As a writer I’m a little conflicted about the state censoring free speech. Freedom requires the ability to speak freely, and in a perfect world everyone should be free to discuss contentious issues. But words aren’t neutral, and sometimes words are used break the law. Which is why even nations that protect freedom of speech use law to limit it when necessary.
In addition to these word based crimes that limit our freedom of speech, Canada also has laws against hate speech and hate crime. Since the election of American President Donald Trump, acts of hatred have been on the rise, not just there, but throughout the world. And certainly here in Canada. American society seems especially prone to allowing words and actions used to incite or assault, and even privacy invasion to be protected as “free speech.”
“A hate crime is one in which hate is the motive and can involve intimidation, harassment, physical force or threat of physical force against a person, a group or a property.”
Although there is some variety across Canadian jurisdictions,
“A hate crime is a criminal offence committed against a person or property that is based solely upon the victim’s race, religion, nationality, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, gender or disability.”
Even if there is no other Criminal Code violation, a hate crimes can be charged on their own. But when elements of any crime has aspects of hate crime, either separate additional charges can be laid against the perpetrator, or the punishment can be enhanced by the gravity of the crime.
718.1A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.
R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 156;
1995, c. 22, s. 6.
Marginal note:Other sentencing principles
718.2 A court that imposes a sentence shall also take into consideration the following principles:
(a)a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender, and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing,
(i)evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression, or on any other similar factor,
(iii.1) evidence that the offence had a significant impact on the victim, considering their age and other personal circumstances, including their health and financial situation,
I’m not a lawyer, so I can’t say exactly what charges should be laid against the young man who threw the heavy metal trailer hitch at a couple of random Indigenous women walking down a Thunder Bay street.
From what I’ve read, neither victim or perpetrators knew each other, and yet the action was deliberate.
But the heavy piece of metal didn’t fly out the car window accidentally through negligence.
Certainly the other three people in the car with him had to be aware of what he was doing. Two of them turned themselves in to police the next day, but the perpetrator and the driver of the car did not.
The only explanation for this action lay in the words 18 year old Brayden Bushby shouted after he threw the thing that knocked down and fatally injured Barbara Kentner.
These words indicate this was no random act of violence, it was clearly deliberate. It doesn’t matter whether “one” referred to the gender or race of his victim. It does matter that these words make clear he wasn’t attacking a specific person, he was targeting women or Indigenous women. Which makes it a hate crime.
“The impact of such crimes is far reaching, extending beyond the physical and emotional trauma to the victim, to encompass other members of the groups and broader community. Such crimes can heighten the isolation and vulnerability of the victim’s group and cause stress for all members of the community. If unchecked, these crimes can result in an escalation in social tensions between different groups that can destroy communities, thereby furthering the aims and objectives of those in our society who promote hatred and intolerance.”
— Policing Standards of Ontario
In recent months the Ontario city of Thunder Bay has been prominent in news stories in connection with racism.
In June, Statistics Canada reported that most of the police-reported hate incidents in Thunder Bay targeted Indigenous people, accounting for 29 per cent of all anti-Aboriginal hate crimes across Canada in 2015.
“Young people have told me repeatedly of walking home and having things flung at them out of cars,” Thunder Bay MP and Liberal cabinet minister Patty Hajdu said following the release of the Statistics Canada report.
And yet to date, the only criminal charged brought against Brayden Bushby— the man who deliberately threw the trailer hitch that led to Barbara Kentner’s death— is aggravated assault because “investigators did not feel there was enough evidence to call the crime hate-motivated.”
I’m no lawyer, but I simply cannot comprehend how a stranger who targeted Indigenous women and killed one in a drive-by could be anything but a hate crime. Several reports mention charges might be upgraded based on the Coroner’s Report (whenever it comes out) but so far nothing.
We all must work together to acknowledge that racism exists. We must combat and report racism. We must take this very seriously. This has been going on for far too long. This is our reality as many Indigenous Peoples, especially our women, have come to me with their stories. It’s very disturbing and frightening. There is an escalation of violence in this city, and we must not minimize these horrible situations.
Clearly the City of Thunder Bay is in crisis, but nonetheless the justice system can not be allowed to forget the 34 year old mother who lost her life, who spent months dying in agony, because a man didn’t recognize she was a human being. He didn’t think there would be consequences for his grotesque act.
But a life was taken. Barbara Kentner’s life was taken.
Woman. Sister. Aunt. Cousin. Mother.
This life can’t ever be returned to the family and community that mourns the senseless loss.
We as a society must say “NO” to hate speech and hate crime. The best way to do this is by teaching our children not to hate, but apparently not enough of us are. Education and outreach programs can help, but until then, the way to do that is through the justice system. It seems Thunder Bay’s Crown Prosecutor needs to be reminded justice demands this perpetrator must answer for taking a life. Not for vengeance, but because every life has value. And hate crimes have real consequences.
Which is why I’m asking you to join me in signing this petition. Please sign and share.
Although the Canadian Government has apologized and made a settlement with Onar Khadr, you can tell Parliament that you support this decision by signing this Parliamentary e-Petition e-934
When I was a kid at Conestoga Bible Camp, we did an exercise where we were supposed to hold our arms in the air above our heads the way Moses is said to have done in order to part the Red Sea. The idea was that he had to keep his arms in the air to keep the sea parted long enough for all the people to get across. So how about you try it now: how long can you hold your arms in the air above your head before it starts to get uncomfortable. Before it starts to get painful. Now imagine how it would feel you had 2 through & through bullet holes in your chest.
Some people are saying Omar Khadr wasn’t tortured. The 15 year old Canadian boy was dug out of the rubble with two gaping exit wounds in his chest. He wasn’t expected to survive. When he was still a long way from recovery in the Bagram prison camp, he was hung from his wrists. For hours. Sounds like torture to me.
Canadian Politics
Canada is nominally a Representative Democracy. Canadian voters elect representatives who are supposed to represent our interests– to govern in our names– in the House of Commons, the Canadian lower house of our Parliament. Unfortunately, because Members of Parliament (MPs) are elected with a winner-take-all electoral system, our government is adversarial. So instead of fostering co-operation, and creating policy in the best interests of all Canadians, we have been seeing increasing polarization, not just of political parties, but of citizens. Such a system creates a class system by dividing Canadians into those who have representation and those who have not. One side is the winner with all the power and everyone else are losers.
After 40 years of absolute control in Alberta, after the recent election of an NDP government, there were death threats against the new premier from citizens who believed they were absolutely entitled to be the winners. All the time. They were the ruling class.
With the stakes so high, it has become increasingly necessary for the different parties to differentiate themselves. As a result, we’ve seen racist rhetoric grow as Canada’s traditional alternating governing parties square off.
Some Canadians worry we will end up with our own version of President Trump. And other Canadians welcome the idea.
For myself, I believe in democracy. Even those whose opinions I find odious deserve fair representation in Parliament.
If a majority of Canadians want a Prime Minster Trump, if a real majority of Canadian voters actually vote for a party led by a leader like him, then that is the Prime Minister we ought to have.
But here’s the thing: a majority of eligible American voters did’n’t elect President Trump. Something like half of them didn’t even vote, so Mr Trump was elected by twentysomething percent of eligible voters. Just as here in Canada a mere twentysomething percent of eligible voters gave us 39% “majority” governments twice in a row. When more people don’t vote than vote for the winner, it is not a particularly strong mandate on which to give a party 100% of the power.
Those Canadians with whom I disagree are just as entitled to representation as I am. If Canada is to be a real democracy, they should not be entitled to more power than they’ve earned in votes. All Canadians need a real chance for fair representation, and for that we need Electoral Reform.
The tragedy of Omar Khadr is just the latest divisive issue to push the polarization of the citizens of Canada to new heights. Like electoral reform, this should not be a partisan issue at all. It doesn’t even matter what Omar Khadr did or didn’t do.
Mr. Trudeau has dictatorially decreed he will not adopt a fairer electoral system after all, so Canada is certainly heading down this path to polarization. We can look forward to more of this civil unrest not less.
The Canadian Government violated Khadr’s rights.
Let me say it again: The Canadian Government violated his rights. The rights guaranteed to him and every Canadian under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Not because I say so: it is NOT a matter of opinion. It is a fact.
Three Administrations of the Canadian Government—those of Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, Prime Minister Paul Martin, and Prime Minister Stephen Harper— all deliberately failed to protect the rights of a Canadian child. We know this because the highest court in the land has studied the situation and the law and determined this to be the case. You don’t have to believe me; you can read the entire ruling for yourself.
“This Court declares that through the conduct of Canadian officials in the course of interrogations in 2003-2004, as established on the evidence before us, Canada actively participated in a process contrary to Canada’s international human rights obligations and contributed to Mr. Khadr’s ongoing detention so as to deprive him of his right to liberty and security of the person guaranteed by s. 7 of the Charter, contrary to the principles of fundamental justice.”
— Canada (Prime Minister) v. Khadr ~ Supreme Court of Canada Judgement 2010 SCC 3
This is not up for debate.
So when Omar Khadr brought a $20 million civil suit against Canada for the terrible harm our government inflicted on him, with the highest court of the land vindicating his claim that his rights were infringed, there is no way he would lose. As the Canadian Government has already spent something in the neighborhood of $5 million dollars fighting Mr. Khadr, the Trudeau Government negotiated a settlement with the young man for about half. They could have thrown good money after bad, and ended up paying a settlement of an additional $20 million plus costs. Craig Forcese (an actual law expert) suggests the costs could be substantially higher (in reputation as well as money) than anything I’ve surmised.
And it isn’t unheard of for a judge to award a settlement greater than the law suit asked for. That is what I would do if I was the judge.
This is anything but a partisan issue. The initial breach of the rights of the child soldier Omar Khadr was perpetrated by Liberal Government, and because his detention was ongoing through the subsequent Conservative Government, they shared the blame. Governments of both parties messed up on the Khadr file.
But the Conservative Party is looking to make points by (a) pretending this settlement is unjust (by pretending Mr. Harper’s government wasn’t up to its ears in culpability), and (b) get Canada’s military, vets and their families against it (obscuring the fact the real culprit for them is the government”s failure to adequately compensate them, particularly when wounded.)
Since both parties previous governments are to blame, a rational person might imagine Liberals and Conservatives would both want this to be done and over with. We should all be congratulating the Canadian Government on making a good deal, right?
Well, no. Not in the winner-take-all land of Canada.
All Canadians. Conservatives and Liberals. The way it works is this: it doesn’t matter which party forms the government, every citizen enjoys these protections. It isn’t optional. This is universal: all Canadians are protected by the Charter. All the time. The end.
Certainly the Supreme Court of Canada laid the blame at the door of both Liberal and Conservative governments. So it couldn’t possibly be partisan.
Well. It shouldn’t be. Except, in our crazy winner-take-all Canada, some hyperpartisans act as though the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a Liberal thing.
The Liberals are always patting themselves on the back because they repatriated the Constitution so as to enshrine the Charter. Clearly they are the good guys, right?
But because such Liberal proprietary boasts are all smug and condescending, in our winner-take-all world, Conservatives sneer at the Charter as though it was something odious that the Conservatives would never have done.
Except the truth is that before the Canadian Constitution was repatriated, the Conservative Government of Canada led by Prime Minister John Diefenbaker created and implemented the Charter’s forerunner, the Canadian Bill of Rights.
This is the part of the Charter that was breached:
7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
Recognition and declaration of rights and freedoms
1 It is hereby recognized and declared that in Canada there have existed and shall continue to exist without discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex, the following human rights and fundamental freedoms, namely,
(a) the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law;
Big difference, eh?
No matter which way you slice it, Conservative and Liberal Canadians should all be dancing in the streets that our Canadian civil rights have prevailed.
But no. Canadian Conservatives are doing everything they can to encourage Canadian outrage over the settlement.
Omar Khadr admitted that he killed a U.S. Army Medic, Christopher Speer. Now Mr. Khadr will be a wealthy man thanks to the Liberal government handing him millions in taxpayer dollars. Conservatives believe that it is one thing to acknowledge alleged mistreatments, but it is wrong to lavishly reward a convicted terrorist who murdered an allied soldier who had a wife and two children. Our thoughts continue to be with Christopher Speer’s widow and family, who must relive their ordeal every time this issue comes up in the media. Given Mr. Khadr’s admission of guilt, Conservatives are calling on him to give any settlement money to Sergeant Speer`s widow and two children.”
I would have hoped an MP like Tony Clement who is a former government Cabinet Minister would understand the words he uses. “Alleged” means accused but not proven, but in fact the highest court of the land accepted the proof of Omar Khadr’s “mistreatment.” To my mind as a writer, “mistreatment” is an awfully mild characterization of “torture”.
In spite of Mr. Clement’s attempt at misdirection, the settlement had nothing to do with Mr. Speer. If Mr. Clement was eager to use the word “alleged” it ought to have been “alleged terrorist who allegedly murdered an allied soldier.” Although Mr. Khadr was convicted by the American Government, neither terrorism or murder were proven. Once you get past the sensational headline $10.5M settlement for Omar Khadr ‘absolutely wrong’: Clement, Even the Toronto Sun is careful to stick to the facts:
“Khadr was accused of throwing the grenade that killed Speer but the evidence against him was flimsy.”
Mr. Khadr was told without signing the confession demanded by the Americans, he might spend the rest of his life in Guantanamo Bay. There was no trial, no doubt because there was no evidence beyond the confession of a wounded and tortured 15 year old child. Do American courts accept the confessions of tortured children? Guantanamo Bay “justice” operated outside the established Rule of Law for a reason.
One of the other pieces of “evidence” we know was tortured out of Omar Khadr was an identification of Canadian Maher Arar as a terrorist. On the basis of this false identification, Mr. Arar was himself arrested, locked up and tortured for a year, when his innocence was finally proven. It has long been known that torture is unreliable because people subjected to torture will generally say anything to make it stop. Mr. Arar’s compensation was $10 million
The $10.5 million settlement paid to Omar Khadr is not an acknowledgement of “alleged mistreatments,” as Mr. Clement suggests. It is compensation for Canadian Government’s complicity in the torture of a Canadian. This is a legal consequence— the price the Canadian Government has to pay— not just for failing to uphold the Charter protections that every Canadian is owed, but for deliberately acting against the interests of a Canadian child.
This is not voluntary, it is punishment. Mr. Clement was a Conservative Cabinet minister through much of Omar Khadr’s ordeal. Just like people who break laws, Governments must be accountable for the laws they break.
Perhaps Mr Clement is right: maybe the compensation paid to Omar Khadr shouldn’t come from taxpayers. Wouldn’t it be better coming out of the pockets of the Canadian Governments whose malfeasance requires compensation— or at least the pockets of the Prime Ministers and the Cabinet Ministers responsible for the egregious behaviour.
Rights of the Child
Canada is also party to a number of International Treaties including those guaranteeing the rights of children. Particularly important in relation to the Omar Khadr case is the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict It is important to note that “optional” doesn’t mean our Government has leeway to decide whether or not to follow these rules, but that signing it was optional. Canada chose to sign it, and Parliament agreed and ratified it. Making it legally binding.
A 15 year old caught up in war is a Child Soldier. This is not up for debate, your opinion on whether this should be true does not matter: this is Canadian Law.
Omar Khadr’s America military counsel Lieutenant-Commander William Kuebler was very clear both that the boy should have been brought back to Canada for ant legal process and that “I do not believe anyone can get an aquittal in Guantanamo Bay.”
Those seeking to exploit this situation, whether to promote racism or for some political ends, have been doing their best to pit Canadian soldiers and their families against Omar Khadr as though he is taking funds that would have gone to them. They point out how unfair it is for Omar Khadr to receive such a settlement when Mrs Speer, our soldiers, our veterans, and their bereaved families do not.
“It’s upsetting to every veteran in Canada that’s trying to get a new wheelchair, or maybe a specialist to look at their back, or maybe an increase to their prescription because they’re having a hard time dealing with life,” says veteran Gus Cameron.
What is the real problem here? It isn’t that Omar Khadr is getting a settlement.
Why is it that the Speer family is so impoverished they need to pass the hat? Actually, they didn’t ask for it, but Rebel Medi is happy of the chance to exploit them ti firward its divisive agenda. Doesn’t the American Government make adequate provision for the soldiers who fight and die under their flag? That doesn’t sound right.
Seems to me the real problem is that the American and Canadian Governments are not providing adequate funding for our military personnel, veterans and their families.
When Canadians serve in the Canadian military they deserve adequate compensation for their work. They and their families should certainly receive adequate compensation in the event they are injured or killed. The reality is, even if the money paid to Omar Khadr was divided up among all our veterans and their families, it wouldn’t go very far.
If every veteran in Canada that’s trying to get a new wheelchair, or maybe a specialist to look at their back, or maybe an increase to their prescription because they’re having a hard time dealing with life is not getting what they need, the problem isn’t Omar Khadr’s settlement, the problem is that their employer– that is to say the Government of Canada– is not doing it’s job. If Canada is going to engage in war, it is essential that those who serve get what they need when they come home. If Canada can’t afford to do that it has no business sending them off to war.
If Canadian military personnel are not being appropriately compensated, this is not Omar Khadr’s fault. This is a false equivalency: two completely unrelated issues. Omar Khadr is getting a one time settlement as compensation for having his rights violated.
Torture is not an Option
Our Charter does not permit torture. Not for adults. Certainly not for children. It doesn’t matter what you did; torture is not allowed. Not in Canada. Not for Canadians.
The Charter is the foundation for Canadian law, a guide for Canadian lawmakers, law enforcement, security personel etc. Such protections are generally applicable only on Canadian soil. Canadians who break laws in other countries are not protected by the Charter. It is in fact unusual for the Charter to have come into play at all, in this case because the Canadian Government chose to involve itself.
What we don’t often understand that the primary purpose of civil rights law is to protect citizens from potential abuse of power by the state. The Charter was not meant to protect citizens like Omar Khadr from abuse by the government or laws of another country, it is meant to protect Canadians from abuse by our own government.
Three Administrations of the Canadian Government—those of Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, Prime Minister Paul Martin, and Prime Minister Stephen Harper— all deliberately failed to protect the rights of a Canadian child. We know this because the highest court in the land has studied the situation and the law and determined this to be the case. You don’t have to believe me; you can read the entire ruling for yourself.
“This Court declares that through the conduct of Canadian officials in the course of interrogations in 2003-2004, as established on the evidence before us, Canada actively participated in a process contrary to Canada’s international human rights obligations and contributed to Mr. Khadr’s ongoing detention so as to deprive him of his right to liberty and security of the person guaranteed by s. 7 of the Charter, contrary to the principles of fundamental justice.”
— Canada (Prime Minister) v. Khadr ~ Supreme Court of Canada Judgement 2010 SCC 3
When the Conservative Party of Canada is blames the Trudeau Government for making this settlement, it is trying to distract
I’m glad Omar Khadr is home, safe, and wish him well in his new life. The only “crimes” proven against the young man seem to be listening to his family. He went where his family took him and did what he was told. Had he been an independent adult, this would provide no mitigation. But he was a child living up to his parents expectations. The imbalance of power between adults and children are the foundation for treating children as young offenders in our legal system, and as child soldiers in military situations.
I hope he can learn to shut his ears to the hate mongers and political extremists seeking to exploit him further. He seems a remarkable young man; he would be welcome in my home.
Although the Canadian Government has apologized and made a settlement, you can tell Parliament that you support this decision by signing this Parliamentary e-Petition e-934
Video
If you haven’t seen this excellent CBC documentary from 2010, it can be watched on YouTube in 5 parts:
and a CBC Documentary Omar Khadr: Out of the Shadows is online (for Canadians only) at CBC here (for now). This is an edited version of the feature length documentary Guantanamo’s Child.
When a 15 year old Canadian child named Omar Khadr was dug out of the rubble on July 27, 2002 he was so badly wounded he was not expected to survive.
Child Soldier
At the age of ten he was uprooted from his life in Canada by his father and taken away to Afghanistan.
The UN Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict establishes that children younger than 18 who are involved in armed conflicts are Child Soldiers. This protocol was written in 2000, but it came into force on into force on 12 February 2002. This is an “optional” protocol, meaning there is no obligation for any nation to sign it. The Canada is a signatory to this. By signing and ratifying this, the Canadian Government voluntarily chose to place Canada under its terms, so it it is no longer “optional.”
This protocol recognizes the fact that child soldiers are children, and children are not entirely responsible for themselves. This is hardly a stretch: Canadian Law recognizes this too. We have a special set of criminal laws for children. Children are not allowed to sign legal contracts or legally able to consent for themselves; a parent or guardian is required to decide whether or not to consent on their behalf.
Omar Khadr was only 15 years old when the compound he was in in Afghanistan was attacked by the American military. Under Canadian Law he was a Child Soldier.
Charter Rights
Omar Khadr was born Canadian. He has always been a Canadian citizen.
“Canada actively participated in a process contrary to Canada’s International human rights obligations and contributed to Mr. Khadr’s ongoing detention so as to deprive him of his right to Liberty and Security of the Person guaranteed by Section 7 of the Charter, contrary to the principles of fundamental justice.”
— Supreme Court of Canada, 2010
“The core issue repeatedly identified by the Supreme Court of Canada: in the pursuit of Justice and National Security, Governments must respect Charter Rights and Human Rights, and the Rule of Law.”
—Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale
Guilt or innocence makes no difference: all citizens, guilty or innocent are supposed to be protected by the Charter.
Guilt or Innocence?
What really happened is the subject of much hot debate.
What is very clear is that the only “evidence” supporting Omar Khadr’s charge and plea bargained conviction for killing anyone, was Omar’s confession. The problem is that Omar’s confession was made under duress when his American captors tortured him.
What is wrong with people that they have trouble understanding that torture is not only wrong, but not a reliable way to get at the truth? This cannot be stressed enough: TORTURE DOES NOT WORK. CIA documents freely admit, as has been known around the world for decades, that torture does not produce reliable or useful information. When someone is being tortured, they will tell their torturers anything they imagine the torturers might want to hear in their desperation to make it stop, and this information is almost invariably unreliable at best. Torture does not provide good, reliable, or useful information. Period. So torture justifiers are not only telling us “I don’t care if we behave as morally as Nazis, and I don’t care if we tortured bad guys or completely innocent people that had done nothing wrong” but also “I don’t even care whether it works or not, whether we got good or useful information of any kind at all.” It’s in black and white right there in the recently released documents: the torture program did not produce useful or reliable or true information, it only produced misery.
and there’s more here. Torture “is a poor technique that yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say what he thinks the interrogator wants to hear.” Not only is torture ineffective at gathering reliable information, but it also increases the difficulty of gathering information from a source in the future.
— https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effectiveness_of_torture_for_interrogation
Omar Khadr, after being captured as a child and tortured for years, was told by his torturers that his only hope of ever ending the torture was to plead guilty. “His lawyers were told, You have two choices: You can plead guilty and you get another eight years in Guantanamo. Or you can plead innocent, in which case, you’re here forever. So those are the choices his lawyers were given, practically in those words.” http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/15917-noam-chomsky-smoke-and-mirrors-or-civil-liberties-under-president-obama
Condemning Khadr based on a confession acquired through torture is not justice. In this divisive and mean spirited age, let’s at the very least agree that we disapprove of torture. How can the bar possibly be set that low?
Civil rights exist to protect citizens, they aren’t optional.
This is not a partisan issue— unless, of course, you consider the danger inherent in electing politicians who think its okay to torture citizens. Currently this is against the law in Canada. It doesn’t matter whether you are innocent or guilty, Canadian citizens have rights. Our governments are unaccountable enough now; the Supreme Court of Canada is holding it to account.
Colten Boushie, 22 yrs old, from Red Pheasant First Nation, was shot dead by a rural saskatchewan man when he came towards him for help for a flat tire. The shooter is pleading not guilty to 2nd degree murder. Why was he granted bail?
Colten’s family is asking for justice
This young indigenous man that had his whole life in front of him. He was training to be a fireman and was involved in his community church.
For someone generally proud to be lucky enough to be Canadian, instead of being excited about Canada Day on our nation’s 150th Anniversary, I was embarrassed to be a Canadian. Not because Prime Minister Justin Trudeau believes himself to be an all powerful autocrat with the right to over rule his own party’s overwhelmingly adopted policy and thumb his nose at the majority of Canadians who believe Canada ought to provide citizens with fair representation. That was bad, that was really, really bad, but that isn’t it.
The government argues that international trade agreements don’t allow it to restrict the competition for government contracts to Canadian companies or manufacturers — even when it comes to Canada 150 merchandise.
Its all the fault of those pesky “free trade” agreements, not the governments who negotiated these agreements in secret then sign & ratify them so they have no choice but to require massive changes to our domestic law (and now unaccountable international corporate trade tribunals to fine us if we fail) to comply. This excuse is a classic case of adding insult to injury.
Annoying as that is, that is not my problem.
Colonialism150?
Bingo! The problem is colonization, something that didn’t just happen hundreds of years ago, but a process continuing as Canadian government policy to this day. It is simply unfathomable to me that, KNOWING about all the horrors of “residential schools,” instead of embarking on a path to Reconciliation, our Canadian Government is continuing policies of Cultural Genocide. Residential Schools killed many more victims — all children — than people died in the 9/11 Twin Towers. In response to the Twin Towers Canadian Governments were quick to change our laws to increasingly erode the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. But Canadian Governments had to be legally compelled to establish the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. And now, instead of working hard to implement TRC recommendations, the Canadian Government has gone to court to fight for the right to continue to discriminate against Indigenous children and Indigenous women.
I’m not Indigenous, I’m a settler whose paternal ancestors arrived here before Confederation. Some suggest “settler” is pejorative term, but it’s not. It’s a simple statement of fact. Although my earliest ancestors came to this place before Confederation, I am not Indigenous. My ancestors came from Alsace, Germany, the Netherlands and Russia, places I have never been. Indigenous people’s ancestors came from Turtle Island. While I make my home on native land, I acknowledge that Turtle Island indigenous peoples have prior claim. Although I was very interested in history, I spent most of my life ignorant of the real Canadian history.
No, I’m writing this for other settlers. To explain why I sat out Canada Day for the first time. To explain why I bought my husband a Colonization150 Tshirt. But most of all why I’ve spent the last little while reading and sharing articles about the real Canada that so many Canadian settlers still don’t know about. Some over and over.
I am still learning myself, because, like most people, I bought into the idea of the mythological Canada the Good. The Canada full of nice, polite people who respect human rights and care about each other. The Canada that helped fight and stop South African Apartheid. The Canada that chose to be a Multicultural mosaic culture, the nation that made peace and not war and helped write the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, our own Canadian Bill of Rights and then the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Canada willing to dabble in socialism to ensure everyone has healthcare and the necessities of life, the representative democracy that looks out for our most vulnerable population.
But that, my friends, is the public relations version, not the real deal. The real deal is a country that sells arms to Saudi Arabia, one of the most egregious human rights abusers in the world. The Canada that unequivocably supports Israel’s unambiguous Palestinian Apartheid. Of course it does: Canadian Governments have been perpetrating its own policies of Apartheid and Cultural Genocide for well over 150 years, and are still doing it today.
One of the ridiculous things I often hear Canadian settlers say is that the land issue was over a long time ago. But we Canadians believe in property ownership. Our society is built on property law. Canadians buy and sell property, we can own it and our heirs can inherit it from us when we die.
If I can inherit my father’s house, a house that he inherited from his father, who inherited it from his father before him, why should it be any different for Indigenous people?
Their ancestors made treaties — contracts — with the British Crown. But instead of living up to these agreements, the British then later Canadian Governments have been trying to erase them one way or another ever since. The Canadian Government took the land one way or another, and gave or sold it to settlers. That’s the land we buy and sell and inherit today. The authority for this high handedness dates back to a papal decree known as “The Doctrine of Discovery.” which was predicated on the idea that any land not populated by European Christians was empty. After all, only European Christians were human beings with rights.
It’s 2017
Instead of living up to our obligations to the Indigenous population of Turtle Island, Canadian Governments have worked hard to enforce assimilation, to suppress Indigenous culture, eradicate Indigenous languages, and coralled them on a tiny unsustainable percentage of the land… a miniscule part of the land of Turtle Island, the whole of which they once roamed freely. The full might of Canada’s government continues its anti-Indigenous policies, all of which are geared to dispossessing them further.
Money: It would cost the Canadian Government a fraction of the money it is spending on Canada’s 150th Party to comply with the Human Rights Tribunal’s order to stop discrimination against Indigenous children. What is more important than children?
Electoral Reform to Proportional Representation is necessary. It took me a long time to understand why our supposedly “simple” electoral system never actually provided me with representation in Parliament. The Representative Democracy we Canadians supposedly enjoy is hollow so long as some votes are worth more than others but most don’t count at all. If we used some form of Proportional Representation, the result would be more democratic governance. This would empower us to elect politicians who would actually represent most of us. And maybe even govern the way they promised they would.
Our American friends are debating whether Health Care is a human right, but Canadians decided that it was long ago. Which is why it is bizarre that, of all the countries with Universal Health Care, Canada is the only country that doesn’t have Universal Pharmacare!
“Overall, it estimates a universal pharmacare plan would save up to $11.4 billion a year, with $1 billion of that saved just by no longer duplicating administrative costs in the current “patchwork” system.”
However, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s federal Liberal Government have more important things to worry about than the health of its citizens, so the Ontario Liberals Government has stepped up to the plate with an intention to add publicly funded pharmacare coverage for children and youth ~ adding to the patchwork system.
“Because Ontario is adding universal, comprehensive pharmacare coverage to the age group that uses medicines least often. Many working-age Ontarians, who are far more likely to require medicines than children, will still be uninsured.”
1. Implement through a Federal law, a Pan-Canadian Universal Pharmacare Plan, in this 42nd Parliament; and
2. Implement a National Formulary for medically necessary drugs including a drug monitoring agency providing regulations and oversight to protect Canadians.
Electoral Reform?
