to settler governments. It looks like Canada is doing the same thing to First Nations with regards to the cannabis trade. https://pampalmater.com/2018/04/canadas-criminalization-of-indigenous.html While it may or may not have been grown, manufactured and traded traditionally, there is no doubt that this is the modern evolution of the right to trade as outlined in so many Supreme Court of Canada cases like the Van der Peet trilogy and the Sappier and Gray cases. First Nations are not limited to economic practices of pre-contact times or be “frozen in time.” Yet, that is exactly what seems to be happening with the cannabis trade. In fact, it looks like those that are first in line to profit from this new legal trade are the very politicians and police officers that once fought so hard to imprison First Nations for trading in tobacco and now cannabis. Those previously engaged in tobacco and drug enforcement have an unfair advantage of knowing all the confidential intelligence on the drug trade and its key players, as well as where and when to sell product and to whom. On top of this, former cops have connections all over the country, and that alone is an incredible form of advantage and means of intimidating the so-called competition. This gross injustice is now compounded by the fact that only certain businesses will be granted licences and the majority of those licences do not include First Nations or their businesses. According to the federal government’s report to Senate, there are only 5 Indigenous producers out of the 105 in Canada — a far cry from the minimum 20 per cent recommended by Senate. As the most impoverished communities in Canada, First Nations have incredible social pressures on them to find ways to provide for their communities in a legally and politically hostile context. Federal and provincial governments have created legal blockades around most First Nation traditional economies like hunting, fishing and gathering. They have left First Nations with few alternatives. If Trudeau thinks that First Nations will simply shrug their shoulders and move along to a different economic opportunity, he is sadly mistaken. Many First Nations are invested in this trade and will defend their legal right to do so with or without provincial approval. The ability of the police to enforce federal or provincial laws in this regard will be highly suspect given their former colleagues’ involvement in the trade. Would the police be upholding the law or protecting the thin blue line’s new income stream? All of this pending conflict — and there will be conflict — could have been avoided had Trudeau practised what he promised and engaged with First Nations on a nation to nation basis and respected First Nation rights. It’s never too late to act, but with an election just around the corner — it is unlikely Trudeau will rock the boat for all those former cops and Liberal politicians who now stand to make millions from cannabis. *Link to the article as originally published in The Lawyer’s Daily: https://www.thelawyersdaily.ca/articles/9968/cannabis-legalization-ignores-first-nations-pamela-palmater?category=opinion

  • True Test of Reconciliation: Respect the Indigenous Right to Say No

    True Test of Reconciliation: Respect the Indigenous Right to Say No

                                    (Image from Unistoten Camp) *This article was originally published in Canadian Dimension Magazine on May 15, 2018. Conflict is coming. There is no getting around that fact. Anyone who believes that reconciliation will be about blanket exercises, cultural awareness training, visiting a native exhibit at a museum or hanging native artwork in public office buildings doesn’t understand how we got here. Reconciliation between Canada and Indigenous peoples has never been about multiculturalism, diversity or inclusion. Reconciliation is not an affirmative-action program, nor is it about adding token Indigenous peoples to committees, advisory groups or board rooms. We cannot tokenize our way out of this mess that Canada created. Real reconciliation requires truth be exposed, justice be done to make amends and then Canada’s discriminatory laws, policies, practices and societal norms be reconciled with Indigenous rights, title, treaties, laws and jurisdiction. That process of truth, justice and reconciliation will be painful. It requires a radical change. Nothing less than the transfer of land, wealth and power to Indigenous peoples will set things right. The true test of reconciliation will be whether Canada respects the Indigenous right to say ‘no.’ Canadian courts have been issuing decisions about Aboriginal rights and title and treaty rights, sending the strong message to governments that they must obtain the consent of Indigenous peoples before taking actions or making decisions that will impact our lives. Governments have not listened. Canada’s failure to listen is one of the reasons why Indigenous peoples spent more than 25 years negotiating the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples which guarantees the right of Indigenous peoples to free, prior and informed consent. Article 19 of UNDRIP provides: States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them. Consent is a legal concept which can be defined as the voluntary acquiescence of one person to the proposal of another. In general, it is the right to say yes or no to something and/or put conditions on an agreement. Consent must be free from misrepresentations, deceptions, fraud or duress. This is a very basic right, but one which has been denied to Indigenous peoples since contact. Take for example, the actions of Indian agents and police, who used food rations to extort sex from Indigenous women and girls. In the context of being forced to live on reserves, not being allowed to leave the reserve and being dependent on food rations, what real choice would a young girl have? Similarly, when police officers or judges detain Indigenous women and girls, drive them to secluded locations and force them to perform sexual acts — there is no real consent when the threat of lethal force or arrest on false charges is ever-present. This is especially so given our knowledge of the number of assaults and deaths of our people in police custody. There was no consent when they stole our children and put them into residential schools, nor was there any consent when priests, nuns and others raped those children. There was no consent when doctors forcibly sterilized Indigenous women and girls — sometimes without their knowledge. Today, the right of Indigenous peoples to free, prior and informed consent has become the central issue in Canada’s reconciliation agenda. Justin Trudeau campaigned on the promise of implementing UNDRIP into law and respecting the right of Indigenous peoples to say no. When asked by APTN host Cheryl McKenzie whether no would mean no under his government, he responded “absolutely.” Another way of putting this is that Indigenous peoples could exercise their legal right to refuse to approve or authorize a project. This veto right stems from various sources, but primarily our inherent rights as Indigenous governments with our own laws and rules which govern our traditional territories. They may also come from specific Aboriginal rights, treaty rights and Aboriginal title. These rights are not only protected within our own Indigenous laws, but also section 35 of Canada’s Constitution Act, 1982 and various international human rights laws, including UNDRIP. Yet, after Trudeau announced his latest idea to create a legislative framework to recognize Indigenous rights and avoid litigation, Justice Minister Raybould stated clearly that “consent doesn’t mean a veto” for Indigenous peoples. So, we are now back where we started. Canada has not yet reconciled its laws, policies or political positions to the fact that Indigenous peoples have the right to say no to development projects on our lands. This means that conflict will continue to grow over mining, forestry, hydraulic fracking and pipelines on Indigenous lands. The true test of reconciliation will inevitably play out on the ground, like it did in Oka, Ipperwash, Gustafsen Lake, Esgenoopetitj (Burnt Church) and Elsipogtog. Will Canada force the Kinder Morgan pipeline to go ahead against the will of British Columbia and First Nations? Will Canada isolate and exclude First Nations who do not subscribe to the extinguishment requirements of Canada’s land-claims process? What will happen to First Nations who stop provincial social workers and police officers from entering their reserves to steal more children into foster care? This will be the real test of our inherent right to say no. Canada will only truly give effect to reconciliation when Indigenous peoples have the right to say no — no to discriminatory government laws and policies; no to federal and provincial control over our Nations; no to racism from society, industry and government; no to sexualized violence, abuse and trafficking; no to theft of our children into foster care and the imprisonment of our peoples; no to the ongoing theft of our lands and resources; and no to the contamination and destruction of our lands, waters, plants, animals, birds and fish. The right to say no is the core of any future relationship with the Canadian state and its citizens. It’s a basic right — one which is grounded in our sovereignty as individuals and Nations to decide for ourselves the life we wish to live. Canada has made it clear we have no right to say no, only an obligation to say yes. First Nations leaders and citizens should not wait to see how this plays out in court – they should assert and defend their right to say no now. *This article was originally published in Canadian Dimension Magazine on May 15, 2018 at this link: https://canadiandimension.com/articles/view/true-test-of-reconciliation-respect-the-indigenous-right-to-say-no

  • Canada’s Criminalization of the Indigenous Tobacco Trade

    Canada’s Criminalization of the Indigenous Tobacco Trade

    *This article was originally published in Lawyer’s Daily on April 4, 2018

    Prime Minister Justin Trudeau claims that there is no more important relationship than the one with Indigenous peoples and committed to a renewed nation to nation relationship based on respect for Indigenous rights. To this end, Trudeau made many promises to First Nations, including a commitment to review and repeal all of the laws imposed on First Nations by the former Conservative government led by Stephen Harper.

    This is a significant commitment from the Liberal government, as Harper passed numerous laws impacting Indigenous rights — without complying with the legal duty to consult, accommodate and obtain the consent of First Nations. Laws related to drinking water, elections, financial transparency, matrimonial property, land surrenders and the removal of protections for lakes and rivers were passed in spite of strong opposition by First Nations. One bill which attracted a great deal of resistance was Bill C-10 An Act to amend the Criminal Code (trafficking in contraband tobacco).

    Bill C-10 created the new offence of trafficking in contraband tobacco and also prescribed minimum prison terms for repeat offenders. The RCMP defines contraband or illicit tobacco as including product “unlawfully manufactured in Canada, mainly on First Nations reserves and territories.” Yet, it is only unlawful to the extent that the federal government has made it unlawful.

    Current laws completely ignore the inherent, Aboriginal and treaty right of Indigenous nations to engage in their traditional economies. Not only do Indigenous nations have a right to trade in tobacco with other Indigenous nations, but they have a right to trade with settlers as well. Part of the traditional practice of trading in tobacco was trading with Europeans — which is in fact how Europeans came to enjoy tobacco today.

    Indigenous nations in North and South America have been growing, manufacturing and trading tobacco for thousands of years. Some anthropological estimates put the growth and use of tobacco as a crop by Indigenous peoples as early as 5000 BC. Indigenous peoples manufactured the tobacco plant for use in ceremonies, sacred rites and rituals, and it is still used in ceremonies today. Tobacco is often gifted to elders to perform ceremonies or exchanged between First Nations as part of cultural protocols, for example. Tobacco was also traditionally manufactured for snuffing, chewing and smoking as well as medicinal purposes and was even used as insect repellent. By comparison, European settlers did not start growing, using or trading in tobacco until very recently — in the last several hundred years — and only because Indigenous nations introduced it to them. If there is one economy that should be exclusively managed, controlled and legislated by First Nations — it is the tobacco trade.

    The Indigenous tobacco trade is an essential part of the traditional and modern cultural practices and economies of many Indigenous nations in what is now known as Canada and the United States. They have managed, protected and benefited from the many natural resources within their traditional territories since time immemorial — including tobacco. Today, the inherent, Aboriginal and treaty rights of Indigenous nations to engage in traditional practices, such as the growth, manufacture and trade in tobacco, are governed by traditional and modern Indigenous laws and regulations. These practices are also protected in s. 35 of Canada’s Constitution Act, 1982 which specifically protects Aboriginal and treaty rights — including pre-contact practices that were integral to Indigenous cultures.

    The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) provides that Indigenous nations have the right to self-determination which includes the right to freely pursue their economic development (article 3); the right to be secure in their own means of subsistence and engage freely in all traditional and economic activity (article 20); and the right to benefit from their own lands and natural resources in their territories (article 25). While the United Nations considers these standards to represent the minimum standards for the “dignity, survival and well-being” of Indigenous peoples, Trudeau’s government has also committed to implementing UNDRIP into domestic law. At a minimum, the current government should exempt First Nations from these unconstitutional and human rights-infringing laws which criminalize the Indigenous tobacco trade.

    Article III of the Jay Treaty of 1794 recognized the trading practices of Indigenous nations north and south of the imposed border and confirmed that their rights to live and pass freely over the border would continue to be protected and included an exemption from customs, duties and other fees. In fact, a report of the Special Parliamentary Committee on Indian Self-Government (known as the Penner Report) specifically recommended that Article III of the Jay Treaty be specifically implemented into legislation. Instead, Canada has continued to deny Indigenous nations their long held rights to trade over the border.

    The problem is less about Indigenous criminality and more about colonial control of Indigenous practices for the benefit of non-Indigenous governments and corporations. In other words, the crime of contraband tobacco was created to disentitle Indigenous nations from engaging in their own tobacco trade. Not unlike what federal and provincial governments did with hunting and fishing.

    Characterizing Indigenous peoples who engage in the tobacco trade as gangs, criminals or members of organized crime is racist, factually wrong and is itself a form of hate crime insofar as it paints all Indigenous peoples in the trade as criminals and dangerous. Indigenous nations have just as much right to provide food, clothing and shelter for their families as anyone else, including Canadian businesses, like convenience store owners – who do not have constitutionally protected rights to engage in the tobacco trade.

    The racist backlash experienced by First Nations from being characterized as criminals stems directly from federal and provincial laws, policies, and enforcement measures which appear to target First Nations. Canada can’t have it both ways — they can’t complain about the cost of First Nation poverty and continually criminalize all our means of subsistence. This focus on contraband tobacco appears to be less about addressing organized crime and more about who gets to profit from the tobacco trade.

    *Link to the article that was originally published in Lawyer’s Daily on April 4, 2018

    https://www.thelawyersdaily.ca/articles/6233/canada-s-criminalization-of-the-indigenous-tobacco-trade-pamela-palmater?category=columnists

  • Public Inquiry Needed to Address Sexualized Violence in Policing and Corrections System

    *Originally published in Lawyer’s Daily on November 6, 2017 (edited to include links)

    The integrity of Canada’s policing and corrections system has been called into disrepute from the sexualized violence committed by its police and corrections officers against Indigenous women and girls, female prisoners and even their own female colleagues.

    Recently, officials at Edmonton’s maximum security prison suspended seven employees — including managers — for allegations of sexual harassment and sexual assault. The male guards are now under investigation not only for the sexual harassment and assaults but also for their retaliatory actions against their female colleagues who tried to report the harassment. In some cases, it is alleged that protocols were breached risking the safety and security of the female prison guards including using inmates as weapons of intimidation.

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/prison-guards-accused-of-using-inmates-as-weapons-to-cover-up-alleged-sexual-harassment-1.4378784

    While many would like to believe that this is an example of “a few bad apples,” the number of similar complaints across the country points to a much deeper problem in corrections. Earlier this year, in another maximum security prison in Agassiz, B.C., the sexual assault of a female prison guard by her male colleague was actually caught on camera. Far from an isolated incident, the union representing various locals in B.C. say they regularly assist female corrections employees in similar harassment cases.

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/female-prison-guard-sexually-harassed-1.4299400

    The widespread sexually abusive actions by corrections officers is not limited to female colleagues. In 2012, prison guards at Ontario’s Grand Valley Institution for Women were accused of sexual abuse of female prisoners by trading tobacco and drugs for sexual acts. This was not news to the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC). The Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies, which represents women and girls in the justice system, has filed many reports on such incidents calling for an external review and for the CSC to stop using male guards in women’s prisons.

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/prison-guard-accused-of-trading-drugs-for-sex-1.1211354

    Prison advocates also made calls for surveillance cameras in all institutions after surveillance videos captured numerous incidents of prison guards beating prisoners in Ontario and Quebec prisons in 2013. Several videos depict prisoners cowering in fear in what some lawyers have referred to as absolute “terrorism” committed by prison guards. The Office of the Correctional Investigator responded that not only that video surveillance procedures failed 70 per cent of the time, but that “it’s probably not a coincidence that some alleged prison beatings occur in spots where there’s no surveillance cameras.” The importance of surveillance cameras cannot be overstated. It was surveillance footage that showed Vancouver police dragging an unconscious Mi’kmaw man, Frank Paul, out of a jail cell and into an alleyway where he died of hypothermia in 1998.

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/prison-beatings-caught-on-video-at-ontario-and-quebec-jails-1.2426904

    Who are the arrested, detained, or imprisoned supposed to call when they have been beaten or sexually abused by corrections officers? There is a major power imbalance between corrections and prisoners, and the police are part of the same abusive system that protects its own before protecting those in their charge. The RCMP have been inundated with class actions and public complaints about their long-standing racism, sexism, abuse and harassment against the public and its own members.

    Though not admitting any wrongdoing, this year, the RCMP recently settled a class action suit against it for the long-standing sexual harassment and assault of thousands of female RCMP members. In 2016, a second class action suit against the RCMP — this time male members — allege harassment and bullying. Also in 2016, another complaint alleges RCMP bullying and unwanted sexual touching and nudity at their own police college run by the RCMP in Ottawa. This is all on top of the 2014 report which documented hundreds of cases of corruption, involving hundreds of officers in the RCMP.

    The deep-rooted problem of racism, sexism and abuse in policing and corrections is not new in the male-dominated system. The Royal Commission on Donald Marshall Jr.’s wrongful imprisonment highlighted police racism back in 1989. The 1991 Report of the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry was instigated at the failure by police to properly investigate the sexual assault and murder of Indigenous woman Helen Betty Osborne and the police shooting of unarmed Indigenous leader J.J. Harper. The report highlighted the fact that the police do little to protect Indigenous peoples, especially women and girls.

    The 2012 Missing Women Commission of Inquiry from B.C. found “blatant failures” and systemic bias against the victims and their families, many of whom were Indigenous. One of the most damning reports comes from Human Rights Watch in 2013 on abusive policing in B.C. which documented reports of RCMP physical and sexual abuse of Indigenous women and girls.

    Both CSC and RCMP have both been implicated in the bullying, harassment, physical assaults, sexual assaults and/or deaths of female officers, female civilian employees, fellow male officers, male and female prisoners, and Indigenous women and girls. The class actions against the RCMP should have been a wakeup call for Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale to take immediate remedial action. The 2017 CSC survey which reported that 40 per cent of CSC had been a victim of workplace harassment — 60 per cent of cases from their own CSC co-workers. The survey also showed that the problem is getting worse — having increased by over 30 per cent since 2014. Even the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has noted that sexual harassment “continues to take place in organizations with a historical male dominance.”

    The very fact that the terms of reference for the national inquiry into murdered and missing Indigenous women and girls excludes a review of police conduct is yet another example of the resistance of Canadian officials to address the problem. The knee-jerk reaction of governments to protect their police forces at all costs, may well cost them the loss of public confidence in policing and corrections.

    The fact that the federal government chose a commissioner, Qajaq Robinson, for the national inquiry whose husband is a RCMP officer who pleaded guilty to beating Indigenous prisoners in 2009, begs the question as to whether PM Trudeau and his cabinet had any real intention of getting at the truth — which so far, all points directly at racism, sexism, abuse and corruption in policing and corrections.

    One would have thought with a self-professed feminist prime minister and an experienced minister like Ralph Goodale, there would have been some immediate and substantive actions over the last two years since they took office. But, much like the perpetually absent Minister on the Status of Women Maryam Monsef — there are very few federal voices willing to tackle the monumental problem of racism, sexism, abuse and corruption in policing and corrections in Canada. It is hard to imagine a minister on the Status of Women as willfully blind on such high profile incidences of sexism and sexual abuse as Monsef.

    When those entrusted to serve and protect serve only their own interests and abuse those in their care, the system will inevitably start to unravel — becoming a national crisis. Trudeau ought to use the revelations about sexual abuse in the Edmonton’s maximum security prison to dismantle this broken system of male dominance and sexualized violence in government institutions and restore public safety.  

    *Link to the article originally published in Lawyer’s Daily on November 6, 2017: 

    https://www.thelawyersdaily.ca/articles/5055/public-inquiry-needed-to-address-sexualized-violence-in-justice-and-corrections-system-pamela-palmater?category=columnists Please check out my a related video on my Youtube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5o1PCzjhhno&t=14s

  • Gang Rapes, Murders and Planting Evidence: New TV Show? No, Welcome to Ontario Policing

                   Pam Palmater and Toronto Police Inspector Steve Irwin Giving Testimony Before Parliament (CBC News) In 1989, the Royal Commission on the Donald Marshall Jr., Prosecution found that the criminal justice system failed Marshall “at virtually every turn” due “to the fact that Donald Marshall, Jr., is a Native.”[i] Donald Marshall Jr., was a Mi’kmaw man who spent over a decade in prison after being was wrongfully convicted of murder. In 1999, The Aboriginal Justice Inquiry of Manitoba concluded that: “The justice system has failed Manitoba’s Aboriginal people on a massive scale.”[ii] Again in 2004, the Saskatchewan Commission on First Nations and Metis Peoples and Justice Reform noted we still have the same problem: “[R]acism is a major obstacle to healthy relations with the First Nations and … police organizations.”[iii] After the shooting death of unarmed land defender, Dudley George, the Ipperwash Inquiry concluded in 2007 that: “cultural insensitivity and racism was not restricted to a few ‘bad apples’ with the OPP but was more widespread.”[iv] It’s #2016, and we still have the same problem and it looks like police racism and violence against Indigenous peoples has spread to women and racialized minorities everywhere.

    This week, all of Toronto’s attention had been on the conviction of Toronto police officer James Forcillo, who was found guilty of attempted murder in relation to the shooting death of Sammy Yatim.[v] Yatim was an 18 year old young man who only possessed a small pocket knife, when he was mortally shot three times in the heart. The officer then shot him 6 more times and was joined by another officer who then tazered him.[vi] The temptation is to think: one bad apple. Yet, only three days after the verdict, four Toronto police officers were arrested with seventeen charges related to planting evidence on a suspect and obstructing justice (lying) – all suspended with pay.[vii] What seemed to get even less attention were the three Toronto police officers who were charged in a gang sexual assault on female member of the Toronto police force and, like their colleagues, were all suspended with pay.[viii]

    The problem is so critical in Toronto that there is even an organization called, Affected Families of Police Homicide which helps advocate on behalf of the teenagers, many unarmed who lost their lives to police action.[ix] Many of these victims come from Indigenous or racialized backgrounds. This isn’t a Toronto phenomenon, though it appears to be particularly acute in Toronto. In the same year, a York Regional police officer who had served on the force for 31 years was charged with sexual assault of a minor.[x] The little girl was not even 12 years old. Then there’s the Peel Region Police Officer Craig Watier charged with child porn related offences; Ontario Provincial Police officer Mark Maltais charged with a child porn offence – but suspended with pay; and Toronto Police officer Darious Kisielewski charged with making and possessing child porn.[xi]

    One of the more disgusting elements of police racism and violence in Ontario is the high degree of impunity the police seem to enjoy – all while getting paid. At the moment, there are at least 50 police officers suspended with pay in Ontario, at a cost of over $4.5 million to Ontarians.[xii] The primary concern seems to be that these men get paid, not the racialized people, women or children who are their victims. It should come as no surprise that we have a crisis of murdered and missing Indigenous women and girls in this country, when the police themselves become the predators. Whether it’s outright targeting of Indigenous women and girls for violence, or refusing to protect them by locating the missing and convicting the killers – police racism and violence is exacerbating an already crisis issue.

    It’s not just Ontario’s regional or municipal polices forces. The RCMP, Canada’s national police force is literally rampant with police racism and violence. Manitoba RCMP Constable Kevin Theriault arrested an Indigenous woman at a house party for “intoxication”, locked her in a police cell, and showed up later in his street clothes and took her to his home with the intent to have a “personal relationship” with her.[xiii] Fellow officers goaded him on and even his senior officer said: “You arrested her, you can do whatever the fuck you want to do.”[xiv] His punishment was the loss of only seven days’ pay.[xv] Human Rights Watch documented numerous reports of abusive policing in British Columbia by the RCMP who are accused of raping and assaulting Indigenous women and girls in custody.[xvi] No one was brought to justice in those cases.

    This phenomenon is not unique to BC and Ontario, as eight Quebec police officers were recently suspended after numerous allegations of sexual assault against Indigenous women were brought forward.[xvii] In Nova Scotia, RCMP were suspended for sexual assault of co-workers.[xviii] In Alberta, a 34-year veteran with RCMP charged in sexual assault of 12 year old girl.[xix] Even within the RCMP, sexual assault and harassment against their own female officers appears to be rampant as over 300 women have filed a class action lawsuit.[xx] Evidence of the wide-spread nature of police violence against women in general is staggering. But who are we going to complain to? Experts tell us that the conviction rate against police officers in Ontario and the RCMP is astronomically small. Then when we see a provincial court judge from BC imprisoned for sexually assaulting Indigenous girls between the ages of 12 and 16, we begin to wonder what the options are for society.[xxi]

    This phenomenon of police violence and corruption appears to be widespread in Canada and the United States. Many grassroots groups and organizations have come together to shine a light on the victims of police violence, corruption and racism. Black Lives Matter that became “the rallying cry of the new movement against racist police violence”.[xxii]Disarm Toronto Police, Cop Watch, Police Watch, and Citizens Against Police Brutality – social media is growing with citizen groups organizing all over North America to bring awareness to police violence and address impunity. This is just the tip of the iceberg of what we know is happening in Ontario -the frightening part of what we don’t know. How many more victims are there who never brought their complaints forward thinking no one would believe them over a police officer?

    Ontario – you have a problem. So far, no one from the mayor, to the police chief to the Premier has stood up and expressed the horror the rest of us feel by the increasing police violence in this province. Gang rape is not something that should be heard in conjunction with police officers. Someone needs to show some leadership and clean up the cop shop. Police are hired to protect Ontarians and keep them safe from predators – not become the predators. This situation has reached crisis proportions and needs an immediate and comprehensive emergency action plan that includes independent investigations and legislative amendments. The days of police investigating police must be over. Every rape, assault or murder of citizens in Ontario, committed by police is now on the hands of those who have the power to do something about it.

    It’s your move Ontario. #racismkills

    [i] Chief Justice Hickman, Chairman, “Royal Commission on the Donald Marshall, Jr., Prosecution”, (Halifax: Province of Nova Scotia, 1989), online: <https://www.novascotia.ca/just/marshall_inquiry/_docs/Royal%20Commission%20on%20the%20Donald%20Marshall%20Jr%20Prosecution_findings.pdf> at 1.

    [ii] Aboriginal Justice Inquiry of Manitoba, “Report of the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry of Manitoba” (Winnipeg: Province of Manitoba, 1999), online: <http://www.ajic.mb.ca/volume.html> at 1.

    [iii] W. Littlechild, Chair, “Legacy of Hope: An Agenda for Change: Final Report from the Commission on First Nations and Metis Peoples and Justice Reform”(Saskatchewan: 21 June 2004), vol.1, online: <http://www.justice.gov.sk.ca/justicereform/volume1.shtml> and vol.2, online: <http://www.justice.gov.sk.ca/justicereform/volume2.shtml> at 5-6.

    [iv] S. Linden, Commissioner, “Report of the Ipperwash Inquiry” (Toronto: Province of Ontario, 2007), vol.2, online: <http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/inquiries/ipperwash/report/vol_2/pdf/E_Vol_2_Full.pdf> at 272.

    [v] W. Gillis, The Star, “‘Mystery’ charge only one that sticks in Sammy Yatim slaying” (Toronto: The Star, 26 January 2016), online: <http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2016/01/25/mystery-charge-only-one-that-sticks-in-sammy-yatim-slaying.html>.

    [vi] A. Hasham, The Star, “Forcillo guilty of attempted murder in shooting death of Sammy Yatim” (Toronto: The Star, 25 January, 2016), online: <http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2016/01/25/jury-returns-in-murder-trial-for-const-james-forcillo-charged-in-shooting-death-of-sammy-yatim.html>.

    [vii] P. Edwards, The Toronto Star, “Toronto police officers charged with obstructing justice, perjury” (Toronto: The Star, 28 January 2016), online: <http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2016/01/28/toronto-police-officers-charged-with-obstruction-of-justice-perjury.html>.

    [viii] M. Krishnan, et al; The Star, “Three Toronto police officers charged with gang sexual assault” (Toronto: The Star, 19 February 2015), online: <http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2015/02/19/three-toronto-police-officers-charged-with-sexual-assault.html>.

    [ix] A. Carter, CBC News, “Victim’s rights group lobbying province, SIU for change” (Toronto: CBC News, 5 December 2013), online: <http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/news/victim-s-rights-group-lobbying-province-siu-for-change-1.2451123>.

    [x] CBC News, “York Regional Police officer charged with sexual assault involving a minor” (Toronto: CBC News, 11 November 2015), online: <http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/york-police-1.3314053>.

    [xi] J. Moore, NewsTalk 1010, “Update: Former York Regional Police Sergeant accused of sexually assaulting a young girl” (Toronto: NewsTalk 1010, 11 November 2015), online: < http://www.newstalk1010.com/news/2015/11/11/update-former-york-regional-police-sergeant-accused-of-sexually-assaulting-a-young-girl>. CBC News, “Peel Regional Police officer faces child pornography, fraud charges” (Toronto: CBC News, 19 August 2015), online: <http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/peel-regional-police-officer-faces-child-pornography-fraud-charges-1.3197105>. L. Dunick, TBNewWatch, “OPP sergeant facing possession of child porn charge” (Thunder Bay: TBNewsWatch, 28 January 2016), online: <http://www.tbnewswatch.com/News/380386/OPP_sergeant_facing_possession_of_child_porn_charge>. T. Alamenciak, The Star, “Toronto police officer charged with making child pornography” (Toronto: The Star, 10 September 2013), online: <http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2013/09/10/toronto_police_officer_charged_with_making_child_pornography.html>.

    [xii] M. Crawley, CBC News Toronto, “At least 50 police officers currently suspended with pay in Ontario” (Toronto: CBC News, 28 January 2016), online: < http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/toronto-ontario-police-suspended-with-pay-1.3424010>.

    [xiii] Indian Country Today Media Network, “Outrage over Mountie who took intoxicated native woman to his home” (ICTMN, 1 September 2015), online: <http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2015/01/09/outrage-over-mountie-who-took-intoxicated-native-woman-his-home-158629>.

    [xiv] H. Moore, CBC News, “Mountie takes woman home from jail to ‘pursue a personal relationship’” (Manitoba: CBC News, 8 January 2015), online: <http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/mountie-takes-woman-home-from-jail-to-pursue-a-personal-relationship-1.2893487>.

    [xv] Ibid.

    [xvi] Human Rights Watch, “Those Who Take Us Away: Abusive Policing and Failures in Protection of Indigenous Women and Girls in Northern British Columbia, Canada” (Washington: Human Rights Watch, 2013), online: <https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/canada0213webwcover_0.pdf>.

    [xvii] APTN National News, “Eight Quebec police officers suspended in wake of alleged sexual assaults on Aboriginal women” (Winnipeg: APTN, 23 October 2015), online: <http://aptn.ca/news/2015/10/23/eight-quebec-police-officers-suspended-in-wake-of-alleged-sexual-assaults-on-aboriginal-women/>.

    [xviii] Halifax Metro, “Nova Scotia RCMP suspend officer for alleged assault, sexual assault of female coworkers” (Halifax: Halifax Metro, 2 April 2015), online: <http://www.metronews.ca/news/halifax/2015/04/02/nova-scotia-rcmp-suspend-officer-for-alleged-assault-sexual-assault-of-female-coworkers.html>.

    [xix] P. Roth, Edmonton Sun, “High0ranking Fort McMurray Mountie charged with cold-case sex assault of teen” (Edmonton: Edmonton Sun, 15 April 2014), online: <http://www.edmontonsun.com/2014/04/15/high-ranking-fort-mcmurray-mountie-charged-with-cold-case-sex-assault-of-teen>.

    [xx] A. Woo, The Globe and Mail, “Sexual Harassment claims against RCMP reach 336” (Vancouver: The Globe and Mail, 18 July 2014), online: <http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/sexual-harassment-claims-against-rcmp-reach-336/article19669218/>.

    [xxi] CBC News Canada, “Ramsay gets 7 years for sexual assault” (Ottawa: CBC News Canada, 1 June 2004), online: <http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ramsay-gets-7-years-for-sexual-assault-1.479237>.

    [xxii] K. Petersen-Smith, “Black Lives Matter: A new movement takes shape” (2015) International Socialist Review Issue 96.

  • BIll C-51 My responses to questions from Senate Standing Committee on National Security and Defence (April 27, 2015)

    First Question: Senator Mitchell: My next question would probably go to Ms. Palmater and Mr. Bennett. The bill originally had “unlawful advocacy,” and I believe that’s been taken out. But I also believe that it still leaves a gap, and that is to say that you can do something unlawful that is perfectly non-terrorist. In fact, the gap really is absolutely, perfectly acceptable civil disobedience within a democratic society, which is a hallmark of a democratic society, provided that you’re prepared to take the consequences within the rule of law for having done that. Could you comment on that? Ms. Palmater: I’m glad you asked that question. It’s a really good one. The fact that they are intending — it hasn’t been passed yet, I understand — to take out the “unlawful” part does not address the whole other range of activities contemplating the disruption of the economy, for example, where a First Nation makes a very targeted strategy in partnership with others to make sure a pipeline doesn’t go through by legal means, by civil disobedient means, by the exercise of their international rights — all of those things that might not fall under protest, might not fall under dissent, because often times “protest” is very narrowly defined. There’s a problem with wording, and Justice Canada lawyers will know this very well. It’s poor wording. It doesn’t encapsulate all the ways in which we are already criminalized. Look at the number of people who are already over-imprisoned, who are charged, who are arrested, who are assaulted, and Bill C-51 hasn’t even passed yet. My submission to the house was very specific about those things, not just the extent of the surveillance, but look at the number of people who are considered criminals for what they do now. Minister Valcourt has already said that we are threats to national security, and DND has considered that our activities in advocating for our rights are a level of insurgency, so this is before Bill C-51 even passes. Unless there is very specific language specifically addressing the activities of First Nations, we will be captured under this. Senator Mitchell: The implications of the treaty struck me some years ago when somebody said that a treaty means nobody was defeated. It was an agreement nation to nation not to fight anymore. It’s a powerful concept. Second Question: Senator Jaffer: I have questions for each of you, and I’ll start with Ms. Palmater. We’re all aware of Ms. Blackstock’s — I would go so far as to call it harassment. Even without this bill, what has it been like for you and your organization when it comes to issues you’re working on? What challenges do you already face? Ms. Palmater: That’s a really good question and it was the subject of my submission to the house. What we’re talking about, without anything in this bill being passed yet, we’re already overrepresented in prison. Even though the Supreme Court of Canada in Gladue said you have to stop imprisoning First Nations people, we’re being imprisoned more, not less. When the Supreme Court of Canada in Marshall said we had a recognized treaty right to fish and sell it, DFO and the RCMP came in, rammed our boats, beat us with clubs, maced us, arrested us and put us in jail. I only have to talk about Listuguj. Especially in Quebec, it’s been highly problematic. They’ve invaded Listuguj twice. In Oka, Ipperwash, an unarmed land defender was murdered. Gustafsen Lake, one of the largest attacks by the RCMP on a civilian population; Esgenoopetitj. You’ve got Elsipogtog, Caledonia. It goes on and on in terms of the way the military has been used against First Nations people. And the justice system itself, we’re more likely to be arrested, imprisoned and those kinds of things. Senator Jaffer: I’m going to have to stop you there because I have two more questions. Third Question: Senator Dagenais: Ms. Palmater, correct me if I am wrong; you referred to the infamous Oka crisis of the 1990s, or something like that. We are not at all talking about the same situation. There was a sort of guerilla conflict between your community and the town of Oka regarding a golf course. We need to be careful. I was a police officer with the Sûreté du Québec. I was there when the Sûreté du Québec intervened. Let us remember that a police officer died in the process, because we were trying to protect your community as much as the town of Oka. I would ask you to be careful. The Sûreté du Québec was present for a year in Akwesasne to maintain order and protect the community, because there were people from the Mohawk community who were in the drug trade and had killed each other. I hope you have all of the details of that matter. You have to be careful when you accuse police officers of abusing their powers. I was there, and I saw it with my own eyes. [English] Ms. Palmater: Every single commission that has ever been done in this country, every single study, every single United Nations report on Canada’s activities towards indigenous peoples, have all confirmed as fact — not accusation, but fact — the blatant, overt and systemic racism and disproportionate application of the law in a negative way against First Nations people. You can read any of those reports, any time, and they will confirm that. Saying that there are some Mohawks who run drugs is like saying all Canadians are serial killers, just because some Canadians have been serial killers. What that does is propagate more racism against First Nations people, as if we’re all criminals in addition to terrorists, and that’s not acceptable. [Translation] Senator Dagenais: I do not want to have a debate with you. At the time, police officers from the Sûreté du Québec were asked to protect your communities. The Sûreté du Québec was there, because you did not have a police force to protect you anymore. You know, the United Nations are another matter, but sometimes they should come see how things are on the ground. [English] The Chair: Colleagues, we are at the end of the time for the panel. (Taken from official transcript). Videos of my responses to the three questions above can be found at the following links: Question 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5XPVC6v5IY Question 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZGOgEgZokI Question 3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3H4k1apVks

  • RCMP Report on Murdered and Missing Aboriginal Women is Statistically Skewed

    In 2014, the RCMP released a report on their “National Operational Review” on the issue of “Missing and Murdered Aboriginal Women” which amounted to 1181 women total – 164 missing and 1017 murdered.  The core conclusion of the report was that “Aboriginal women”* were over-represented in the numbers of murdered and missing. They cautioned readers that their report contained a certain amount of “error and imprecision” given the thirty year period of review, the human error of investigators, inconsistency of collection, and definitional issues.

    Let’s look at that caveat a little closer. The RCMP had to “limit” their file review to missing women who had been identified by RCMP on CPIC (Canadian Police Information Centre) as “non-white” female or “blank”. The category of “Aboriginal origin” was only recently added to CPIC and so could not possibly capture all Aboriginal persons. Similarly, the numbers do not include Aboriginal women who were mistakenly recorded as “white” or Aboriginal women who were reported missing but were never recorded. Given the high level of overt and systemic racism in policing as confirmed in the Donald Marshall Jr., Manitoba Justice, Ipperwash, and Pickton inquiries, the numbers of those missing never recorded could be extremely high.

    Now, let’s look at how the RCMP or other jurisdictions determine who is “Aboriginal”. The RCMP report notes that they used “perception-based assessment”. In other words, “how a police officer defines how an individual looks in terms of complexion and/or ancestry”. However, even this determination is not consistent across jurisdictions. Any number of jurisdictions use the following to identify persons:

                (1) official Aboriginal “status”;

                (2) officer discretion; and

                (3) self-identification.

    Based on the above, it would seem logical that the RCMP would miss identifying a large portion or even majority of Aboriginal persons. In the first methodology, I presume they meant to say “Indian status” or “Indian registration” because there is no formal or official “Aboriginal status”. I hope the RCMP know at least this much about the legislated identity of Indigenous peoples in Canada (hint: it’s in the Indian Act). For those that only use “Indian status”, that would exclude all the non-status Indians, Métis, and Inuit individuals in Canada. The most recent National Household Survey indicated that there were 1,400,685 Aboriginal people in Canada and only 637,660 of them were registered Indians. That leaves 763,025 individuals (more than half the Aboriginal population) excluded from possible identification as Aboriginal by RCMP standards.

    Even those who are identified based on their official Indian status, the RCMP fails to take into consideration the fact that there are well over 20,000 people with Indian status who do not descend from nor identify as “Indian” or “Aboriginal”. This is thanks again to the Indian Act which made non-Indian women and their non-Indian male and female children registered as Indians, despite their lack of Aboriginal ancestry or cultural connection. This equates to thousands of men with Indian status that are not in fact Aboriginal.

    With regards to the second methodology, the RCMP are identifying Aboriginal peoples based on a racist set of biological and/or physical characteristics which they unilaterally assign to Aboriginal people. In other words, “Aboriginal people” are treated as one race of people with certain pre-determined physical characteristics – like hair, eye or skin colour. They ignore the fact that Indigeneity is social, cultural, political, legal, territorial, and nation-based – not an identity based on race. This racist methodology would be as useless as trying to identify a Canadian citizen gone missing in the USA based on skin colour. Clearly, the RCMP would miss the vast majority of “Aboriginal people” using this kind of methodology.

    With regard to the third methodology of self-identification, the RCMP failed to indicate what percentage of jurisdictions actually rely on self-identification. This of course would not work in the context of a murdered or missing Aboriginal woman as she cannot self-identify. It might only work in the context of the woman’s family or friends choosing to identify her as Aboriginal. It is impossible to know how many people would voluntarily self-identify given the extent to which every level of the justice system is infected with overt and systemic racism as per the numerous justice inquiries. Many Aboriginal people have a justified fear of the RCMP stemming from residential school days, Starlight tours, and deaths in police custody – as well as provincial police forces for similar reasons.

    So, it is logical to conclude that the RCMP grossly under-counted the actual numbers of murdered and missing Aboriginal women in Canada. This conclusion is confirmed by the RCMP’s own admission that due to these methodological problems “a high number of Homicide survey reports where the identity of the victim (and/or accused) remained unknown“. This admission on their part is extremely important in understanding the racist dialogue which has recently unfolded at the Ministerial level.

    Aboriginal Affairs Minister Bernard Valcourt has been very vocal in his refusal to conduct a national inquiry into murdered and missing Indigenous women and little girls. He has publicly stated that part of the problem is that First Nation men “have a lack of respect for women and girls on reserve”. Aside from the fact that he forgot Métis and Inuit people who don’t live on reserves, Valcourt went on to tell Treaty 6 Chiefs that 70% of the cases, Aboriginal women were killed by Aboriginal men. The RCMP refused to release the statistics on the alleged perpetrators as they claimed a commitment to “bias-free” policing. That commitment did not last long as they issued a letter several days later to Treaty 6 Grand Chief seeming to back up Minister Valcourt.

    The RCMP’s exact words to Treaty 6 Grand Chief Martial were as follows:

    “In considering the offender characteristics, a commonality unrelated to the ethnicity of the victim was the strong nexus to familial and spousal violence. Aboriginal females were killed by a spouse, family member or intimate relation in 62% of the cases; similarly, non-aboriginal females were killed by a spouse, family member or intimate relation in 74% of occurrences.”

    This statistic confirms that Canadian women are more often killed by their spouse or families than Aboriginal women. Yet, in the second paragraph of this letter, the RCMP explain that despite their bias-free policing policy and despite their confidentiality agreement with Statistics Canada, they would release the sensitive information relating to offenders anyway in order to back up Minister Valcourt’s claims that “70% of offenders were of Aboriginal origin”.

    Some commentators rushed to conclude that the RCMP statement does in fact support the Minister’s claims and (a) that this somehow reduces Canada’s culpability for both creating and refusing to deal with this crisis; and (b) that, in fact, 70% of offenders were Aboriginal. Neither of these conclusions are correct. The RCMP’s statistics, as noted above, are extremely skewed and unreliable when it comes to the identification of Aboriginal people – victims or offenders. It bears repeating that the RCMP’s own assessment of problems in its methodology led them to conclude:

    “a high number of Homicide survey reports where the identity of the victim (and/or accused) remained unknown“.

    This means that a high number of the accused in murder cases have an unknown identity. Therefore, the RCMP’s claim that 70% of the accused are Aboriginal is highly suspect at best and completely inaccurate at worst.

    There is also a problem with the assumption that because 64% of Aboriginal women are killed by their spouses or families, that those offenders were in fact “Aboriginal”. Aside from having to make the racist assumption that Aboriginal people only have relationships with other Aboriginal people, the statistics do not bear this out. If you look only at the case of First Nations people, the vast majority of First Nations have out-parenting rates (children with non-Aboriginal people) that are moderate to high. Specifically, 246 First Nations have an out-parenting rate of 40-60%; 162 First Nations have an out-parenting rate of 60-80%; and 49 First Nations have an out-parenting rate of 80-100%. It is safe to say that no less than half of First Nations are in spousal or familial relationships with non-Aboriginal people. So, even if 64% of Aboriginal women are murdered by their spouses, it does not follow that those spouses are “Aboriginal”. Statistically, they are just as likely to be non-Aboriginal.

    One must also keep in mind that the RCMP did not include statistics on the number of RCMP and provincial police officers who have been accused of physically and sexually assaulting, murdering and/or causing to go missing, Aboriginal women in Canada. Despite a Human Rights Watch report which details accounts by young Aboriginal women and girls at the hands of the RCMP – the RCMP has refused to investigate its own members. We know at least one RCMP officer who lost 7 days pay for violating an Aboriginal women and one provincial court judge who plead guilty to physically and sexually assaulted Aboriginal girls as young as 12 years old.

    This shell game of numbers and statistics is meant to blame the victim and deflect attention away from Canada’s continued inaction to address this crisis which the United Nations has called a “grave violation” of our basic human rights. The crisis of murdered and missing Indigenous women and little girls continues while Canada (through Valcourt) blames the victim and the RCMP fail to live up to their duty to serve and protect everyone in Canada.

    Shame on them both. Nothing in the RCMP numbers changes anything. Canada has a crisis of murdered and missing Indigenous women and little girls regardless of who is doing the killing – and we need to address it.

    Don’t be fooled or distracted by Canada’s games. 

    We should all stay focused on pushing for both a national inquiry and for an emergency action plan to protect our women and girls and address the underlying root causes and inequities which make them vulnerable to begin with. * I use the term “Aboriginal” in this blog to reflect the terminology of the RCMP report only.

  • My Response to Questions from Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security on Bill C-51

    *Mr. Romeo Saganash (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Welcome and thank you to both of our witnesses this morning.  I want to start with Ms. Palmater. I’ve been in this business for more than 30 years as well. I’ve been called many names, too. All of our protests and challenges posed by aboriginal peoples in this country are always related to the economy of this country: resource development is, of course, an important aspect to all of that. The far-reaching proposed provisions in Bill C-51 are therefore somewhat a direct threat to section 35 rights. National Chief Bellegarde recommended that we scrap this bill. You say that this bill must be withdrawn because it’s not fixable. I happen to agree with that. For 150 years in the history of this country, governments have always been adversaries to aboriginal peoples in this country. We both know that. What we’ve always considered as rights issues have always been viewed or treated as police issues or law and order issues, on the other hand—by successive provincial, federal, and municipal governments, I might add. Will this proposed legislation make matters worse or better for indigenous peoples in this country, and why?  Dr. Pamela Palmater: Thank you for your question. It’s an important one because, as I stated, it doesn’t just impact indigenous peoples, it impacts the rest of Canada: environmentalists, unions, women’s groups, children’s advocates. We have to get real about what is the clear and present danger here. How many Canadians on Canadian soil have died from acts of terrorism? Compare that with how many thousands of murdered and missing indigenous women and girls there are. Where is the Bill C-51 to protect them? How many husbands have killed their wives? How many serial killers have we had? Yet we’re focusing on Bill C-51. The problem is this bill isn’t really about terrorism. If you do an analysis of this omnibus bill, the focus is, just as you’ve said, less about being anti-terrorism and more about protecting the status quo in terms of power relations and economic relations. This new national security law focuses on threats to sovereignty, territorial integrity, diplomatic relations—of all things—economic stability, critical infrastructure. All of these things are an essential part of the daily lives of Canadians and first nations. Passing this bill for any activity, any person, any purpose that threatens national security so defined as financial stability and territorial integrity, makes us all suspects. Canada won’t even have to pass this bill, the terrorists will have won. What is terrorism? Fundamentally it’s the denial of life, liberty, and security of the person. If Canada goes ahead and takes those rights away, terrorists just have to sit back, job done. We worked far too hard in our treaty negotiations. We worked far too hard in the development of the charter, and the Constitution, and all of the international laws that protect core, fundamental human rights, to allow that to happen because we want to protect some corporate economic interests. Mr. Romeo Saganash: Given that your access to information request has shown that you’ve already been surveilled for perfectly legal civic actions, is it reasonable to assume—let me put it that way—that if this law is passed, this legislation is passed, you could be viewed as a terrorist for the same lawful activities? Dr. Pamela Palmater: Bill C-51, as currently written, would capture everything under Idle No More. Imagine, Grand Chief Matthew Coon Come of the Grand Council of the Crees offered a quote for my submission as well that said that had their activities been done today as opposed to back then, there wouldn’t be the negotiation of the the James Bay Agreement, they would all be in jail. The Idle No More movement, which was a historical coming together of first nations and Canadians peacefully dancing and singing and drumming, would now all be monitored—if it isn’t already, as the media has indicated that we are clearly monitored—and perhaps arbitrarily detained. All of these things are very frightening for this country. Keep in mind that the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples protects us, grants us, and recognizes under international customary law that we can act autonomously, that we can occupy our lands. Under the Department of National Defence’s manual, occupying our lands, advocating for autonomy, and advocating for political rights is described as “insurgency” alongside jihadists. It is no comfort that there is a proviso saying that lawful activity, lawful dissent, lawful protest, lawful art—whatever that is—won’t be captured by this bill, because the second we do a round dance in the street without a permit, it very quickly becomes unlawful. We have to remember that I already went over all of the very validly enacted laws that Canada has had that have ended up in the killing, murder, rape, violence, sterilization, and scalping of our people. Those were valid laws. The only way to protect ourselves was to act unlawfully in resistance. What we’re saying now is that the clear and present danger to first nations and Canadians is in the environmental destruction and the contamination of our water, and that we have a right to defend our life, liberty, and security to protect our future generations. Under this bill that will all be captured as a threat to national security and/or terrorism.  The Chair: Thank you very much. Your time is up, Mr. Saganash. … Hon. Diane Ablonczy: Okay, thank you very much. I just wanted to give Ms. Palmater time to put her legal training to work. And her activist knowledge and just to help us to understand how you feel that Section 2 Activities might impact you. The Chair: Ms. Palmater, we’ve already expired the time but I will certainly give you an opportunity to just briefly to respond to that if you wish. Dr. Pamela Palmater: Thank you for asking because as you probably know I was a lawyer for Justice Canada and worked on legislation and have taken training in legislative interpretation and regulatory drafting. Which is why I was quite shocked that this legislation ever made it here. The Justice Canada lawyers, that I know would never have said that this is any where near constitutional. The problems are that little list that you just read, is just a list. It’s just an example, some examples of what would be threats to national security. There is no limit on the threat to national security. That “any activity”, means any activity. My problem is under the Bill, who gets to decide? Clearly, it’s Canada and independent law enforcement officers. What’s happening here is there is an infinite number of offences that are created, it’s not knowable. And we have a right as citizens to basic tenet of law. We have a right as citizens to know the offence for which we’re being charged, to be able to predict it in the future. We know we aren’t allowed to steal things, so we don’t steal things, or we know there’s consequences. Under this Bill, it’s literally anything. And that’s a problem in law, basically, and it’s certainly doesn’t correspond, it would never survive a Constitutional or Charter challenge, and I think that the former Supreme Court Justices have been pretty specific about that. Thank you. The Chair: Excuse me, Mr. Palmater, you are well over the time. Thank you very much. We will now go to Mr. Easter, please. Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Thank you Mr. Chairman. Thank you to both witnesses for your presentation today. And also for both your efforts out there beyond your appearance at the community, one on policing and one of legitimate public dissent, that profiles issues. I think that both are important in a democracy. First starting with you Ms. Palmater. You’ve mentioned the need for special first nations advocate. And I’m making an assumption here, I expect that relates to the section in the Bill where CSIS can apply for a warrant to do certain things. I take from your comments you’re suggesting that if the Bill goes through, there needs to be an amendment in that area that would allow for special advocates, in this case, first nations, that would be able to, I guess, provide the other side of the argument, before a judge in terms of whether or not a warrant is granted. Am I correct in that? Do you want to expand on that a little bit?   Dr. Pamela Palmater: Sure, just to be clear, I’m saying there is no way to save this bill at all. Hon. Wayne Easter: I understand that. Dr. Pamela Palmater: My recommendations were how to address the problem right now. We have a crisis right now, first nations being targeted by police officers and the government at large. If this bill were to pass and they added this provision of a special first nations advocate for all of these core processes, that wouldn’t stop first nations from being targeted to begin with. That’s like trying to provide compensation to murdered indigenous women after they’ve already been murdered. It’s too little, too late. So I don’t think it would be effective to counter all of the rights violations that are  currently under Bill C-51. Hon. Wayne Easter: Coming back to the request. One of the problems with the current bill where CSIS goes to a judge, the Minister of Justice called this judicial oversight. It’s not. It’s traditional authority to allow CSIS to do certain things. There are some that feel you need the balance before that judge that makes that decision. That’s what I’m trying to target on. Would there be better balance if you had a special advocate with first nations expertise where CSIS was asking a judge for that warrant to do certain things? Dr. Pamela Palmater: I think it would be more balanced than the current unbalance that there is in the bill keeping in mind that this bill also turns the justice system on its head and how our constitution works. That in fact, judges are, their role is to uphold the constitution and charter rights and not to find ways to get around them. So really asking them to undo all of their training or how we govern ourselves, even with the first nation advocate isn’t going to really address the core problem. Hon. Wayne Easter: I hear what you’re saying. Thank you. *Taken from Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security Committee Meeting March 24, 2015 – Evidence #57 – Unedited Transcript Copy provided by House of Commons Canada.

  • Transcript of my Testimony on Bill C-51 Anti-Terrorism Act – March 24 2015

    Dr. Pamela Palmater (Chair in Indigenous Governance, Ryerson University, Department of Politics & Public Administration, As an Individual)*  Thank you for inviting me here today to speak. I want to first acknowledge that we’re on the traditional territory of the Algonquin Nation and that’s not just the polite acknowledgement. That’s the very reason why all of you get to sit here today. Were it not for the cooperation, generosity, kindness, and political alliances, Canada wouldn’t be what it is. Were it not for the peace treaties between our nations that are now constitutionally protected and form part of the foundational aspect of Canada, none of us would be sitting here today. I think that goes to the very heart of Bill C-51 and why I am opposed to it. Canada has placed Bill C-51 before indigenous peoples without any information, analysis, details on how it will impact our nations, any consultation, information or consent from our part. It is a gross violation of our nations to nation relationship. I don’t have time to go through all of the technical legal details and problems with this bill except to say that I echo all of the concerns that have already been brought and will be brought by the thousands of lawyers in this country, security experts, former prime ministers and former Supreme Court of Canada justices. My main concern is how this bill will impact me, my family and indigenous peoples all over Canada and our treaty partners, other Canadians.   Canada has a long history of criminalizing every aspect of indigenous identity. From the scalping bounties in 1949, which nearly wiped out my Mi’kmaq Nation, to the Indian Act, which has outlawed our culture, our right to educate our own children, and even excluded indigenous women from our communities. Every aspect of our identity has been criminalized, both historically and continues into present day. In every single instance, we’ve had to resist all of these laws, keeping in mind these were all validly enacted laws. It was legal to take Mi’kmaq scalps; it was legal to confine us to reserves; it was legal to deny us legal representation. All of these things were law in Canada. We had to be criminals as in, we had to break the law in order to preserve our lives, our physical security, and our identities. We are being faced with this very problem again with Bill C-51. Over the years, these laws have morphed into provincial and municipal regulations that deal with even our traditional means of providing subsistence—hunting, fishing, gathering have all been so criminalized for indigenous peoples that we end up skulking around in the forest just to be able to provide food for our families. Every single court case that has been won at the Supreme Court of Canada has been a battle between indigenous peoples trying to live their lives and exercise their rights and identities facing some kind of criminal or regulatory charge. In every single instance, we have been labelled as criminals, treated as criminals, and one need only look at the current prison population to understand that this is still the case; not just the case, but as Howard Sapers, from the Office of the Correctional Investigator, has indicated, a “national crisis and embarrassment.” And why? Not because we’re actually terrorists; not because we’re more culturally predisposed to being criminals, but as a direct result of Canada’s discriminatory laws and policies. There have been endless justice inquiries, which have pointed to the infection in our Canadian justice system of racism. The Donald Marshall wrongful prosecution inquiry, the Manitoba justice inquiry, the Ipperwash Inquiry, say that every aspect of our justice system, from the arresting officers, to the lawyers, to the judges, to the prison systems, overtly and systemically discriminate against indigenous peoples. That’s our current reality. Bill C-51 proposes to take that to the last and final step. All we have left now, as indigenous peoples are our thoughts. Our private thoughts will now be criminalized. It will now be possible to be considered a terrorist for storing alleged terrorist propaganda on our own personal computers. My declaration of sovereignty, and I’m going to say it before Bill C-51 passes, I’m part of the sovereign Mi’kmaq Nation. That kind of material on my computer could be considered terrorism, a threat to national security because it’s a threat to Canada’s sovereignty. Welcome to the new terrorist. My name is Pam Palmater. I’m a lawyer, I’m a professor, I’m a mom, and I’m a social justice activist. I’ve won numerous awards for my work in social justice, women’s equality, and children’s rights but depending on whose radicalized view you speak of I have also been called a radical, bad Indian, eco-terrorist, enemy of the people, top-five-to-fear Canadian, dangerous militant, and Waco extremist. My biggest concern isn’t how I’m presented in the media or by government officials, I’m stronger than that. My biggest concern concern is how this impacts me right now, the level of government surveillance for a law-abiding, peaceful, social justice activist, who’s never been arrested or convicted of any crime. In my ATIP to CSIS they explain that they have a right to prevent subversive and hostile activities against the Canadian state which is why they have a file on me. However they don’t offer me the courtesy of saying why I would be considered subversive or hostile, in fact everything I do couldn’t be more public.   In my ATIP to Indian Affairs they would not confirm that they monitor me. However they said they do conduct an analysis of me and my activities because I’m an active voice. That analysis comprised 750 pages of documents which tracked all of my whereabouts, what provinces I was travelling to, where I was speaking, and the dates and times. However they could not provide my security file because it was destroyed. When I attend gatherings, rallies, protests, or public and private events I often cannot make cell phone calls, send texts, or access my social media, my bank cards, or my credit cards. I can be at an Idle No More rally or protest and text my children but I cannot communicate with the very chief who has the same protest. This causes me great concern for my safety. How am I supposed to help ensure the comfort and safety of the people at rallies and myself if I can’t communicate with anyone…and I don’t have to remind this committee the staggering statistics and vulnerabilities of indigenous women in this country. I contacted the RCMP as well. They never responded to my ATIP, however individual RCMP officers at various events have confirmed that they were there to monitor me. At numerous protests I have been informed by RCMP and provincial police that I had to keep my protest peaceful. Sometimes they didn’t identify themselves. At speaking engagements the host first nation would demand that any undercover RCMP, or Ontario, or other police officers identify themselves and in many cases they did. What’s more concerning is the number of government officials that follow me around from speaking engagement to speaking engagement and often identify themselves when called upon to do so. Probably the most shocking is when I travel internationally in countries like Samoa, Peru, England, and Switzerland only to be informed by local authorities that Canadian officials are there to monitor me. That’s very frightening in a country where I have committed no crime, but to advocate peacefully on behalf of my people. In the Prairie provinces the RCMP are very active. They will often call ahead to the University of First Nations where I’m speaking and ask them to identify what my target will be or where I plan my protest. This isn’t just a problem for me. We’ve all heard about Cindy Blackstock and others. Skipping of course to what my recommendations are because I can see that I’m out of time. Bill C-51 must be withdrawn there is no way to fix it. There must be proper public information consultation, specific consultation for indigenous peoples, and a proper parliamentary study. Directing Justice Canada to rubber stamp the bill is compliant even if it has a 95% chance of being overturned in court is not democratic. We need an independent review body to report on the ongoing surveillance of indigenous peoples that will take complaints, do proper investigations, and offer redress. Finally, we’re in desperate need of a special first nation advocate to be appointed for any and all court processes in all provinces and territories whenever applications are made in secret for court warrants. This person would be an amicus, a friend of the court who would be independent and can speak to all of the various constitutional and indigenous rights at stake. This is absolutely essential especially if Bill C-51 is to be passed. The Chair: Fine thank you very much, Ms. Palmater. *Taken from: Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security Committee Meeting March 24, 2015 – Evidence #57 – Unedited Transcript Copy provided by House of Commons Canada.