Warrior Life Studios

Pam Palmater

Tag: violence against women

  • Transitional Justice Plan Urgently Needed to End Genocide in Canada

    Transitional Justice Plan Urgently Needed to End Genocide in Canada

    Pam Palmater, Shelagh Day and Sharon McIvor testifying before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in Washington, DC – fall 2019

    For decades, the families of murdered and missing Indigenous women and girls and their communities; together with Indigenous women leaders and experts and allied human rights organizations, advocated for government action to end the crisis. Many families had called for a national inquiry, which was supported by various international human rights treaty bodies. After a tumultuous start and numerous set-backs, the National Inquiry concluded its work and released its final report at a ceremony on June 3, 2019, before hundreds of Indigenous family members, leaders and advocates. They found Canada guilty of both historic and ongoing genocide.

    Throughout the National Inquiry’s proceedings, Minister of Indigenous Affairs Carolyn Bennett committed that Canada would not sit idly by while the inquiry proceeded. They committed to take action to end the violence, which was well documented in numerous reports. Yet, they failed to act. Since the release of the final report, very little, if any substantive action has been taken by PM Trudeau’s Liberal government to end genocide against Indigenous women and girls in Canada.

    The abuse, exploitation, violence, disappearances and murders of Indigenous women and girls continues unabated and represents the largest human rights crisis ever facing Canada. The National Inquiry confronted this reality head on when it concluded that Canada is guilty of genocide that is both race-based and one that has specifically targeted Indigenous women. They found that:

    While the Canadian genocide targets all Indigenous peoples, Indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA people are particularly targeted.

    This finding was based on an independent legal analysis and the extensive evidence
    gathered during the inquiry. They further explained:

    Canada’s colonial history provides ample evidence of the existence of a genocidal policy – a manifest pattern of similar conduct which reflects an intention to destroy Indigenous peoples.

    What resulted from this finding was a media blitz of commentators engaging in debates as to whether the inquiry went too far; whether they were using the word to strategically to get attention; or whether anything other than the Holocaust could ever amount to genocide. Very few of those commentators had specifically worked in, were educated in, or conducted research on genocide; nor were most of them lawyers. Yet, these emotional or political reactions to the finding is what led the discussion versus the very pressing need for governments to take urgent action.

    Even the United Nations High Commissioner Michelle Bachelet expressed great concern and called on Canada to examine this finding. Similarly, Luis Almagro who heads the Organization of American States, expressed his concern that Canada was too slow to act on the national inquiry’s findings. Meanwhile, some commentators reacted by saying that the inquiry’s finding should be investigated. There is no utility in reinvestigating this finding. It is a legal finding based on fact and law. What was needed then and what is needed now is action to end the genocide.

    None of this should come as a shock to government officials, Indigenous leaders, scholars and activists have long been calling Canada’s historic and ongoing treatment of Indigenous peoples genocide. Some have also highlighted the fact that sexualized genocide towards Indigenous women and girls has been an integral part of Canada’s violent colonization of Indigenous lands. While not a specific focus of Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) investigation into residential schools, their final report also concluded that Canada’s actions towards Indigenous peoples amounted to cultural, physical and biological genocide: “part of a coherent policy to eliminate Aboriginal people as distinct peoples and to assimilate them into the Canadian mainstream against their will.”

    The crime of genocide is a crime under international law that developed over time – even before the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide adopted in 1948. A state need only be guilty of one of the five ways to commit genocide against a racial group like Indigenous peoples, which include:

    (1) killing;

    (2) physical/mental harm;

    (3) conditions of life to bring about
    destruction;

    (4) preventing births; and

    (5) the forced transfer of children.

    Canada is guilty of all five.

    The National inquiry, without excluding the possibility that individuals could be held liable for genocide in Canada, and duly noting that acts and omissions of provinces within Canada, draws a conclusion on the responsibility of Canada as a state for genocide under international law.

    The inquiry also found that pre- and post-colonial settler governments have created, maintained and reinforced an infrastructure of violence towards Indigenous women and girls. This infrastructure of violence is a complex set of institutional laws, policies, practices, actions and omissions that treat Indigenous women as lesser human beings, who are sexualized, racialized and treated as disposable because of their sex and their race. This infrastructure remains firmly in place today manifesting in high rates of violence towards Indigenous women and girls.

    This genocide has been empowered by colonial structures, evidenced notably by the Indian Act, the Sixties scoop, residential schools and breaches of human and Indigenous rights, leading directly to the current increased rates of violence death and suicide in Indigenous populations.

    The National Inquiry considered the following as examples of genocide:

    • Deaths of Indigenous women and girls in police custody;
    • Failure to protect them from exploitation and trafficking;
    • Failure to protect them from known killers;
    • Taking their children and placing in foster care at high rates;
    • Physical, mental and sexual abuse in state institutions (residential schools, hospitals, prisons, etc);
    • Denial of Indian status and band membership;
    • Forced and/or coerced sterilizations; and
    • Purposeful chronic underfunding of essential
    • human services like food, water, health, housing.

    These modern day examples discussed in the inquiry’s report would be in addition to
    earlier pre-meditated killings:

    • small pox blankets,
    • scalping bounties,
    • mass murders of some native groups, like the Beothuk; and
    • starvation policies and ethnic cleansing on the prairies.

    When considering the testimonies of thousands of families, Indigenous women leaders, and advocates, as well as subject-matter experts, together with extensive legal, historical and social science research; the inquiry could come to no other conclusion but genocide.

    Canada has displayed a continuous policy with shifting expressed motives but an ultimately steady intention, to destroy Indigenous peoples physically biologically and as social units.

    All governments and state agencies are still active perpetrators and perpetuators of genocidal violence against Indigenous women and girls in Canada. Ending the genocide which is embedded in state institutions and society as a whole, will require immediate and urgent remedies that match the scope and character of these grave human rights violations – i.e. a comprehensive national action plan that is well-resourced and focusing on transitioning Canada out of genocide. That is no small feat. This will require external oversight but international human rights bodies or experts, with Indigenous women as core decision-makers.

    Organizations like the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) have access to experts in genocide – experts who have worked with other countries to transition out of genocide. It makes no sense to ask the perpetrator of genocide to be the one to design the plan and implement the plan to get out of genocide. Indigenous women and human rights experts must be the ones to lead this process, together with international genocide experts to design this plan. Canadian officials must then work directly with Indigenous women and their Indigenous governments to oversee a fully- resourced transitional justice plan that is national in scope, applies to all levels of government and related agencies, and focuses on:

    1. ending ongoing genocide;
    2. reparations for harms done; and
    3. the prevention of future genocide.

    This will require an Indigenous and human rights framework and gender-based analysis for all stages of the plan. While Canada promised the United Nations that it would come up with a national action plan by June 2020, few expect more than their standard action plan framework that tends to be overly general with no measurable outcomes. This is why several Indigenous women and human rights advocates attended the IACHR in the fall of 2019 to ask for international intervention and oversight. Canada’s response at the time was that they were too busy with the election. Then, they were too busy with holidays. June is several weeks away and in all likelihood, Indigenous women and girls will be left behind again.

    Genocide is the worst crime and human rights violation that can be committed against a people. But you wouldn’t know it by looking at Canada’s lack of action on the crisis. Pipelines get more money and attention than Indigenous women and girls.

    It’s truly time for more international intervention before thousands more lives are lost.

    Video of IACHR session

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkQ4G5iEnAI&list=PLDnK0xT7aXRAGR7DszneZTPkBn0YJHfxB&index=11&t=292s

    Here is my latest Youtube video talking about the need for a gendered covid-19 plan to take into account that Indigenous women and girls face not only the pandemic, but also ongoing genocide:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mM6OBq1fo10
  • Justice system still not protecting Indigenous women and girls

    Justice system still not protecting Indigenous women and girls

    (Picture by Pam Palmater, Rally for Justice for Murdered and Missing Indigenous Women and Girls in Winnipeg)

    This article was originally published in The Lawyer’s Daily on May, 28, 2019.

    “Her life mattered. She was valued. She was important. She was loved.”

     R. v. Barton [2019] S.C.J. No. 33.

    Cindy Gladue was an Indigenous woman originally from Alberta, where she grew up with her four siblings and extended family. She was also the mother to three daughters and her family described her as both a loving mother and caring auntie. She had close friends and always dreamed about being the first in her family to go to university. Cindy Gladue loved and was loved. She did not deserve her violent death in 2011 nor the indignity done to her body after. 

    She is now one of the many thousands of murdered and missing Indigenous women and girls in Canada — a growing crisis that represents grave human rights violations. The trial of the man who admittedly committed this act of violence against Cindy is an example of how defective Canada’s justice system is when it comes to Indigenous women victims and how negligent Canada has been in ensuring the basic human rights of Indigenous women and girls are met.

    In this column, there will be no details about Cindy’s appearance, what she wore the night she was killed, where she was killed, whether she knew her killer, her level of education, her health status, or what she did for a living — because none of the facts is relevant to her death. Cindy is not to blame for her death. Cindy did not kill herself. Cindy did not engage in a dangerous knife fight or try to kill someone.

    Regardless of which version of the story is accepted by the next trial judge — that she was killed by a male trucker who violently cut an 11-cm gash in her vagina, or that she died from a tear from his violent, but unarmed interaction with her — she still died as a result. According to the SCC quoting from evidence at trial, the trucker then tried to hide evidence, change the crime scene and lie about his involvement. His name doesn’t deserve to be said aloud, nor does he get to hide behind any of the racist or sexist excuses he used at trial to defend himself. None of the evidence referred to at trial or the SCC indicates that he should be believed. Cindy’s life story does not get to be narrated by the man who admits to committing this violence against her.

    Sexualized violence against Indigenous women and girls in Canada has been allowed to continue in plain sight by government officials, police officers, lawyers and judges who have treated Indigenous women and girls as though they are less worthy of life. In fact, were it not for the lengthy and persistent advocacy of Indigenous women and their allies, Canadians would still be unaware of the crisis.

    However, awareness of the crisis only gets us so far. The court proceedings which followed Cindy’s death show just how deeply engrained racism and sexism against Indigenous women still is in Canadian society, especially the justice system. In R. v. Barton [2019] S.C.J. No. 33, Justice Michael Moldaver, writing for the majority, allowed the accused’s appeal in part and sent the matter back to trial, but only on the charge of the unlawful act of manslaughter. The dissent would have dismissed the accused’s appeal entirely. Justices Rosalie Silberman Abella and Andromache Karakatsanis writing for the dissent (Chief Justice Richard Wagner concurring) agreed with the Alberta Court of Appeal that the matter be ordered back for retrial on both charges of first-degree murder and manslaughter. 

    The majority made some important points about the extent to which racism is still widespread in the justice system. At para.199, the majority explained: “Furthermore, this Court has acknowledged on several occasions the detrimental effects of widespread racism against Indigenous people within our criminal justice system. For example, in Williams, this Court recognized that Indigenous people are the target of hurtful biases, stereotypes, and assumptions, including stereotypes about credibility, worthiness, and criminal propensity, to name just a few. … In short, when it comes to truth and reconciliation from a criminal justice system perspective, much-needed work remains to be done.”

    They went on to say that the criminal justice system and all of its participants must take reasonable steps to address these biases — especially against Indigenous women. To this end, they directed that, on a go forward basis, trial judges ought to provide express instruction to juries to counter the well-known prejudice against Indigenous women. While there is no set text, trial judges should instruct juries about Indigenous women and girls having been subjected to a long history of colonization and systemic racism and then dispel myths about Indigenous women and those who are exploited for sex. These stereotypes were outlined in para. 202:

              – Are not entitled to legal protections;

              – Not deserving of respect, humanity and dignity;

              – Are sexual objects for male gratification;

              – Are available for the taking and no consent needed;

              – Assume any risks associated with “sex work”;

              – Are less credible than other people.

    The majority further stressed that, as a matter of respect, both the Crown and the defence counsel should have referred to her as Ms. Gladue instead of “Native girl” during the trial. These are important points and the SCC made many important clarifications in the case in relation to the many problems surrounding sexual assault cases.

    However, there is a downside to the majority’s decision. Their logic and reasoning around the impact of racism and bias in this case did not follow through to their ultimate finding. The majority allowed the accused’s appeal in part, by limiting the charge for which the killer could be retried — manslaughter only. The dissent pointed out that racism doesn’t work that way and can’t be so easily compartmentalized. They explained that there was no “filter” on the victim’s prior sexual history and no warning by the judge to the jury to avoid making stereotypical assumptions about Indigenous women.

    They also argued that this created an image of Cindy “that was unfair and would have permeated the whole trial and the jury’s deliberations on both murder and manslaughter” (para. 214). The dissent further emphasized, “He [trial judge] provided no specific instructions crafted to confront the operative social and racial biases potentially at work. This rendered the whole trial unfair” (para. 215).

    While the dissent did go further than the majority, they too missed an important opportunity to speak to the indignity committed against Cindy’s body after her death when segments of her vagina were brought into court as an exhibit. Cindy was a life-giving mother of three girls. Her body and her life-giving parts had already suffered a gross violation which led to her death. There was no necessity — in an effort to prosecute her killer — to remove her life-giving parts and put them on display in a courtroom. They could have used the coroner’s testimony, animated illustrations of the extent of the cut or tear, and worst-case scenario, pictures. Putting her life-giving parts on display served to further dehumanize her before the judge and jury. 

    Even though the SCC made some important findings in this case, their caution that the justice system has a lot more work to do applies equally to them. We need more than the “important step forward” they commended themselves for — we need a wholescale change. That won’t happen if the highest court in the land cannot call out and end the kind of indignity committed against Cindy — which represents the many indignities committed against Indigenous women and girls since contact. 

    This article was originally published in The Lawyer’s Daily on May, 28, 2019 – link below:

    https://www.thelawyersdaily.ca/articles/12605/justice-system-still-not-protecting-indigenous-women-and-girls-pamela-palmater-?category=opinion