Indigenous Rights, Restorative Justice, Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, 60s Scoop, Great Law, United Nations Declaration of Indigenous Rights for Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP)
“We must broaden our way of thinking so that it recognizes the world as one human family. We are all children of one blood. It can be no other way, for there has to be a central source of all humanity where all living beings were created. With the help of our Ancestors, we have the ability to find out things for ourselves and put them together. Dignity is always on the side of the person on the receiving end of a racial slur.” (Sheila M. Conway (Gandoox), Coast Tsm’syen Elder, Oct. 3, 1913 – Feb. 8, 2014) |
WHAT IS ABORIGINAL JUSTICE?
|
60’s SCOOP
Until August, 2016, this was another little known historical insult perpetrated on Indigenous children. Dozens of supporters rallied outside a Toronto Courtroom on Tuesday, August 23, 2016, where an Ontario Superior Court judge will hear opening arguments for a summary judgment in a class action lawsuit against the federal government by survivors of the Sixties Scoop. At the heart of the Ontario lawsuit is a federal-provincial arrangement in which Ontario child welfare services placed as many as 16,000 Aboriginal children with non-native families from December 1965 to December 1984. “Thousands of First Nations, Métis and Inuit across Canada who were ripped from their homes as children are getting their day in court after a years-long struggle in what has become known as the “Sixties Scoop,” a painful, but little-understood chapter of Canadian history The so-called scoop happened between the 1960s and the 1980s and saw thousands of aboriginal children taken from their homes by child-welfare service workers and placed with mostly non-aboriginal families. In some cases, children were sent to live with families in other provinces, the United States and the U.K., often without the consent of their parents.” (Global News, August 23, 2016) “Statistics from the Department of Indian Affairs reveal a total of 11,132 status Indian children adopted between the years of 1960 and 1990. It is believed, however, that the actual numbers are much higher than that. While Indian Affairs recorded adoptions of ’status’ native children, many native children were not recorded as ’status’ in adoption or foster care records. Indeed, many ’status’ children were not recorded as status after adoption. Of these children who were adopted, 70% were adopted into non-native homes. Interestingly, of this latter group, the breakdown rate for these transracial adoptions is also 70%! Many of the adoptees, who are now adults, are seeking to reunite with birth families and communities. A substantial portion of these adoptees face cultural and identity confusion issues as the result of having been socialized and acculturated into a euro-Canadian middle-class society. For transracial adoptees, identity issues may be worsened by other problems arising during the search and reunion experience. As one author put it, the identity issues of adoptees may be compounded by being reacquainted with one of the most marginalized and oppressed group in North American society. There are lots of adult adoptees searching for families, and families searching for adoptees. As a result, several First Nation/Aboriginal reunification programs have sprouted up in Canada. These links are available below, and some have toll-free numbers. For adoptees who are not sure where their roots are, calling any of the agencies can be a first step. They will direct you to an agency or band or provincial post-adoption office that can help. Although Saskatchewan currently does not have a Native repatriation program, Saskatchewan Social Services has a part-time Repat worker who can assist at Post Adoption Registry, 1920 Broad Street, Regina, SK S4P 3V6, (306)787-3654 or 1-800-667-7539. For many adoptees and birth families, it has been beneficial to utilize the services of experienced Repatriation workers. These individuals can assist all parties in the emotional and psychological preparation for reunion.” By Dr. Raven Sinclair ravsin@sasktel.net (Taken from http//www.originscanada.org/the-stolen-generation) The above article states the facts, but cultural confusion often came in the form of complete denial of cultural roots. “I lost everything, including my name. I lost my family. I lost my language. I lost everything about my culture,” Martel told The Canadian Press. “This should never have happened. It was wrong.” (Marcia Brown Martel, Temagami First Nation) Many adopted children were subject to violence, much like residential school atrocities. This group was NOT included in the Federal apology, or any other apology for that matter. It was acknowledged, however, in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission Report. “By the end of the 1970s, the transfer of children from residential schools was nearly complete in Southern Canada, and the impact of the Sixties Scoop was in evidence across the country. In 1977, Aboriginal children accounted for 44 per cent of the children in care in Alberta, 51 per cent of the children in care in Saskatchewan, and 60 per cent of the children in care in Manitoba.” It was another of Canada’s dirty little secret’s as regards the subjugation of Native people. By the mid 1980’s the practice was condemned by Ontario Chiefs, as well as a Manitoba judicial enquiry and eventually discontinued. ************************************* RULING BY THE SUPREME COURT OF ONTARIO FEBRUARY 14, 2017 “For the reason set out above, when Canada entered into the 1965 agreement and over the years of the class period, Canada had a common-law duty of care to take reasonable steps to prevent on reserve Indian children in Ontario, who had been placed in the care of non-aboriginal foster or adoptive parents, from losing their aboriginal identity. Canada breached this common-law duty or care.” The ruling could cost Ontario over one billion dollars as it makes amends for “cultural genocide” |
60’s SCOOP, NEW INFORMATION
On February 1, 2017, Minister Bennett announced that Canada will launch negotiations towards a national resolution to Sixties Scoop litigation as the next step in Canada’s commitment to negotiate rather than litigate Childhood Claims. The Government of Canada and the parties have been working in close collaboration towards resolving the claims in a fair, compassionate, and respectful and manner that promotes reconciliation and healing through a Federal Court dispute resolution process headed by Justice Michel M.J. Shore. The parties signed an Agreement-in-Principle in August 2017. The Agreement-in-Principle represents a major milestone. Parties are working to finalize the agreement by the end of 2017, and will seek court approval through a fairness hearing targeted for Spring 2018. The Agreement-in-Principle provides for a substantial investment in the creation of a Foundation for healing, wellness, language, culture and commemoration going forward as well as individual compensation to approved plaintiffs. The key elements of the Agreement-in-Principle are as follows:
This is the first step in resolving the Sixties Scoop litigation. Canada is committed to working with other Indigenous individuals impacted by the Sixties Scoop and the provinces and territories who have already shown leadership in this area to resolve the remaining litigation. (Taken from the www.canada.ca website) |
60’s SCOOP, TRAGIC LEGACY
“The passage of the Child and Family Services Act of 1984 ensured that Native adoptees in Ontario would be placed within their extended family, with another Aboriginal family or with a non-native family that promised to respect and nurture the child’s cultural heritage. Aboriginal peoples also began to play a much greater role in the child welfare agencies that served them, and the numbers of native adoptees in general began to decline as more stayed with their birth parents. However, the act also dictated that old birth records remain sealed, unless both the birth parent and the child asked for them. This has helped keep the period in darkness and frustrated attempts by adoptees to learn about their roots. Those who now feel they were victimized by the adoption process have an extremely difficult time knowing who they are.” PERMANENT SCARS “Just as the closing of the residential schools did not mean their legacy of suffering instantly vanished, so the end of the Sixties Scoop did not mean that all the native adoptees who were farmed out to abusive or alienating non-native families suddenly found themselves with a clear-cut identity or a secure place in society. Indeed, many still found themselves not only “torn between two worlds,” but literally unsure if they were Native at all, and not French or Italian as their adoptive parents claimed. Their birth records were sealed and often amended to include the names of the adoptive, rather than biological, parents. Moreover, their adoption records were in many cases inaccurate, incomplete, falsified or simply missing. As a result, many native adoptees who did try to locate their birth parents or confirm their native status wasted literally decades on failed searches or frustrating battles with Children’s Aid authorities or Indian Affairs officials.” |
60’s SCOOP, CONTINUED
Linda Diebel, November 5, 2011 National Affairs Writer, Toronto Star “The Harper government is fighting a class action lawsuit by aboriginal children who argue the loss of their culture in foster and adoptive care was a wrongful act — a case that could make western legal history. Although Ontario Children’s Aid agencies took 16,000 children from their families during the so-called Sixties Scoop and placed them in non-aboriginal care, the multi-million-dollar lawsuit names only the Attorney General of Canada. Ottawa is constitutionally responsible for native peoples. Ottawa quietly appealed the lawsuit in a Toronto courtroom on Oct. 28 — a year after it was certified by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. As a result, the case hasn’t gotten to court almost three years after it was filed. Taken as children, the plaintiffs are now middle-aged and, in many cases, desperate to find their roots. They tell stories of abuse, prejudice, loneliness and isolation. They convey a sense of having been treated like commodities rather than human beings. Accounts suggest many were bounced around — even from country to country — with nobody keeping track. Marcia Brown, 48, is a lead plaintiff on the case. Ontario Children’s Aid officials took her from the Beaverhouse First Nation in northeastern Ontario when she was 4. Brown, who’s Ojibwa, went from foster homes to an adoptive home at 9, where she says her non-aboriginal mother tried to wash off her “dirty brown” colour and burned her stuffed tiger full of “Indian bugs.” After the case was filed in early 2009, she told the Star: “I knew God himself didn’t want me.” Jeffery Wilson, who represents the Aboriginal plaintiffs, criticizes Ottawa for tangling up the suit with legal wrangling paid by taxpayers. “The attitude of the Crown suggests to my clients that their culture is worth less than nothing,” said Wilson, an expert in children and the law. Co-counsel Morris Cooper specializes in class action suits. Says Cooper: “You’re dealing with a defendant (Ottawa) with bottomless resources and certainly no interest in seeing any resolution to this litigation.” From her Kirkland Lake home, Brown says she’s disappointed by the appeal. She believes it contradicts public rhetoric about justice for First Nations and Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s apology to the aboriginal survivors of residential church schools. The “kill the Indian in the child” mentality of the past is supposed to be defunct. “It’s the same thing,” says Brown, of the Sixties Scoop. “I look at this appeal as a lack of respect for our rights and culture. It’s just wrong.” When she was 17 and living in Texas with her adoptive mother, the woman took her to the Houston airport, handed her a ticket to Canada and sent her packing with nothing but a suitcase filled with her little girl clothes. “I didn’t get to speak in my own tongue to my grandmother before she passed away,” she says. “I didn’t fit in anywhere. I saw no difference between myself and a puppy or kitten up for adoption.” “I will never give up . . . . We live in a beautiful country but a great mark — the unpleasant history with the aboriginal people — stains Canada. The Canadian public doesn’t know the truth about what happened to the children.” In a 2010 update, Wilson wrote to aboriginal leaders: “For the first time in western law jurisprudence, a case will proceed on the basis that loss of culture is can be litigated as a wrongful act.” Asked why Ottawa is fighting the claims of aboriginal children, an Aboriginal Affairs spokesperson referred the Star to the justice ministry. A fax from justice said it would be “inappropriate” to comment. “On the matter of costs (of the federal legal team), I will refer you to the department’s access to information and privacy office . . . contact information below,” the fax says. Rob Lackie, 41, an Inuk from Happy Valley in Labrador, was also part of the Sixties Sweep (which actually ran from 1965 to 1985 with Ontario officials). Much of his past remains a mystery to him. It’s not clear how Ontario Children’s Aid officials were able to offer him for adoption in 1974 to a couple from Georgian Bay. They flew to Newfoundland, picked him up in Bay Bulls and, then back in Ontario, finalized the adoption in Simcoe County. He was 4 and had already been through three foster homes. With two fair, blue-eyed siblings, he realized he was different but didn’t know about his Inuit birthright until he was 11. He didn’t meet his biological mother until 2006. He says the biggest loss was growing up without the rich language and culture of his birth. For that reason, he believes authorities should have focused on finding aboriginal families for the children. Lackie, who lives in Toronto, says: “I always felt as if a big part of my life was missing.” His adoptive parents were kind, but unable to preserve his heritage. He has spent the last few years learning about the Inuit culture and taking classes in the Inuktitut language. For the first time, too, he met his sister who lives in the U.S. They were separated and he says she doesn’t qualify for the class action suit because she’s an American citizen. During the certification hearing in 2010, Wilson cites an exchange with Superior Court Justice Paul Perell. He says Perell inquired what would happen if 16,000 Jews in Canada similarly lost their cultural identity. Wilson paraphrases his response: “Well, your honour, there would be a huge uproar if 16,000 Jews lost their culture . . . (as there would be) with 16,000 Muslims or 16,000 Hindus.” This prompted a clarification that only with First Nations people is there a clear constitutional obligation by the federal government. A decision on the appeal — before a three-member tribunal that includes Associate Chief Justice J. Douglas Cunningham — is expected this fall. Since the Toronto case began, similar claims have been launched in B.C. and Saskatchewan. The practice of ignoring cultural identity is supposed to be over. But in her 2008 annual report, then-federal auditor Sheila Fraser criticized Indian Affairs for failing to oversee the “cultural appropriateness” of child-care services for aboriginal children. |
60’s SCOOP, LEGAL CHALLENGE QUASHED Linda Diebel, January 26, 2012 National Affairs Writer, Toronto Star “The federal government has won its appeal in Divisional Court against a class-action lawsuit on behalf of 16,000 Aboriginal children taken from reserves in Ontario in what’s known as the “Sixties Scoop.” (Since overturned, and Ontario Supreme Court is hearing the case as of August, 2016) The decision is seen as a major setback for Aboriginal plaintiffs, now adults, who allege Ottawa stripped them of their cultural identify by sending them off as children to non-aboriginal homes. Many told stories of abuse, alienation and isolation in foster and adoptive homes in Canada and the U.S.” The decision has caused quite a controversy among legal pundits across the land. Superior Court Judge, Paul Perell appears to be the fall guy. He apparently certified the class-action suit with the provision that the plaintiffs file an amended statement of claim. The Divisional Court ruled that this was prejudicial to the federal government because the amendment appeared to be pre-approved. Hiding behind the narrow parameters of legal opinion, and that is what it is, an opinion. The lawyers for the plaintiffs will fight on to first win the right to appeal the Divisional Court ruling and then win the appeal. Similar lawsuits are raging in B.C., Alberta and New Brunswick. On top of that the Division Court said that Justice Perell could not hear any of the appeals” It’s costing the tax payers millions of dollars because of the systemic racism of the Federal Government to once again have to admit they were wrong in the horrendous treatment of thousands of Aboriginal children who are CANADIAN CITIZENS! |
IS ABORIGINAL CRIME A SOCIAL OR CRIMINAL PROBLEM?
Poverty, poor education, unemployment, substance and sexual abuse, dysfunctional families, are problems prevalent in both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal societies. Studies show, that most of the crimes committed by Aboriginal offenders are both petty in nature and drug/alcohol-related. In addition, racial marginalization and the disproportionately high incarceration rate of Aboriginal offenders, suggests that restorative justice needs to focus on social rather than criminal issues. A justice system that is not responsible to the experiences and needs of Aboriginal people actually contributes to the high imprisonment levels. In other words, there is law, but is there justice? The above is a discussion that I’ve had with a wide variety of audiences and post-secondary educational institutions i.e., criminal justice courses, political science, sociology, social work, police foundations. Talk to me about a visit to your event. |
UNITED NATIONS DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLE
The United Nations stated that human rights are universal, indivisible and interdependent; indeed, human rights are what make us civilized. “When we speak of the right to life, freedom, dissent and diversity, we are speaking of tolerance to choose our own social, political and economic paths.” The former UN Secretary, Kofi Annan said, “The Declaration [refers to Universal Declaration of Human Rights] rests on a basic premise that when the rights of human defenders are violated, all our rights are put in jeopardy and all of us are made less safe.” If the foregoing statement is “universally” accepted, then why did the United Nations defeat the Proposed Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous people? Who, then has the responsibility for determining and upholding universal human rights? Why do atrocities around the world continue to occur? Can we conclude that the United Nations does not (or, perhaps, cannot) always enforce its own mandate? If the rights of Indigenous people around the world can be violated without warning, for example, as have the rights of so many people from all backgrounds, it would seem that everyone’s rights today are also in jeopardy. Excerpts from the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, December 10, 1948 Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world, Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people, Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law, Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations, Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom, Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms, Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge, Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction. Article 1. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. Article 2. Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty. Article 3. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. Article 4. No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms. Article 5. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Article 6. Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law. Article 7. All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination. Article 8. Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law. Article 9. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile. Article 10. Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him. Article 11. (1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defense. (2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed. Article 12. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. DECLARATION ON THE RIGHTS OF INDIGNEOUS PEOPLES After twenty two years of discussion, the declaration was finally adopted by the General Assembly, Resolution 61/295 September 13, 2007 The General Assembly, Affirming that Indigenous peoples are equal to all other peoples, while recognizing the right of all peoples to be different, to consider themselves different, and to be respected as such, Affirming also that all peoples contribute to the diversity and richness of civilizations and cultures, which constitute the common heritage of humankind, Affirming further that all doctrines, policies and practices based on or advocating superiority of peoples or individuals on the basis of national origin or racial, religious, ethnic or cultural differences are racist, scientifically false, legally invalid, morally condemnable and socially unjust. Reaffirming that Indigenous peoples, in the exercise of their rights, should be free from discrimination of any kind, Concerned that Indigenous peoples have suffered from historic injustices as a result of, inter alia, their colonization and dispossession of their lands, territories and resources, thus preventing them from exercising, in particular, their right to development in accordance with their own needs and interests, Recognizing the urgent need to respect and promote the inherent rights of indigenous peoples which derive from their political, economic and social structures and from their cultures, spiritual traditions, histories and philosophies, especially their rights to their lands, territories and resources, Recognizing also the urgent need to respect and promote the rights of indigenous peoples affirmed in treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements with States, Welcoming the fact that indigenous peoples are organizing themselves for political, economic, social and cultural enhancement and in order to bring to an end all forms of discrimination and oppression wherever they occur, Convinced that control by indigenous peoples over developments affecting them and their lands, territories and resources will enable them to maintain and strengthen their institutions, cultures and traditions, and to promote their development in accordance with their aspirations and needs, Recognizing that respect for indigenous knowledge, cultures and traditional practices contributes to sustainable and equitable development and proper management of the environment. Four countries did not approve the declaration: Canada, United States, Australia and New Zealand. The irony is almost too painful to comment on. These are four of the major countries that have historically oppressed and disenfranchised Indigenous groups and continue to do so. The Declaration is the result of almost 25 years of work and collaboration between UN member states and Indigenous peoples from around the world. Indigenous leaders from Canada played a significant role in its development, including drafting and negotiating. TIMELINE: GOVERNMENT OF CANADA AND UNDRIP
|
DEMOCRATIC NATION BUILDING
Many of today’s band councils are unable to achieve a positive balance that will satisfy all the reserve’s citizenry. This is further aggravated by the fact that individuals compete for political power with the more dishonest using criteria to exclude those, mainly women, who are the most marginalized in order to advance their person agendas. Such behaviour creates a climate of fear, non-support and despair. When it is done correctly, nation building among Indigenous communities can be a glorious accomplishment. Indigenous identity is tied up in the building of holistic and harmonious communities by intelligent consensus. In other words, nation building relies on objectivity, consensus, compassion, trust, courage and respect for all members of the nation. It needs emphasizing that communities today need to understand what the Indian Act did and is doing to undermine the relationship between men and women as it legislates colonialism. In the past women played a critical role in facilitating an harmonious environment and the tribes hummed for 60,000 years. Is it so difficult to make the leap and acknowledge that women and men can sit together in a dignified manner and engage in dialogue that will see the tribes safely through the 21st century? Past and present social and combative issues continue to cast a dark shadow over attempts to resolve gender issues. We simply have to believe that we can do this. It requires respect for each other’s intelligence and the will to place the health and safety of the whole community over petty power struggles. Only in the resolution of gender will communities be able to move in an equitable manner towards addressing such things as democratic self-government, sustainable economies, management of natural resources and environment, and most importantly, cultural continuity. After all, it is the women who create the stories. |
The following is taken from; Aboriginal Law Handbook, 2nd ed., by Shin Imai.
HOW DOES LAW-MAKING WORK BETWEEN GOVERNMENTS AND INDIGENOUS PEOPLES? The relationship between the application of federal laws and provincial laws is complicated.
The final complication is found in s.88 of the Indian Act which makes provincial laws applicable to Natives under certain circumstances. While this section plays an important role in the past, its current relevance to the application of provincial laws is in transition. |
WHAT IS RESTORATIVE JUSTICE
First, let me tell you that is it NOT what a recent National Post article snidely said, “a group hug for offenders.” I’m not sure where such thought processes come from except from the minds and pens of those entrenched in the idea that incarceration actually works! Corrections Canada is one of the largest corporations in this country, and unless it has prisoners, prisons are irrelevant. What makes it worse is that Canada’s First Nations population comprise approximately 2.7% of the thirty-six million of us. Yet, Indigenous offenders comprises a little over 18% of the prison population. Something is wrong if that number continues to remain as consistent as it does. Corrections Canada is making some moves in the direction of restorative justice issues by introducing, for example, sweatlodges and Indigenous Elders into prisons across Canada. The reality is that the programs are inconsistent with prisoner needs as well as being severely woefully under-funded. Having worked with youth in corrections, I can attest to the fact that payment for services rendered is flat out insulting to those of us committed to the healing of our people. The prison system is a huge employer with equally large budgets. It is akin to seriously trying to find a cure for cancer which is not going to happen. After all, what would happen to millions and millions of dollars poured into research, development, political and social organizations if an actual cure was found. Tens of thousands of people would be out of work. Is this another corporation? Perhaps it is by design, who knows, but as long as the focus is not on healing but on incarceration and/or finding an actual cure nobody wins but the bottom line of the corporation. Restorative Justice is also NOT about:
Restorative Justice IS about:
Toronto’s Gladue Court, for example is embedded in the current justice system. It has at its root RESPECT because it allows for all parties involved an opportunity to provide input and to participate in the process as completely as possible. The process recognizes the integrity of hearing everyone without judgment as clarification is provided from each person involved. It takes tremendous trust and faith that restoration will be made in a manner that is just, honest and respectful. Important & Interesting Note: When the State becomes the primary victim, that is its laws (i.e. criminal code) have been violated, then it automatically shoves aside victim’s rights and the community. They do not have the opportunity of coming together to resolve conflicts because the state’s interests have to be served first. Restorative Justice is also not new. All across Asia, interest in restorative justice has been focused on Juvenile justice. In his book, A Spiral of Success: Community Support is Key to Restorative Justice in Japan, John Haley writes that Japan has been the most successful industrial democracy in dealing with crime. “Japanese authorities have learned from experience that offender correction and restoration to the community are essential elements of an approach that has proven to be effective in correcting socially deviant behavior. What has developed is a spiral of success, with law enforcement officials, community members, criminals, and victims working interdependently to prevent crime and reintegrate offenders back into the community.” |
SENTENCING CIRCLES
Traditional Aboriginal sentencing circles have been integrated into the Canadian justice system in several Native communities. Instead of meting out punishment such as jail terms, circles focus on healing the victim, perpetrator and community. The circle is a powerful alternative to prison terms imposed by courts — not only for Aboriginal people but, potentially, for all communities. The high Native prison population in Canada is of concern to political leaders but not so much that finding long-term solutions should become a top priority; it is a slow process. The introduction of Native sentencing circles includes the critical element of healing – not only the perpetrator, but the victim and the whole community. Community involvement is integral to the success of sentencing circles because it is ultimately the community who feels responsible for the wrongful act on the part of one of its members. Rupert Ross’ book, Returning to the Teachings, has a thoughtful look at this method of justice. He also provides first-hand examples that he witnessed. The following is an excerpt from, Moving Toward Native Justice: Intercultural Communication in Aboriginal Sentencing Circles in Canada, by Jean-Paul Restoule “Sentencing circles are not perfect. However, they are, for Native people, an improvement over the Canadian court system in many ways. They attempt to heal the offender rather than merely punish him. They give Native offenders a sense of self-esteem. They restore the relationships and health of the community. They save money by reducing rates of recidivism (Mandamin, 1996), by reducing both the number and length of prison sentences, and by reducing the amount of time spent in court hearing cases. Although successful in addressing the specific cultural situation of Indigenous peoples, this process need not be limited to Native offenders. There are now some initiatives to allow non-Native people, in particular circumstances, to submit themselves to the process of the sentencing circle as an alternative to traditional court procedures. One can see the benefit this system would have in dealing with young offenders and offenders with drug and alcohol abuse problems. The hurdles that currently face the sentencing circle are awareness and education. Media representation of sentencing circles may be able to foster more effective inter-cultural communication between Native people and Canadians. If presented properly, the sentencing circle has the potential to challenge cultural stereotypes of the ‘criminal Indian’ to which many Canadian people mistakenly cling. However, a backlash might be expected from people who would see the sentencing circle as a way of allowing Aboriginal offenders to be handled with kid gloves. The sentencing circle is not an infallible method for all legal cases. Aboriginal people themselves executed very severe punishments for the very worst offences. It is likely that murder charges and similarly heinous crimes would be tried in Canadian courts without the option of a sentencing circle. But having the choice of the sentencing circle for Aboriginal people is increasing as more communities educate themselves about the process. There is a movement to reclaim it and present it as an alternative to Canadian and provincial judicial systems. The rebirth of this tradition as an alternative to current procedures of justice could have repercussions that, in the future, fundamentally alter the power relations between Native people and the Canadian government.” |
EXERCISING THE RIGHT OF SELF-GOVERNMENT AS REGARDS JUSTICE MATTERS
The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples in Bridging The Cultural Divide, came to the following conclusions on self-government and criminal justice.
The establishment of urban Native justice systems will be involved with the delivery and administration of justice. |
BEWARE WOMEN!
“Any Indian woman who marries any person other than an Indian, or a non-treaty Indian, shall cease to be an Indian in every respect within the meaning of this Act, except that she shall be entitled to share equally with the members of the band to which she formerly belonged, in the annual or semi-annual distribution of their annuities, interest moneys and rents: Provided that such income may be commuted to her at any time at ten years purchase, with the approval of the Superintendent General.” (1920) NOTE: The true meaning of these amendments were quite simply, “Get the Women, Get the Children, Reduce the Bloodline.” Many Native men were deliberately plied with alcohol by unscrupulous Indian Agents who sat with them in “good ole boy comradeship” and urged them to sign on the dotted line. |