Blog

Call to Action #86: Fake News & the Mainstream Media

 

(Illustration by Luke Swinson via Waubgeshig Rice, “Letter to a Young Indigenous Journalist | The Walrus”, (31 August 2020), online: The Walrus <https://thewalrus.ca/terra-cognita-letter-to-a-young-indigenous-journalist/>)

 

Tansi Nîtôtemtik,

Today we will discuss the history of media bias in reporting on Indigenous issues and events, and evaluate Call to Action #86, which states:

We call upon Canadian journalism programs and media schools to require education for all students on the history of Aboriginal peoples, including the history and legacy of residential schools, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Treaties and Aboriginal rights, Indigenous law, and Aboriginal–Crown relations^[1]

In drafting this post, we had originally compiled some headlines to display the difference in media coverage on news involving Indigenous people and news involving non-Indigenous people.  Ultimately, we decided that this approach was harmful and painful, and would only contribute to the problem that Call #86 hopes to address.

A media spin to grab attention or redirect the focus of a story is a common tactic, from the most obvious clickbait to more subtle exploitive or erasive coverage.  Prior research has referred to this type of coverage as “shallows and rapids”.^[2]  ‘Shallows’ are when, under normal circumstances, the mainstream media essentially ignores any coverage of Indigenous issues.^[3]  ‘Rapids’ occur when the news hones in on either crisis or calamity, such as the classic portrayal of protesters as insurgents during land or rights disputes.^[4]

Dominant media discourse on Indigenous issues and events is wholly colonized and perpetuates harmful stereotypes.  A fabulous analysis of racism in Canadian media can be found in the book Seeing Red: A History of Natives in Canadian Newspapers by Mark Cronlund Anderson and Carmen L. Robertson, which chronicles Indigenous media coverage from the time of confederation up until 2009.  An updated version of this book is slated for release this year.^[5]

This harmful discourse has long been flagged as problematic and in addition to the TRC. The Royal Commission on Aboriginal People and the Report on Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls have also called for more balanced representation in media, and for decolonized coverage that avoids perpetuating stereotypes.^[6]

So, how have journalism schools responded?

In 2017, J-Source sent a survey to 21 journalism programs at 19 universities across Canada, and received responses from 17 schools.^[7]  What they discovered is that schools want to teach Indigenous topics in a meaningful way that teaches students to engage and report on these topics sensitively and with accuracy. The results of this desire however, are tempered by available financial and staffing resources.^[8]  The TRC does not specify the format of required education called for in Call #86, and interpretation of the Call has varied across institutions. While UBC has included mandatory courses in its program even prior to the release of the TRC's final report. Other programs have chosen to develop elective courses and make them broadly available as with Ryerson’s online course on reporting in Indigenous communities.^[9]

Additionally, Journalists for Human Rights developed the Indigenous Reporters Program in 2014.  This program creates pathways for Indigenous people to pursue careers in journalism, and engages and trains non-Indigenous journalists on best practices for reporting Indigenous stories and including Indigenous voices in general reporting.^[10]

Overall, it does appear that journalism programs across Canada have made at least some effort to incorporate Indigenous topics.  However, unless these courses are made mandatory and full length/full credit, there is a risk that they will a) not be taken as seriously as other required learning, and b) that people can simply elect not to engage with this learning. 

Team ReconciliAction recognizes the effort to respond to the bias in media at the educational level, however, elective courses will only engage those already interested in learning about Indigenous history and issues.  To achieve the highest grade, this learning should be mandatory for anyone pursuing a career in media.  As a result, we assign a grade of ‘B’ to Canadian journalism and media programs.

Until Next Time,

ReconciliAction YEG

-----

To receive daily alerts to the blog, sign up here

Be sure to stay up to date on other happenings with ReconciliAction YEG:

Follow us on Twitter at:@ReconciliYEG

Connect with us on Facebook at: www.facebook.com/reconciliActionYEG/

Check out our Instagram at: @reconciliactionyeg

-----

 

[1] Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, Honouring the Truth, Reconciling for the Future: Summary of the Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. (Ottawa: Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, 2015) at 296.

[2] Augie Fleras, The Media Gaze: Representations of Diversities in Canada (University of British Columbia Press, 2012) at 61–62.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Mark Cronlund Anderson & Carmen L Robertson, Seeing Red: A History of Natives in Canadian Newspapers (Univ. of Manitoba Press, 2011); Shelby Lisk, “Rewriting journalism: How Canadian media reinforces Indigenous stereotypes”, (3 September 2020), online: TVO.org <https://www.tvo.org/article/rewriting-journalism-how-canadian-media-reinforces-indigenous-stereotypes>.

[6] Canada, Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, Report, 2:614; TRC, supra note 1 at 296; The National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, Reclaiming Power and Place: The Final Report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls (Quebec, 2019).

[7] Meagan Gillmore, “Long journey of reconciliation ahead at Canada’s journalism schools”, (20 April 2018), online: JSource <https://j-source.ca/article/long-journey-of-reconciliation/>.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Ibid.

[10] “Indigenous Reporters Program”, online: Journalists for Human Rights (JHR) <https://jhr.ca/our-work/canada-indigenous-reporters-program>.

Justice For Cindy Gladue: The Barton Trial Verdict

(Artwork by Jon Labillois)

 

Tansi Nîtôtemtik,

“Me & my sisters were close to my mom, we told her everything, she was like our best friend. She was such a helpful person, she would cook sometimes & she loved baking. She always cooked grandma breakfast. My mom was really good at drawing & she liked writing too. It’s hard for me & my sisters growing up with out our mom here, we all miss her so much.” – Brandy (Cindy Gladue’s Daughter)^[1]

(Cindy Gladue, pictured with her daughters. Image Credit: KATHRYN BLAZE CARLSON, “More than a tragic headline: Cindy Gladue dreamt of a happy life”, (15 May 2015), online: The Globe and Mail <https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/the-death-and-life-of-cindy-gladue/article24455472/>.

We at Team ReconciliAction discussed sharing our perspective on the trial, defence strategies, and the traumatic evidence that told the story of the night Cindy Gladue was killed.  Instead, we have decided to embrace the morsel of justice for Cindy that came on February 18, when a jury found Bradley Barton guilty of manslaughter for causing the injuries that Cindy Gladue died from.

There were some differences this time around during the trial. First, we think it important to note that most involved in the trial were more conscious of Cindy Gladue as a human being first and foremost.[2] This is in stark contrast to the dehumanizing language and evidence presented in the first trial and highlights a long overdue recognition of bias in the legal system.  Importantly, Justice Hillier gave instruction about bias and stereotypes against Indigenous women and against sex workers at various points in the trial.  These statements were taken seriously enough by at least one juror, who reported statements made by another juror that could demonstrate a bias against sex work.[3]  Ultimately both of these jurors were dismissed from the jury to ensure that personal views about sex work would not taint the deliberations of the jury.[4]

Another major difference was that Barton’s internet search history, which contained searches for violent pornography similar to the type of activity that would cause injuries that killed Cindy Gladue, was allowed into evidence.[5]  In the first trial, this evidence was found to be too prejudicial in comparison to any probative value.

Despite the effort to remain sensitive to Cindy’s humanity, the trial could not escape the graphic and violent details of her tragic death.  Cindy’s loved ones, jurors, media, and other trial participants were subjected to horrific images and testimony and forced to relive the loss and trauma an entire decade later.  A guilty verdict is a step toward justice for Cindy, but the damage has been done.  Cindy was the victim of a violent act that killed her, and then was victimized again and again and again by a legal system that has never been designed to bring justice to Indigenous people, and to Indigenous victims of crime. 

To date, Cindy is one of thousands of Indigenous women who have gone missing or been murdered in Canada. 

Thousands.[6] 

The disappearances and killings of thousands of Indigenous women has been an epidemic in Canada since the earliest days of colonialism. 

Thousands. 

(Image Credit: Kairos Canada)

The grief of Cindy’s loved ones is intergenerational, and the sheer number of women lost is demonstrative of the value given to the lives of Indigenous women. These women are life givers, they are loved and they are needed. They are language speakers and knowledge keepers.  They are mothers, and kokums and cousins and sisters and they are the most beloved of Aunties.  And far too many of them are gone. 

When we think of Justice for Cindy Gladue, we do not feel a guilty verdict amounts to justice.  We do not yet know what consequence Bradley Barton will face for causing Cindy’s death, and we do not yet know if there will be an appeal.  But we do know that no amount of legal proceedings will give Cindy back to her family and friends.  And we know that as long as Indigenous women continue to be murdered and go missing at disproportionate rates, Indigenous women, including Cindy, do not have justice.

 

Until Next Time,

ReconciliAction YEG

-----

To receive daily alerts to the blog, sign up here

Be sure to stay up to date on other happenings with ReconciliAction YEG:

Follow us on Twitter at:@ReconciliYEG

Connect with us on Facebook at: www.facebook.com/reconciliActionYEG/

Check out our Instagram at: @reconciliactionyeg

-----

 

[1] Muriel Stanley Venne et al, OUR BREAKING POINT: Canada’s Violation of Rights in Life and Death (Edmonton, Alberta: Institute for The Advancement of Aboriginal Women, 2016) at 6.

[2] Kathleen Martens, “Lawyer for the family on hand to guard victim’s memory”, (2 February 2021), online: APTN News <https://www.aptnnews.ca/national-news/cindy-gladue/>.

[3] Jonny Wakefield, “Guilty verdict in Bradley Barton trial: Ontario trucker convicted of killing Cindy Gladue in Edmonton hotel room in 2011”, (20 February 2021), online: Edmonton Journal <https://edmontonjournal.com/news/local-news/jury-decides-fate-of-man-facing-manslaughter-for-2011-death-of-cindy-gladue-at-edmonton-hotel>.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Muriel Stanley Venne et al, supra note 1 at 26;  This resource contains an 11 page non-comprehensive list of the names of missing and murdered Indigenous women .

Art and Reconciliation

This year, ReconciliAction YEG has been able to accompany some of our posts with meaningful art that represents the themes within the Truth and Reconciliation Committee Calls to Action. Today, we will be evaluating Call to Action #83, which recognizes the importance of this artwork towards reconciliation. The Call is as follows:

83. We call upon the Canada Council for the Arts to establish, as a funding priority, a strategy for Indigenous and non-Indigenous artists to undertake collaborative projects and produce works that contribute to the reconciliation process.

The Canada Council for the Arts (CCA) funds public art in Canada. Its stated mandate is “to foster and promote the study and enjoyment of, and the production of works in, the arts.” ^[1] Art plays a central role to culture. It allows artists to share their experiences and, in turn, allows audiences to grasp a deeper meaning of these experiences. As such, the role of art in reconciliation is extremely important.

(A painting representing various Indigenous cultures, made by Kelsi Bartake, Jordan Raymond and grade 12 students, Bethlehem Catholic High School, Saskatoon, SK, from https://en.ccunesco.ca/our-priorities/reconciliation/let-s-talk-about-reconciliation) 

As part of its response to Call to Action #83, the CCA created the Creating, Knowing, and Sharing: The Arts and Cultures of First Nations, Inuit, and Métis Peoples program. This program recognizes the cultural sovereignty and self-determination of Indigenous peoples by funding artistic and cultural activities. ^[2] This funding includes micro grants for small scale projects, short and long term projects, and Indigenous organizations. Click here to see some of the projects funded through this program.

A refreshing aspect of CCA’s response to Call to Action #83 is how transparent the council is with funding and initiatives. As of 2019-2020, $19.3 million dollars have been invested by the council towards supporting Indigenous creation. ^[3] As a result, Team ReconciliAction YEG is happy to award an A to this Call to Action! The CCA’s commitment is a great example of how transparency, accountability and involvement of stakeholders can result in the timely completion of a Call to Action.

Until next time,

Team ReconciliAction YEG

¹Canada Council for the Arts, “Commitments: Indigenous” (2021) online: <canadacouncil.ca/commitments/indigenous>.

²Canada Council for the Arts, “Creating, Knowing and Sharing: The Arts and Cultures of First Nations, Inuit and Métis Peoples” (2021) online: <https://canadacouncil.ca/funding/grants/creating-knowing-sharing>.

³Ibid.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To receive daily alerts to the blog, sign up here

Be sure to stay up to date on other happenings with ReconciliAction YEG:

Follow us on Twitter at:@ReconciliYEG

Connect with us on Facebook at: www.facebook.com/reconciliActionYEG/

Check out our Instagram at: @reconciliactionyeg

Justice for Colten: Advocacy Against Systemic Racism in Canada's Legal System

(Artwork by Grace Berrios, Colton Boushie Quote Card for Rise Up Media) 

Tansi Nîtôtemtik,

February 9 was the anniversary of Gerald Stanley’s acquittal.  For those who aren’t aware, Gerald Stanley was accused of killing Colten Boushie after Colten and some friends drove onto his rural Saskatchewan property.  Gerald Stanley was not convicted of this killing, despite the fact that Colten was killed by a close range gunshot in front of his friends and the son of Gerald Stanley.  Colten’s friends said they drove onto the property for help with a flat tire, and Gerald Stanley claimed that he approached the vehicle with his gun when he suspected the group of trying to steal an ATV, and the gun ‘hang fired’ into the back of Colten’s head.[1]

When reflecting on the news and social media reports of Colten’s death in 2016, it is striking to recall the vitriol of people who justified shooting and killing trespassers and who leaned on racism to support that justification.  Comments like “the only mistake was leaving 3 witnesses” (made by a SK municipal councillor) were pervasive, and people seemed quick to point fingers at the four friends while supporting the actions of Gerald Stanley.[2]  The RCMP and trial followed this pattern.  The investigation focused heavily on the 4 young occupants of the vehicle, and Colten’s friends were even arrested along with Gerald Stanley.[3]  Colten’s family members have stated that throughout the proceedings, it often felt like Colten was on trial and that Gerald Stanley was being treated as the victim.[4]  In fact, media publications would refer to the trial as the “Colten Boushie trial”, when it was Gerald Stanley who was on trial.  

There were other issues with the investigation and trial process.  The investigator in such a major incident was an inexperienced junior officer.[5]  The crime scene was left uncovered in the rain for two days and was not attended by any forensic expert.[6]  Colten’s mother was informed of his death by the RCMP as they searched her home, weapons drawn.  She was told to “get it together” and asked if she was drunk.[7]  During jury selection peremptory challenges excluded any juror who appeared Indigenous, and the selected jurors were not asked about possible racial bias or pre-trial public influence impacting their ability to remain objective.[8]  During the trial, the prior criminal records of the witnesses were discussed to discredit the victim and his friends.[9]  The trial judge did not inform the jury about the requirements of self defence or defence of property, which Gerald Stanley was not formally pleading but was clearly relying on.[10]

In the end, Gerald Stanley was acquitted, and Colten’s loved ones are left seeking justice.  The Saskatchewan crown prosecutors declined to appeal the acquittal stating there was no error in law, ending the proceedings that might have brought closure to Colten’s loved ones.

The verdict was controversially denounced by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and then Justice Minister Jody-Wilson Raybould and sparked an omnibus bill that abolished peremptory challenges.[11]  This legacy is just one of the many Colten has inspired.  Colten’s family used their grief to fuel incredible advocacy for the way Indigenous people are treated by the legal system.  This advocacy has taken them all the way to the United Nations to seek justice for Colten.[12]  Team ReconciliAction encourages our readers who have not yet seen the award-winning film nîpawistamâsowin: We Will Stand Up by Tasha Hubbard to watch this powerful telling of Colten’s story and the advocacy and work his family has done.[13]  

(Image: Tasha Hubbard, nîpawistamâsowin: We Will Stand Up (2019).)

In the meantime, we ask our readers to consider the first time they heard about Colten and recall the context in which the story was presented.  Was there any bias?  Do you think the story might have been told differently if the farmer was Indigenous and the car full of youth were white? Do you think bias seeps into our legal system in a way that makes it a system of justice for only some of the people who come into contact with it?  We talk a lot about the overrepresentation of Indigenous people in the legal system, and the lack of representation in the legal profession, but what happens when an Indigenous person is the victim of a crime? How is our system set up to properly care for victims and their families?

For today, we will leave you with those questions to ponder.

#JusticeForColten

Until Next Time,

ReconciliAction YEG

-----

To receive daily alerts to the blog, sign up here

Be sure to stay up to date on other happenings with ReconciliAction YEG:

Follow us on Twitter at:@ReconciliYEG

Connect with us on Facebook at: www.facebook.com/reconciliActionYEG/

Check out our Instagram at: @reconciliactionyeg

-----

 

[1] David Giles & Nathaniel Dove, “Calls grow for public inquiry into death of Colten Boushie, acquittal of Gerald Stanley”, (19 February 2020), online: Global News <https://globalnews.ca/news/6566640/public-inquiry-colten-boushie-gerald-stanley/>.

[2] Ian Austen, “A Murder Trial Stirs Emotions About Canada’s Relations With Indigenous Population”, The New York Times (9 February 2018), online: <https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/09/world/canada/canada-saskatchewan-murder-indigenous.html>.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Rachel Giese, “Why Has Colten Boushie’s Mother Had To Work So Hard Just To Prove Her Son’s Humanity?”, (20 February 2018), online: Chatelaine <https://www.chatelaine.com/opinion/colten-boushie-mother/>.

[5] Jason Warick, “The long list of problems Colten Boushie’s family says marred the case”, (13 February 2018), online: CBC News <https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/colten-boushie-family-list-problems-gerald-stanley-case-1.4532214>.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Rachel Giese, supra note 4.

[8] Jason Warick, supra note 5.

[9] Ian Austen, supra note 2.

[10] David Giles & Nathaniel Dove, supra note 1.

[11] Kent Roach, “Gerald Stanley and Colten Boushie Case”, (10 February 2020), online: The Canadian Encyclopedia <https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/gerald-stanley-and-colten-boushie-case>.

[12] Tasha Hubbard, nîpawistamâsowin: We Will Stand Up (2019).

[13] Ibid.

5 Years After TRC: Expanding Religious Education

(Image: iStock)

Tansi Nîtôtemtik,

Let us start today with a story. (Point first writing to be continued in another blog post…)

Once upon a time, during the colonization of what we now call Canada, nearly all settler schools were taught with a religious element.  These schools were usually Protestant, and the Catholic immigrants as a minority lobbied for the right to receive a Catholic education out of concern that their religion would suffer if not protected.  In 1867, this right was enshrined in the British North America Act, which would become Canada’s constitution.[1]  As time went on, schools became increasingly non-secular and multi-cultural, but this enshrined right to Catholic education remained. 

The intersect between law and dominant societal norms is an interesting place to navigate and requires a lens that is not tinted in the same shade of norm as a dominant society.  Roman Catholicism now makes up the largest portion of religious people in Canada at nearly 40% of the population.[2]  The next largest group is non-religious people who make up nearly 25% of Canada’s population.[3]  The remaining population in Canada practice among other forms of Christianity, Islamic, Sikhism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism or other types of religion.[4]

But wait….

*record scratch**freeze frame*

(blogs not having sound effects is probably how TikTok happened)

This is from the 2011 census, which as we have discussed on this blog several times, did not include Indigenous data.  We know that around 60% of Canada is not Catholic, and we know that Catholic education was enshrined in the Canadian constitution to protect Catholicism as a minority religion.  This enshrined right appears to have been effective since Catholics are now the largest denominational group in Canada. A lot has happened since 1867 though, for instance, we have started to legally recognize women, Indigenous people, disabled, LGBTQ2S+ people as actual people with human rights equivalent to the typical Protestant white male from 1867 for whom the constitution was intended.  Those pesky societal norms are still catching up to these changes, but perhaps we can look to Catholicism as the success story of what can happen when minority rights are protected?

Let us now arrive at the point.  TRC Call to Action #64 calls on all levels of government that provide public funds to denominational schools to require such schools to provide an education on comparative religious studies, and specifically content covering Indigenous spiritual beliefs and practices developed in collaboration with Elders.[5]

Today, nine provinces have maintained an education model that continues to fund Catholic education separately from non-denominational education.  Newfoundland and Labrador switched entirely to non-denominational public schooling after a 1997 referendum on the matter, and Quebec halted funding to denominational schools that same year.[6]  The matter of using public funding for religious and private schools has been hotly debated for many years, but have any provinces required the religious schools they fund to teach comparative religion courses that include Indigenous teachings?

Not really.

Canada, the source of the originating enshrinement guaranteeing religious education, says they are not the lead on this Call to Action.[7]  BC has stated that religious schools are required to follow the BC curriculum, but has not mandated a specific Indigenous comparative religion course.[8]  In Ontario, where the funding of only Catholic education resulted in a lawsuit and condemnation by the United Nations, not much has been said about addressing comparative religious study.[9]  Alberta, home of ReconciliAction YEG, recently leaked some embarrassing panel recommendations as discussed in yesterday’s blog post, that would effectively remove any education about residential schools and Indigenous learning from the Alberta curriculum for certain grades. This would suggest that Alberta is not concerned about responding to Call #64.  We will spare you a list of every province, and provide our assessment – we assign the provinces and Canada a grade of F. 

Let us know what you think about public funding for denominational schools, and whether they should be required to teach comparative religious studies. 

Until Next Time,

Team ReconciliAction

-----

To receive daily alerts to the blog, sign up here

Be sure to stay up to date on other happenings with ReconciliAction YEG:

Follow us on Twitter at:@ReconciliYEG

Connect with us on Facebook at: www.facebook.com/reconciliActionYEG/

Check out our Instagram at: @reconciliactionyeg

-----

 

[1] British North America Act, 1867, Department of Justice Government of Canada, 3 November 1999, 30-31 Vict, c 3 (UK) [British North America Act, 1867,], s 93.

[2] Statistics Canada, Immigration and ethnocultural diversity in Canada: National Household Survey, 2011, by Tina Choui, Catalogue no. 99-010-X2011001 (Ottawa: Statistics Canada, 2013) at 21.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, Honouring the Truth, Reconciling for the Future: Summary of the Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. (Ottawa: Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, 2015) at 331.

[6] Michael Coren, “Why Are We Still Paying for Catholic Schools?”, (6 January 2020), online: The Walrus <https://thewalrus.ca/why-are-we-still-paying-for-catholic-schools/>.

[7] Government of Canada, “Education for reconciliation”, (23 April 2018), online: <https://www.rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1524504501233/1557513602139>.

[8] British Columbia Ministry of Education, Ministry of Education Report on Actions Taken To Support Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada’s Calls to Action.

[9] CBC Radio, “It’s time to end public funding of Catholic schools”, (16 June 2017), online: CBC Radio <https://www.cbc.ca/radio/the180/stop-funding-catholic-schools-restore-trust-in-the-neb-and-let-me-change-my-name-1.4162978/it-s-time-to-end-public-funding-of-catholic-schools-1.4163049>.

In the Media: Creative Re-tellings of the Stories of the MMIWG, Part 2

Tansi Nîtôtemtik,

Photo retrieved from <aptnnews.ca/the-disappearance-of-natasha-lynn-starr/>.

This week we transitioned from the topic of missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls to child welfare. We have also begun to explore the interconnectedness of these two issues. While we continue to explore child welfare over the next couple months, we encourage you to listen to these podcasts. They offer a unique way of understanding some of these issues from the perspective of the people impacted by them. 

Finding Cleo
Finding Cleo is the second season of the CBC podcast series Missing and Murdered, released in 2018. In this series, Connie Walker helps Christine Cameron uncover what happened to her sister, Cleo Nicotine Semaganis after their apprehension by child welfare workers in the 1970s.^[1] After entering the child welfare system, the siblings were separated and sent to different families across Canada and the United States of America.^[2] The story discusses the impact that the child welfare system had on the family and uncovers what happened to Cleo.

Click here to listen and learn more.^[3]

The Disappearance of Natasha Lynn Starr
This Aboriginal Peoples Television Network podcast was released on September 9, 2019. It is hosted by Natasha (Reimer) Okemow who describes her own story of being in the child welfare system in Manitoba. It outlines the continued impact of the child welfare on Indigenous children. It is a story of the impact of the Millennial Scoop, “the ongoing assimilation of Indigenous children and youth through the Canadian government’s child welfare systems.”^[4] This podcast provides a clear example of the continued issues with the child welfare system that we will be exploring on the blog.

Click here to listen and learn more.^[5]

 

Until next time,

Team ReconciliAction YEG

---

To receive daily alerts to the blog, sign up here

Be sure to stay up to date on other happenings with ReconciliAction YEG:

Follow us on Twitter at:@ReconciliYEG

Connect with us on Facebook at: www.facebook.com/reconciliActionYEG/

Check out our Instagram at: @reconciliactionyeg

---

[1] CBC, “Missing & Murdered: Finding Cleo” (1 March 2018), online: CBC <www.cbc.ca/radio/findingcleo/click-here-to-listen-to-missing-murdered-finding-cleo-1.4557887> [perma.cc/LNL3-8K8F].

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] ATPN, “The Disappearance of Natasha Lynn Starr”, online: ATPN <aptnnews.ca/the-disappearance-of-natasha-lynn-starr/> [perma.cc/757Q-SACX].

[5] Ibid.

In the Media: 'Thunder Bay' Podcast's Ryan McMahon talks Canada's Reaction to the National Inquiry

Tansi Nîtôtemtik,

Ryan McMahon is an Anishinaabe comedian, writer and host of Thunder Bay, a podcastwhich speaks to the deaths of Indigenous Peoples in Ontario. Of his many accomplishments, a notable few are his receiving the Yorkton Film Festival’s Golden Sheaf Award for Best Documentary – Historical/Biography, and his nomination for a Canadian Screen Award 2018 for the documentary Colonization Road.[1] Ryan McMahon is an activist and outspoken leader for Indigenous Peoples and in today’s blog post, we will be discussing his recent interview with Day 6 for CBC Radio on Canada’s reaction to the National Inquiry into the Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls.[2]

In the nine-minute interview, there is one recurring idea: Canada needs to do better. As will be discussed in later posts, the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls Final Report (the “Final Report”)[3] characterized what is happening to Indigenous women and girls as “genocide.” Consequently, much of the reaction following the report’s release has been concentrated on the legalese ramifications of such a classification, something that Ryan McMahon calls a “distraction.”[4] He says that, ultimately, this focus has caused many to sideline the report.[5]

McMahon goes on to say that the focus is being taken off of the real issue, and that “it’s not just that we’re not listening to each other, it’s that we’re having completely different conversations.”[6] Furthermore, there has been an “unfathomable amount of pain caused by the re-traumatization” of women that was needed to give their testimony.[7] McMahon says that it is imperative that we stop focusing on the specifics and start listening to what Indigenous women have to say.[8]

Since the release of the Final Report,there has been much criticism concerning the portrayal of this issue by the media. The dominant criticism is that the media is not on the side of Indigenous women and, consequently, many women have declined to be interviewed by news outlets.[9] In his interview, McMahon corroborated this observation and stated that “Indigenous men need to be part of the solution” – a role he took on by agreeing to be interviewed.[10]

It is clear that Indigenous Peoples and non-Indigenous Canadians alike need to come together and focus on the issue of missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls and work towards a solution. It is time that non-Indigenous Canadians listen to what is being said and help effect change. Without action, the countless Indigenous women who shared their stories will have done so in vain.

If you would like to listen to the podcast, you can find it here.[11]

 

Until Next Time,

 

Team ReconciliAction YEG

---

To receive daily alerts to the blog, sign up here 

Be sure to stay up to date on other happenings with ReconciliAction YEG: 

Follow us on Twitter at:@ReconciliYEG

Connect with us on Facebook at: www.facebook.com/reconciliActionYEG/

Check out our Instagram at: @reconciliactionyeg

---

[1] Colonization Road (2018), online: Colonization Road <www.colonizationroad.com/> [perma.cc/MB6X-QU95].

[2] CBC Radio, “New report, same old response: Ryan McMahon confronts Canada’s reaction to the MMIWG inquiry”, CBC Radio(last modified 7 June 2019), online: <www.cbc.ca/radio/day6/ryan-mcmahon-on-mmiwg-nba-lessons-for-the-nhl-daniel-dale-fixing-deloreans-hbo-s-chernobyl-and-more-1.5165179/new-report-same-old-response-ryan-mcmahon-confronts-canada-s-reaction-to-the-mmiwg-inquiry-1.5165183> [perma.cc/6JYN-QZM3] [CBC Radio].

[3] National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, “Final Report” (last visited 5 October 2019), online: National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls <www.mmiwg-ffada.ca/final-report/> [perma.cc/5JVQ-BDXY].

[4] CBC Radio, supra note 2.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Ibid.

[11] CBC Radio, supra note 2.

Halloween Special: Culture or Costume?

Tansi Nîtôtemtik,

        Every Halloween season I feel myself holding my breath, waiting for the latest controversial costume to make its rounds online. The term “cultural appropriation” is quickly becoming a common topic of debate surrounding Halloween costumes. Most of us are familiar with this debate, but as costume shops continue to make money off highly offensive costumes, we are forced to continue the discussion, year after year. As we work towards reconciliation, I believe it is important to continue this discussion, and educate those unaware of the harms associated with wearing culturally offensive costumes this Halloween.

What is cultural appropriation?

        Susan Scafidi, author of "Who Owns Culture? Appropriation and Authenticity in American Law," defines cultural appropriation as:

“Taking intellectual property, traditional knowledge, cultural expressions, or artifacts from someone else's culture without permission. This can include unauthorized use of another culture's dance, dress, music, language, folklore, cuisine, traditional medicine, religious symbols, etc. It's most likely to be harmful when the source community is a minority group that has been oppressed or exploited in other ways or when the object of appropriation is particularly sensitive, e.g. sacred objects.” [1]

Why do we care?

        For the most part, those wearing these inappropriate costumes are largely unaware of the deeply-rooted problems behind why, for example, dressing up as an “Indian Princess,” is offensive. Our blogging on topics such as Residential Schools and the Sixties Scoop have demonstrated the harms associated with government policies focused on “getting rid of the Indian problem”. These policies have led to a disconnect for many from their cultures, languages, and traditional teachings. Aggravating this disconnect are the Halloween  “hollywood” versions of Indigenous men as violent warriors, and the overt sexualization of Indigenous women (i.e. Pocahontas as“Poca-hottie”). These costumes strengthen the barriers to reconciliation by continuing harmful stereotypes of Indigenous persons, many who are still recovering from past trauma inflicted by Canada’s assimilationist policies.

Appreciation vs. appropriation

        For some, their costume may be specifically aimed at “appreciating” the culture in question rather than “appropriating.” For those unsure, consider the following:

“You can appreciate another’s culture without trying to be it or imitate it [...]Whenever you see someone’s culture and you decide you want to perform it, that’s when it becomes a problem. That has nothing to do with whether you appreciate it.” [2]

        I will not be one to turn away allies who want to appreciate my culture, but be respectful that my culture is more than a costume. If you truly want to appreciate my culture, come to my community for a round dance or pow wow. Let our elders tell you stories, and teach you the real meaning of our people -- not the “hollywood” version.

Until next time,

Team ReconciliAction YEG

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[1] Nadra Kareem Nittle, “Introduction to Cultural Appropriation”, ThoughtCo. (11 October 2017), online:<https://www.thoughtco.com/cultural-appropriation-and-why-iits-wrong-2834561>.

[2] Mark Shrayber, “It’s Time We Have A Real Talk About Culture-Based Halloween Costumes,” Uproxx (01 October 2017), online: <http://uproxx.com/life/halloween-appropriation/>.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Join the conversation by following us on Twitter: @ReconciliYEG; Facebook: www.facebook.com/reconciliActionYEG/; and Instagram: @reconciliactionyeg.

To receive daily alerts to our blog, email the words "add me" to [email protected].

We Will Wait Our Turn, Just Not For Too Long

Where do I see Canada in the next 150 years? What an interesting question. I highly doubt I will be alive to witness it, but I have a few minor wishes for my own life time. Rather than focussing on where I think the country will be in 150 years, I am going to explain where I want it to be in ten.

Last year’s presidential election was contentious, controversial, and fascinating all at the same time. An election filled with name-calling, bigotry, media rants, and outright craziness led to one of the most shocking results ever. The world watched as Donald Trump became the 45th President of the United States over Hillary Clinton. A businessman commonly recognized from his appearances on The Apprentice beat out a career politician. Many people thought this was insanity; others prepared for what seems like the start of an apocalyptic movie.

Hillary Clinton’s loss left many women wondering when it will be their turn to hold the highest office in the United States. Will women ever get that chance? How many more years would we wait to shatter the most resilient glass ceiling in the world?

Thankfully, Marie Henein, a named partner at Henein Hutchison reminds us that Canadians should not be patting ourselves on the back yet. We have also never formally elected a female prime minister. The only woman to ever hold the highest seat in our country was the Right Honourable Kim Campbell 24 years ago when Brian Mulroney stepped down from office.¹

When we look at our current political climate it is hard to pinpoint when a woman will even have a chance to be Canada’s Prime Minister. Depending on the outcome of the current Conservative leadership race (click here for our post from last week covering this ), all three major Canadian parties will be led by men, assuming O’Leary wins. Since I have been eligible to vote no serious female contender has been available. So my question moving forward is: when?

While it is easy to point a finger at our neighbours south of the border for their lack of female leadership, we tend to overlook our own.  In fact, out of the 13 Canadian provincial premiers only three are women. Marie Henein was right when she stated that for women in North America the message is clear, “You can hold office, just not the highest one. You can succeed, just not too much.”² My hope is that by the time Canada is celebrating its 200th birthday this message has changed.

When we focus on the political climate elsewhere, women in other countries have fared far better than us. Sri Lanka set the stage for the rest of the world by electing its first female Prime Minister in 1960.³ Fifty-seven years ago a woman was leading a country. To many hopeful women, it would seem that we were making progress. As groundbreaking as Sirimavo Bandaranaike’s election was, another woman would not follow suit in 1979 when Margaret Thatcher became the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. It took 19 years for another country to catch on, so while women were making progress, it was slow.

Currently only 33 women have been elected to represent their country in the highest office. Notably missing from the list is any North American country. The question remaining is why? What are we teaching young educated women? We are likely teaching women exactly what Marie Henein suggests, set big goals, become educated, and become successful. Just do not become too successful though because that is not what women do.

I truly hope that within the next 10 years this message has changed. It is time we change our attitudes about women in leadership. Instead of criticizing a woman’s “nasty” demeanour, it is time we celebrate her worth, ethic, and drive. Women are brilliant, capable, and deserving of the same successes as men. So by 2027 hopefully we will have one running our country as a result of her election, not as a result of merely filling in temporarily. Until then we will wait, not too patiently, for our turn.

 

 

¹ Marie Henein, “Thank you, Hillary. Now women know retreat is not an option,” The Globe and Mail (10 November 2016), online: <www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/thank-you-hillary-women-now-know-retreat-is-not-an-option/article32803341/>.

² Ibid.

³ Christine Zhang & Andrea Roberson, “When the rest of the world elected women leaders,” The LA Times (14 November 2016), online: <www.latimes.com/projects/la-fg-women-world-leaders/#decade60>.

Zombie Law Apocalypse

Studying the British North America Act involves research into history: the foundations of the Dominion of Canada, the social and political factors that drove or opposed Confederation, and the laws that shaped our current jurisprudence and legislation. For this final week blogging as the Dominion 2017, each writer takes a turn looking to the future.

Pop culture has a mild obsession with fantastical zombie apocalypse theories like in the film World War Z and the television series The Walking Dead. Today we exploit this wordplay to write about Canada’s zombie laws.

Today’s post doesn’t predict a zombie apocalypse. Instead, it celebrates the impending doom of so-called zombie laws in the Criminal Code.[1]

Several “undead” laws remain “on the books”—in the Criminal Code—until Parliament amends or repeals them. Zombie laws are effectively null. If a court imposes a conviction under such laws, the defendant will likely succeed on appealing that conviction. Most zombie laws have been struck down by the courts for failing to comply with the Constitution.[2] Others are simply out of date with contemporary customs.[3]

Zombie laws usually don't do anything but sit on the books and make law students chuckle. So, what’s the harm of leaving them written in the code? It’s simply misleading; it can confuse the justice process. The government should clearly express what is an is not a law so that individuals are aware. Without the benefit of a legal education to sort through case law, many people may be unaware of laws that have been struck down.

Legal scholars across Canada renewed their demands on parliament to repeal zombie laws after the apocalyptic fallout when a judge used such a law. As we wrote in September, Court of Queen’s Bench Justice Denny Thomas convicted Travis Vader using a charge that has been struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC). Justice Thomas subsequently corrected that error and convicted Vader with manslaughter. This correction precluded Vader’s lawyers from appealing the conviction on the grounds that it fell under an unconstitutional provision.

A parliamentary democracy gives lawmakers parliamentary supremacy. Parliament can enact or repeal any law it wishes by passing a bill through the House of Commons. However, the Constitution supersedes all other legislation. In 1982 the constitutional supremacy clause was introduced.[4] It assures that all Canadian legislation is consistent with the constitutional provisions. When courts interpret legislation, they have the power to strike down a law and render it “of no force or effect” to the extent that it is inconsistent with the Constitution; including the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.[5]

The Charter also took effect in 1982 and, being part of the Constitution, holds the same status as supreme law. Several laws—among those listed below—that were enacted before 1982 have subsequently been rendered unconstitutional.

To bring the Criminal Code text in line with jurisprudence and contemporary social values, Parliament has announced that it will repeal (hopefully all) the zombie laws.[6] Eliminating uncertainty and vagueness in the Criminal Code will prevent potential future apocalyptic zombie justice system.

List of Undead Offenders:

• s. 71: Challenging someone or accepting a challenge to fight in a duel.[7]
• s. 159: Anal intercourse for people under 18 years; anal intercourse in groups.[8]
• s. 163(1, 7): Publishing crime comics.[9]
• s. 163(2)(d): Advertising drugs that “are a method for restoring sexual virility or curing venereal diseases.”[10]
• s. 179: Vagrancy.[11]
• s. 181: Spreading false news.[12]
• s. 230: Murder in commission of offences.[13]
• s. 250(1, 2): Water-skiing at night; water skiing without a spotter.[14]
• s. 287: Abortion.[15]
• s. 296: Publishing blasphemous libel.
• s. 365: Fraudulently pretending to practice witchcraft, sorcery, enchantment, or conjuration; or tell fortunes.[16]
• s. 427(1): Issuing trading stamps.[17]

 

[1] RSC 1985, c-46.

[2] Constitution Act, 1982, s 52, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11 [Constitution].

[3] Tu Thanh Ha, “These Seven Archaic ‘Zombie Laws’ still Exist in the Criminal Code,” The Globe and Mail (8 March 2017), online: <www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/these-zombie-laws-in-the-criminal-code-could-still-have-you-arrested/article34246168/>.

[4] Constitution, supra note 2, s 52.

[5] Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11 [Charter].

[5] Kathleen Harris, “Federal Government to Axe 'Zombie Laws' from Canada's Criminal Code,” CBC News (7 March 2017), online: <www.cbc.ca/news/politics/criminal-code-reform-zombie-laws-1.4013869>; Brent Rathgeber, “The Criminal Code is in Dire Need of Housecleaning: Trudeau Needs to Pick Up where Harper Failed to Act,” iPolitics (22 September 2016), online: iPolitics.com <www.ipolitics.ca/2016/09/22/the-criminal-code-is-in-dire-need-of-housecleaning/>.

[6] Harris, ibid.

[3] Ha, supra note 2.

[8] R v M(C), 23 OR (3d) 629, 82 OAC 68; R v Roth, 2002 ABQB 145, 306 AR 387.

[9] R v Butler, [1992] 1 SCR 452, 89 DLR (4th) 449.

[10] Ha, supra note 3.

[11] R v Heywood, [1994] 3 SCR 761, 120 DLR (4th) 348.

[12] R v Zundel, [1992] 2 SCR 731, 56 OAC 161.

[13] R v Vaillancourt, [1987] 2 SCR 636, 68 Nfld & PEIR 281; R v Martineau, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 633, 76 Alta LR (2d) 1.

[14] R v Gatt, 1992 CanLII 1105 (BC SC).

[15] R v Morgentaler, [1988] 1 SCR 30, 44 DLR (4th) 385.

[16] Ha, supra note 3.

[17] Ibid.

Entering the Dragon's Den

 

We end our political party week by discussing Canada’s founding political party. The Conservative Party adopted its values and policies from the British Tories and governed Canada for 29 consecutive years after Confederation.¹ Since Confederation the Conservative Party has changed substantially. For the purpose of today’s post we will be focussing on the Conservative Party’s merger after the year 2000 and its upcoming leadership race.

Before unifying in 2003, there were two separate and distinct conservative parties: the Canadian Reform Conservative Alliance and the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada.² The two merged in December 2003 with overwhelming support from both parties and a hope of creating a stronger and more unified conservative movement.³ A newly formed party required one more thing: a newly elected leader to bring new life to the campaign. On March 20th, 2004, Stephen Harper became the first leader of the Conservative Party of Canada.⁴ Harper led the Conservatives to success in the 2006 election, and maintained control of the Canadian government until November 2015.

After the loss of the 2015 election, Harper chose to step down from party leadership leaving Rona Ambrose as the current interim party leader.⁵ This brings us to the current state of the Conservative government. On May 27th, 2017, Conservative Party members will vote to elect the party’s new leader. Fourteen candidates put their names forward almost immediately upon notice of the election, but polls suggest that there are really only three contenders.⁶

With an early lead over the other candidates, polls suggest that Kevin O’Leary with (22.1%) will be the next Conservative leader.⁷ Controversial, outspoken, loud, and critical of Canada’s current Liberal government, O’Leary has certainly created a name for himself. Perhaps Conservative Canadians are unhappy with how Justin Trudeau and the Liberals are running the country, or maybe O’Leary’s name is more recognizable due to his fame from “Dragon’s Den.” Regardless of the reason, O’Leary’s election seems likely.

What platform is O’Leary actually running on when you look past the loud media rants and wild antics? The answer is hard to determine. O’Leary’s campaign page suggests that he wants to support small businesses and hardworking Canadians using his investment background.⁸  He also suggests that it is time for the country to be run by someone who is not a career politician. Sound familiar? I recall a certain Donald Trump making similar suggestions south of the border. While O’Leary may have good intentions of balancing the Canadian budget and providing support to working Canadians he does not make any tangible suggestions as to how he will do this. But he is a businessman so he must know how to deal with the economy, right?

The Conservative Party would head in an interesting direction if O’Leary were elected. If he’s elected I hope O’Leary will make, and keep, tangible promises to Canadians, rather than just rant about Justin Trudeau’s time in office. Who knows though, maybe by May 27th Kellie Leitch or Maxime Bernier will take the vote. All we can do now is stay tuned and leave you with a quote from O’Leary:

"I understand what he is doing with the media, and you can certainly claim I am trying to do the same, but I am not Donald Trump."⁹

 

 

 

¹ Trevor W Harrison, “Conservative Party”, The Canadian Encyclopedia (19 August 2015), online: <www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/conservative-party/>.

² Conservative Party of Canada, “Our History” (2017), online: <www.conservative.ca/our-party/our-history/>.

³ Ibid.

⁴ Ibid.

⁵ Conservative Party of Canada, “Leadership” (2017), online: <www.conservative.ca/leadership/en>.

⁶ “Conservative leadership candidate Kevin O'Leary says he knows where 'rot' is at CBC: 'We could save billions of dollars'”, Toronto Sun (28 March 2017), online: <www.torontosun.com/2017/03/28/conservative-leadership-candidate-kevin-oleary-says-he-knows-where-rot-is-at-cbc-we-could-save-billions-of-dollars>.

⁷ Ibid.

⁸ Kevin O’Leary, “Why I’m Running” (2017), online: <https://olearyforcanada.ca/en/why/#0>.

⁹ The Canadian Press, “A selection of quotes from Conservative leadership candidate Kevin O'Leary” Times Colonist (18 January 2017), online: <www.timescolonist.com/a-selection-of-quotes-from-conservative-leadership-candidate-kevin-o-leary-1.7857343>.

Trek Yo'self Before You Wreck Yo'self

On stardate 42523.7 (October 26th, 2364 for those of us in the 21st century), the crew of the USS Enterprise-D, under the command of Captain Jean-Luc Picard (Sir Patrick Stewart¹ at his finest), pulled into Starbase 173 for what was presumably a routine stop. For one member of Picard's crew, this visit resulted in a fight for his life and autonomy, but not against an enemy of Starfleet.  This battle was to be fought against an overzealous officer from within their own ranks.

Great science fiction prompts us to imagine a world different from our own, to explore questions of ethics, morality, and even law. Cue episode 9 of season 2 of Star Trek: The Next Generation, entitled “The Measure of a Man”.²

This particular episode focuses on Lieutenant Commander Data (brilliantly portrayed by Brent Spiner³), the first and only android to serve with Starfleet. Upon their arrival to Starbase 173, we are introduced to Commander Bruce Maddox, a brilliant but overconfident science officer who wishes to dismantle Data in an effort to study and eventually replicate him. Though Data lacks the capacity for emotion, he is able to form and express preferences. With this in mind, he refuses to submit to the procedure. Data  subsequently resigns his commission in Starfleet when it appears to be the only way to halt the procedure.

The episode then transforms into a legal drama. Captain Phillipa Louvois, a legal officer, convenes a hearing over the issue. Commander Maddox takes the position that Data is property of Starfleet and therefore cannot resign. Capt. Picard is assigned to represent Data, while the case is “prosecuted” by Commander William Riker, Picard's First Officer and Data's good friend.

Riker elicits evidence that Data is merely a machine.  He is also successful in having facts read into the record. Specifically, that Data was created by a cyberneticist, that his positronic brain has an impressive processing speed that is unmatched by any other known life form, that he has superhuman strength, and that he can have his hand removed and be turned off without permanent harm.

Picard begins his arguments by wisely conceding that Data is a machine, but follows up by claiming that human beings are also “machines” of a sort, and that this is largely irrelevant. The matter at hand is whether or not Data is sentient. While questioning Maddox, Picard asks him what would be required to meet a minimum threshold for sentience. Maddox responds, “Intelligence, self-awareness, consciousness.” He effectively assists the court in formulating a legal test by which to assess Data's claim that his is sentient, and therefore unable to be held to be property.

Maddox quickly concedes that Data is intelligent, and Picard makes a fairly easy case for self-awareness as well. On the point of consciousness, Picard does not necessarily argue that Data is conscious, but that “consciousness” is a criterion that is exceedingly difficult to test. He proposes that if Data can meet even the lowest standard of consciousness, he must be sentient.

In his closing, Picard states that someone will eventually succeed in replicating Data. It is the court’s decision in this matter that will determine how humanity and this new race of artificial life forms will interact. He effectively asks the court to look at policy considerations regarding “the boundaries of personal liberty and freedom”, finally asking, “Are you prepared to condemn him and all who come after him to servitude and slavery?”

Needless to say, Picard wins the day and Data wins his autonomy. Acting as judge, Louvois concludes that she doesn't really know what Data is, but that he should have the freedom to explore these things for himself.

Most television shows that focus on law make some legal errors, and this episode is no exception. Picard's calling of a “hostile witness”, his questioning of Data while Maddox is giving evidence, and the court referring to Riker as the “prosecution” despite Data not being accused of any crime are three examples that come to mind.  Much of this is excusable, as it allows for a complex legal issue to be resolved in 45 minutes of screen time.  

Having said that, “The Measure of a Man” was accurate in a couple of important aspects. After the parties agreed to a test for sentience, they were both correct in arguing for how it should be applied. As is often the case in law, policy considerations were a major deciding factor. Picard's argument that ruling Data as property would open the floodgates for future enslavement of similar beings was enough for the court to view sentience with the broadest application possible, basically erring on the side of autonomy over the potential for slavery.

Even for those who might not have an affinity for science fiction, “The Measure of a Man” is worth a watch for it's value as a legal drama.

 

1 online: Twitter <twitter.com/SirPatStew>.
2 “The Measure of a Man”, Star Trek: The Next Generation (Hollywood, Cal: Paramount Domestic Television, 1989).
3 online: Twitter <twitter.com/BrentSpiner>.

To Kill a Mockingbird: When Public Opinion Hurts the Justice Process

 

“Prejudice, a dirty word, and faith, a clean one, have something in common: they both begin where reason ends.”[1]

 

Today’s post explores a fundamental principle of Canada’s criminal justice system: every person on trial must be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This determination must be “logically connected to the evidence” and not based on “sympathy or prejudice.”[2] For this reason, the defendant in a criminal trial is afforded additional rights to protect her innocence—unless and until the Crown prosecutor convinces a judge or jury beyond a reasonable doubt that enough evidence justifies a guilty verdict.

This is contrasted with the civil justice system. In civil court both parties’ rights are considered equally and the result is weighed on a balance of probabilities. In the criminal system the scales of justice are adjusted to reflect the state’s relative power to impose criminal sanction and the individual’s risk of loss of liberty and the stigma associated with a criminal conviction. The bottom line is that our society values the individual’s freedom so highly that it is better to let a guilty person free than to incarcerate an innocent person.

In Harper Lee’s book To Kill a Mockingbird, lawyer Atticus Finch defends the wrongfully accused Tom Robinson.[3] Mr. Robinson’s guilt is predetermined by the townsfolk and Mr. Finch faces an uphill battle to persuade the jury of his innocence. Before trial, Mr. Robinson’s reputation is already muddied.

In high profile criminal cases, the court of public opinion can injure the defendant’s reputation before guilt is decided. Recently in Alberta, Travis Vader was found guilty of manslaughter.[4] The judge found that the evidence did not support a first-degree murder conviction but it did meet the lower threshold of a manslaughter conviction. In Ontario, Jian Ghomeshi was found not guilty of sexual assault.[5] The evidence against the accused was not reliable enough to support a conviction.

Even before their days in court, both accused were unofficially tried in the court of public opinion and, like wildfire, guilty verdicts spread across social media. When someone is tried for a crime and found not guilty, ideally her life should return to normal, having been acquitted of a crime. This is usually true. Although our courts are almost always open to the public, most trials come and go without much public attention.

However, when a highly profiled case is before the courts, the accused is tried by thousands of opinions—most of which are not framed in an understanding of criminal law. Trial-by-social-media multiplies the impact on the reputation of the person facing trial. Publicizing the accused’s name and face changes her life forever. An accused person who is acquitted will never be truly innocent in the public’s eye when there is a highly publicized case, and a convicted accused in such cases carries the social burden heavier than does a non-publicized accused.

The lesson from To Kill a Mockingbird is in Atticus Finch’s influence on his children and, therefore, on the reader. Logic and equality is better than prejudice and bias. Even those accused of the worst crimes deserve “to get a square deal [in the] courtroom.”[6]

 

[1] Harper Lee, Go Set a Watchman (US: HarperCollins, 2015).

[2] R v Lifchus, [1997] 3 SCR 320, 150 DLR (4th) 733, at para 36.

[3] Harper Lee, To Kill a Mockingbird (Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1960) [Mockingbird].

[4] R v Vader, 2016 ABQB 625, 2016 CarswellAlta 2163.

[5] R v Ghomeshi, 2016 ONCJ 155, 2016 CarswellOnt 4246.

[6] Mockingbird, supra note 3.

Are Dementors Coming to Canada?

Separate from muggles (non-magical people), witches and wizards live their lives in secret. Hiding their magic from the non-wizarding community, they formed an entire world with schools, government agencies, and policing forces. Their existence is unknown to muggles as their government enacts laws to keep their identities and use of magic a secret.

Witches and Wizards live peacefully alongside No-Majs (Canadian and American muggles), attending the Calgary Stampede every summer, and skiing in the Rockies during the winter.

Similar to No-Maj Canada, serious offenders in the wizarding world are sent to prison. Across the pond in Britain, the guards of the magical prison, Azkaban, were Dementors (until the fall of Lord Voldemort, when they were replaced by specially trained wizards).

This begs the question: Could Dementors be validly employed as guards of Canadian wizarding prisons?

(For the purpose of this article I assume that all laws enacted in Britain for the wizarding population apply in Canada.)

Dementors have been called the scariest magical creature.¹ They feed on hope, happiness, and peace. They also “suck every good feeling, every happy memory” out of their victims. Many prisoners died in Azkaban, or turned insane from the Dementors.

The conditions at Azkaban were declared inhumane from the presence of Dementors, and would arguably breach s. 12 of the Charter: the right not to be subject to cruel and unusual punishment.²

In Canadian jurisprudence, cruel and unusual punishment is defined in R v Smith as “so excessive as to outrage standards of decency”, or “grossly disproportionate to what would have been appropriate.”³ The Court in Smith and later cases, provide guides to measure whether the punishment was proportional. Some of these include the the person’s characteristics, the seriousness of the crime, the objectives of the punishment, and how the individual would be impacted.⁴

Importantly, Canadian courts have made note that the test for a cruel and unusual punishment is deferential to the government and a finding of cruel and unusual should be rare.⁵

In Azkaban, all prisoners regardless of the crime are subject to the Dementors and their effects. This in-and-of-itself indicates that proportionality is an issue; the seriousness of the crime is not considered at all when prisoners are sent to Azkaban as they are subject to the same Dementor interaction.

In addition, the use of Dementors as prison guards could be deemed a form of psychological torture. Canada’s Criminal Code defines torture as “any act or omission by which severe suffering, whether mental or physical, is intentionally inflicted on a person”.⁶ Dementors purposefully breed on pain and suffering, driving prisoners to insanity and overwhelming them with their darkest, saddest memories. That most definitely constitutes a form of torture under the Criminal Code.

Torture is illegal in Canada under the Criminal Code, but is also declared cruel and unusual under s. 12 of the Charter. For these reasons and with acknowledgement of deferential judgments, I can conclude that the use of Dementors at Azkaban breaches prisoners s. 12 Charter rights to be free from cruel and unusual punishments.

However, Ministry action that breach Charter rights may be saved under s. 1, a justified infringement. The Ministry of Magic in Britain allowed Dementors to remain as the guards to Azkaban for hundreds of years for a number of policy reasons that must be acknowledged.

First, Dementors must feed on souls. By confining the creatures to the Island on which Azkaban is situated, it keeps them in a controlled area by allowing them to feed on prisoners’ souls. If Dementors were kicked off the Island, many fear that they would head for the cities to find souls to feed on, jeopardizing the souls of innocent witches and wizards.⁷

Second, they are incredibly effective prison guards.⁸ Prior to Azkaban’s existence, convicted witches and wizards would be sent to smaller prisons around Britain. Breakouts were common and the magical community feared breaching the International Statute of Secrecy when prisoners escaped and made a ruckus. Since Azkaban was built, only two prisoners have escaped.  

Third, Aurors (the specially trained wizards who now guard Azkaban) are an elite group of specially trained witches and wizards. They are the crème-de-la-crème of the wizarding world, and serve to protect. However, their use as prison guards at Azkaban is arguably a waste of resources. These magical people are specially trained to catch witches and wizards practicing in the Dark Arts. They are not trained in prison control or magic outside of the Dark Arts.

However, Dementors have declared their allegiance to Lord Voldemort; they allowed two mass breakouts of Death Eaters in support of He Who Shall Not Be Named. Though he is dead and gone, it is possible that another powerful evil wizard will come along and gain their support.

All this to say, it is not likely that the use of Dementors at Azkaban could be a justified infringement under the Charter given the policy factors discussed above.

Though I cannot in good conscience propose an alternative, Mr. Shacklebolt has agreed to listen to proposals from readers. He is expected to make the trip to Ottawa next week where he is taking appointments.

¹J.K. Rowling, “Why Dementors are the scariest magical creatures”, Pottermore (blog), online: <https://www.pottermore.com/features/why-dementors-are-the-scariest-magical-creatures>.

²Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11, s 12.

³R v Smith, [1987] 1 SCR 1045.

⁴Smith, supra note 3; R v Goltz, [1991] 3 SCR 485; R v Morrisey, 2000 SCC 39, [2000] 2 SCR 90.

⁵Steele v Mountain Institution, [1990] 2 SCR 1385.

⁶Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, s 269.1(2).

⁷J.K. Rowling, “Azkaban”, Pottermore (blog), online: <https://www.pottermore.com/features/why-dementors-are-the-scariest-magical-creatures>.

⁸Ibid.

 

Are You or Have You Ever Been a Mutant?

This week, The Dominion writers demonstrate their nerdy tendencies by discussing fictional legal scenarios. Check back daily to see if your favourite fictional legal case is featured!

Last year, the blockbuster film Captain America: Civil War featured a plan to force super heroes to register with the government. Comics have used this kind of storyline for decades. But would such a legislative scheme be valid in the real world?

The first attempt to register super heroes in the Marvel Universe was the Mutant Registration Act [MRA] (also called the Mutant Control Act). This was first mentioned in the “Days of Future Past” story, in which genocidal, mutant hunting Sentinels controlled a dark future.[1] After the legislation passed a special government strike team called Freedom Force enforced it. Ironically, Freedom Force was comprised of former super criminals who had tried to assassinate the Senator who first proposed the legislation.[2] There were protests against the legislation and at some point it was either repealed or no longer enforced.[3]

This legislation is unlikely to be enforced in Canada. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees protection against discrimination based on identifiable characteristics in section 15.[4] The courts have expanded the categories that are protected by the Charter using the concept of “analogous grounds” to include things not originally enumerated, such as sexual orientation.[5] Of course, when the analogous ground includes people with the ability to read minds, control the weather, and shoot force blasts from their eyes, it is possible that a violation could be allowed using the reasonable limits clause in s. 1 of the Charter.[6] These powers can make those who possess them extremely dangerous to others. The argument is that the state has a great responsibility to keep control of those with great power.

The second version of registration was very different. Rather than lumping in everyone with the “X-gene”, with powers ranging from “control over the fabric of reality” all the way down to “covered in extra eyeballs”, the Super Hero Registration Act [SHRA] only registered individuals, no matter the source of their powers, who intended to use them. This included many mutants, but also nuclear accident victims and genius engineers.[7] One mutant hero, Firestar, would have had no choice but to register under the MRA. But under the SHRA she was allowed to retire; choosing to refrain from using her powers.[8] The act was eventually repealed at the request of Captain America.[9]

The SHRA is more likely than the MRA to stand in Canada. In fact, Marvel Universe’s Canada has similar legislation, but it did not cause the problems that it did south of the border.[10] When the dust cleared after Civil War, Iron Man ended up in charge of SHIELD, the agency charged with administering the SHRA. He used his new authority to ensure that heroes were properly trained and spread into teams throughout the United States. This project was called the Fifty States Initiative.[11]

Iron Man and the other experienced heroes were responsible for training the next generation, deciding their qualifications, and, when necessary, policing their actions. The Initiative essentially turned being a super hero into a self-regulating profession, not unlike lawyer self-regulation in the real world.[12] The potential constitutional issues would come not from Charter rights, but rather from the BNA Act itself. Self-regulating professions and other licenses are a provincial responsibility.[13] With that said, in a world with super powers it is likely that courts would allow the federal government to legislate on the matter instead of the provinces. Much like pollution and interprovincial trade, it be a problem too large for the provinces to properly handle.[14]

Comic book writers and filmmakers are not experts in constitutional law. Sometimes, a slow burning sub plot would be a much more dramatic event in the real world. Other times, the summer blockbuster event in the comics would be a completely sensible, not particularly controversial, event in the real world. At least not by constitutional standards.

 

[1]  Chris Claremont & John Byrne, “Days of Future Past,” Uncanny X-Men 141 (January 1981). 

[2] Chris Claremont & John Romita Jr, “The Spiral Path,” Uncanny X-Men 199 (November 1985).

[3] Louise Simonson and Walter Simonson, “For All the World to See”, X-Factor 33 (October 1988).

[4] Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s 15, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11 [Charter].

[5] Vriend v Alberta, [1998] 1 SCR 493, 156 DLR (4th) 385.

[6] Charter, supra note 4, s 1.

[7] J Michael Straczynski & Ron Garney, “Mr Parker Goes to Washington pt 1”, Amazing Spider-Man 529 (April 2006).

[8] Paul Jenkins & Ramon Bachs, “Embedded pt 2,” Civil War Frontline 2 (August 2006).

[9] Brian Bendis & Olivier Coipel, “Siege of Asgard - The Fallen,” Siege 4 (June 2010).

[10] Michael Avon Oeming & Scott Kollins, “The Fantastic Four!”, Omega Flight 2 (May 2007).

[11] Dan Slott & Stefano Caselli, “Happy Accidents,” Avengers: The Initiative 1 (June 2007).

[12] Legal Profession Act, RSA 2000, c L-8.

[13] Constitution Act, 1867 (UK), 30 & 31 Vict, c 3, s 92(9), reprinted in RSC 1985, Appendix II, No 5.

[14] R v Crown Zellerbach Canada Ltd, [1988] 1 SCR 401, 49 DLR (4th) 161.

Let Loose the Dogs of Yukon Heritage Day!

If we were to ask any non-Canadian what they know about Heritage Day, we would likely be met with a look of confusion. Truth be told, if we were to ask any Canadian the same question, it is likely that they might only know their province's version of it. Here in Alberta, where it is celebrated in August, it is often simply referred to as “August Long”, and frequently used to camp or travel.

Many provinces celebrate Heritage Day on the third Monday of February. It was originally created in 1973 by the Heritage Canada Foundation¹ and was intended to be a national holiday. Due to Parliamentary shenanigans, this national holiday failed to be passed into law, so many of the provinces celebrated however they pleased. For some of them, it meant doing nothing until some time later, when they enacted their own provincial statutes to establish the holiday.

Yukon Territory, on the other hand, was an early adopter. In 1975, Yukon had assumed that Parliament would pass the Bill to establish a National Heritage Day. In response, the territory established their own Heritage Day on the Friday preceding the last Sunday in February. Further, they wrote the holiday into the union contract for territorial employees². With the new law in place and the contract ratified, the holiday could not be easily removed. Consequently, many non-government employees in the Yukon also now enjoy the holiday.

Whitehorse, the capital of Yukon Territory hosts the week-long “Yukon Sourdough Rendezvous”, which is a festival with something for literally everyone. Based on the names and descriptions alone, our favourites include the Chainsaw Chuck (not to be confused with the Axe Throw later in the day), the Hair Freezing Contest (sponsored by a local hot tub company), and various dogsled-related events, culminating in a Dog Howling Contest.

We love that this holiday and its accompanying festival showcase one of the best things about Canada. As Canadians, we can all relate not only because we like to have fun, but also that we have a habit of poking a little fun at ourselves. The great people of Yukon Territory have done a great job of finding the perfect balance of recognizing and celebrating their unique culture, while having some lighthearted fun.

For those of us unable to make the trip to Whitehorse this weekend, Heritage Yukon invites those of us who use social media to use the hashtag #mycanadais to help celebrate the 150th anniversary of this diverse country that we share.

 

¹ “Heritage Day: Canadian Holiday” in Encyclopaedia Britannica (Encyclopaedia Britannica: 2017) online: <https://www.britannica.com/topic/Heritage-Day-Canadian-holiday>.
² Gail Kudelik, “Provincial and Territorial Holidays” in Canadian Encyclopedia (Historica Canada: 2015) online: <www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/provincial-and-territorial-holidays>.

It's Dolly the Sheep's Anniversary!

Today, February 22nd, marks the 20th anniversary since Dolly the Sheep was announced to the public. She was the first successfully cloned mammal and lived until the age of 6. Dolly was unique because she was cloned from an adult cell rather than from embryonic cells.¹

She was born in Edinburgh, Scotland, at the Roslin Institute on July 5th, 1996, and yes, she was actually “born” in the traditional sense. DNA from a sheep cell was inserted into an egg and implanted into a sheep. Tests confirmed that Dolly’s DNA is wholly her mother’s DNA, not that of the surrogate mom.

With this announcement came a flood of ethical and legal questions, including: Is cloning allowed? Are the laws surrounding cloning constitutional?

Animal Cloning

Cloning animals in Canada is legal. Starting with Dolly, labs have begun to clone other animals. At McGill University in 2007, researchers cloned Canada’s first pig.² The McGill lab has been contacted by other labs at Canadian universities to clone animals for research.

Though animal cloning is legal, there are restrictions in place on what can be done with the animals. Health Canada created an interim policy in 2003, stating that any food to be sold from cloned animals must first pass a safety assessment.³ Health Canada was concerned that the method of cloning posed safety concerns.       

There are also ethical concerns with cloning animals. In the United States, there are companies that will clone your pet!⁴ You can actually pay a company $50,000 to get a DNA-identical version of your dog.

A 2010 study by Ipsos Reid for Agriculture Canada showed that over half of Canadians found animal cloning unacceptable.⁵ Only 16% thought cloning animals was tolerable.

Human Cloning

Human cloning has been outlawed in Canada for years. Sections 5(1) and 9 of the Assisted Human Reproduction Act prohibits the creation of a human clone or transplanting a human clone into a human being.⁶ Unlike some other countries, a person cannot knowingly create a human clone for any purpose or use in Canada, with some exceptions for research purposes.⁷ Specifically, research on embryos may be permitted if a proper license is obtained, and if the researchers adhere to the proper regulatory oversight.⁸

In comparison, US federal laws permit human cloning for limited purposes.⁹

Is Human Cloning Constitutional?

Professor Barbara Billingsley, from right here at the University of Alberta’s Faculty of Law, has considered the question of whether the cloning prohibitions in the AHRA unjustifiably infringe on Canadians’ section 2(b) right of freedom of expression to create non-reproductive human clones.¹⁰ To find infringement, the act of human cloning must first be determined to be a form of expression.

She notes that although Canadian courts have not yet ruled on whether medical research is a form of expression, there have been comments from the courts that indicate that it would be likely.¹¹ Assuming it does infringe, Billingsley found that the bans in the AHRA likely infringe Canadians’ constitutional rights, in that they infringe the pursuit of truth in the scientific community, and/or ‘human flourishing’.¹²

Billingsley did not conclude whether the right would be justifiably infringed. She stated that policy reasons behind the ban were unclear and the lack of case law on the subject prevents an adequate guide for such an analysis.¹³

In contrast, the US has grappled with cloning within the context of the First Amendment. Specifically, scientists claim that the “right to research” falls within the First Amendment because it “challenges or explores cultural or political norms, which, is an act of rebellion … in the spirit of the First Amendment.”¹⁴ Unlike in Canada, there are no federal laws currently outlawing human cloning.¹⁵

 

¹“1997: Dolly the Sheep is Cloned”, BBC News, online: <news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/february/22/newsid_4245000/4245877.stm>.

²Michael Bourguignon, “Cloned Pigs a First in Canada”, McGill Reporter (6 December 2007), online: <https://www.mcgill.ca/reporter/40/08/pigs/>.

³www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/legislation/pol/pol-cloned_animal-clones_animaux-eng.php

⁴see www.myfriendagain.com.

⁵Sarah Schmidt, “Canadians Leery of Cloned Animals”, Canada.com (5 October 2010), online: <www.canada.com/health/Most+Canadians+leery+cloned+animals/3628765/story.html>.

⁶Assisted Human Reproduction Act, SC 2004, c 2.

⁷Health Canada, “Prohibitions Related to Scientific Research and Clinical Applications”, (Ottawa: 9 January 2014), online: <www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/brgtherap/legislation/reprod/research-recherche-eng.php#fnb2-ref>.

⁸UNESCO, National Legislation Concerning Human Reproductive and Therapeutic Cloning (Paris: 2004) at 5, online: <unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001342/134277e.pdf>.

⁹Health Canada, supra note 7.

¹⁰Barbara Billingsley, “A Constitutional Analysis of the Proposed Ban on Non-Reproductive Human Cloning: An Unjustified Violation of Freedom of Expression?” (2002) 11:1 Health L Rev 32, online: <www.hli.ualberta.ca/HealthLawJournals/~/media/hli/Publications/HLR/11-1-billingsleyfrm.pdf>.

¹¹Ibid.

¹²Ibid.

¹³Ibid.

¹⁴Wesley J Smith, “Constitutional Cloning”, The Weekly Standard (8 September 2004), online: <www.weeklystandard.com/constitutional-cloning/article/5908>.

¹⁵“Cloning: Frequently Asked Questions”, NPR, online: <www.npr.org/news/specials/cloning/faq_blanknav.html>.

Enough about Queen Bey, let’s talk about Queen V!*

Having recently reviewed some prominent Fathers of Confederation, this week we focus on Mothers of Confederation. Without a doubt, the most prominent and important female influence of Confederation was Queen Victoria.

Queen Victoria’s connection with Canada went beyond merely sitting as monarch over a colony. Her father, Prince Edward, Duke of Kent, lived in Quebec and the Maritimes for the better part of a decade.[1] Canada’s smallest province, Prince Edward Island, was named after him.

Queen Victoria was Canada’s ultimate political signatory to enact Confederation. It was an appealing mechanism with which to unite French- and English-speaking residents, to facilitate trade among the regions, and to stave off American invasion.[2] Some Canadian and British politicians reasoned that the US would be more likely to conquer Canada if the regions remained separate British colonies. Therefore, Confederation not only internally united Ontario, Quebec, and the Maritimes, it also protected the region from external threats.

One of Queen Victoria’s first steps to uniting British North America was to ease tensions after the rebellion uprisings in Upper and Lower Canada.[3] The rebellions started in 1837, the year Victoria ascended to the throne, and continued to 1839. She granted amnesties to rebels as early as 1838, allowed the Governor General to issue special pardons in 1843, and granted completed pardons for anyone involved in the rebellions through the Amnesty Act in 1849.[4] One former rebel became a father of Confederation, which speaks to the Queen’s work in reconciliation.

In a further commitment to maintain harmony in her colony, Queen Victoria directly met with First Nations leaders before Confederation. Her children appear to have continued that commitment by visiting Canada and meeting with First Nations leaders to listen to political needs and concerns.[5]

Although her father and five of her children visited Canada, Queen Victoria never did.[6] Moreover, one critic wrote that Queen Victoria’s personal diary seems dismissive of major Canadian events.[7] On May 22, 1867, the Queen noted only briefly that she attended the final meeting to authorize Confederation. And on July 1st, 1867, Queen Victoria wrote of her daughter’s fifth wedding anniversary and of the weather, with no mention of Canada.[8]

Other historians note that the Queen never stopped grieving her husband’s death in 1861.[9] Perhaps, though committed to Canada’s political interests, she merely reflected in her personal journal without considering whether 150 years later we would analyze her private thoughts.

Whatever her motivation for her personal diary, Queen Victoria’s motivation for Confederation was echoed by those who were on the ground in British North America. Confederation had political motives that transcended those among the colonies. As Canada’s Queen, Victoria made her mark on Canada and we continue to celebrate her reign with the annual Victoria Day long weekend.

 

*Just kidding; we love Queen Bey.

[1] Arthur Bousfield, “Queen Victoria, 1837-1901: Mother of Confederation,” Canadian Royal Heritage Trust (2013), online: <crht.ca/queen-victoria-mother-of-confederation/>; Carolyn Harris, “Queen Victoria and Canada,” Queen’s Alumni Review, Queen’s University (2016), online: <www.queensu.ca/gazette/alumnireview/stories/queen-victoria-and-canada>.

[2] Library and Archives Canada, Government of Canada “How Canada was Formed,” Politics and Government, Library and Archives Canada online: <https://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/confederation/kids/023002-1010-e.html>; Canada History, “The London Conference,” CanadaHistory.com (2013), online: <http://www.canadahistory.com/sections/eras/confederation/London.html>.

[3] Harris, supra note 1.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Randy Boswell, “Queen Victoria, the ‘Mother of Confederation,’ Made No Mention of the Event in her Diary,” Postmedia Network Inc (25 May 2012) Canada.com, online: <www.canada.com/news/Queen+Victoria+Mother+Confederation+made+mention+event+diary/6679733/story.html>.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Bousfield, supra note 1; Harris, supra note 1.

Throwing it Back on Tuesday: People Edition

We continue our week examining cultural changes in Canada over the last 150 years with today’s discussion on Canadian demographics. Although the British North America Act does not directly relate to how diverse our population is, Canadian citizens elect politicians and leaders who influence our laws and political climate. As our social makeup changes, so do our values and, in turn, our laws. Today we focus on the people living in the country to understand how Confederation and today’s political climate evolved.

 

When we look back to 1867, Canada’s population looks strikingly different than it does today. Today, Canada prides itself on its multiculturalism and welcoming of immigrants. A flashback to the people of 1867 paints a much different picture. At the time of Confederation, 79% of the Canadian population were born in Canada.¹ The majority of the country’s population grew up with similar cultural and religious values, with Roman Catholicism and Protestants dominating all other religious beliefs.² These religions were so dominant early on in Canada’s formation that our own national anthem even features a reference to “God.” This has created some controversy recently as to whether our national anthem should be modified to reflect our changing social landscape with respect to individual religious views.

 

The immigrant population in 1867 was also widely different than current trends. The biggest immigrant group consisted of French settlers, with English, Welsh, Irish, and Scottish people also making their way to Canada.³ The immigration population at the time consisted of mainly Caucasian Europeans. The majority of these newcomers settled into Upper Canada at the time, with the rest mainly finding a home in Lower Canada.⁴ European immigrants certainly influenced Confederation in 1867, however Indigenous populations inhabited this land long before. By the year of Confederation, historians estimate that 100,000 to 125,000 Indigenous people were living in Canada.⁵

 

When we fast-forward to life in 2017, a much different picture of Canadian people exists. By 2006, Canada had reached an immigrant population of 6.2 million people, which equates to 19.8% of the entire population.⁶ If current trends continue, the immigrant population by the end of 2017 is expected to reach nearly 22% of the population.⁷ Although the percentage of immigrants has remained relatively stable around 20% since Confederation, their origins have become more diverse. Today, immigrants come from every continent in the world, the majority of which are of Asian descent, not European.⁸ With the increase in immigrants, the country has seen a surge in the number of unique languages, cultures, and religions. Specifically, Chinese immigrants have become the leading visible minority group, accounting for roughly 1 million people throughout the country.⁹ Indigenous populations have also substantially grown since Canada’s creation. The 2011 national census reports, that 1,400,685 people (4.3% of the population), consider themselves Aboriginal and over 60 Indigenous languages exist.¹⁰

 

Religion has also changed within the last 150 years. Roman Catholicism is still the most widely practiced religion throughout Canada, representing 38.7% of the entire population.¹¹ While Roman Catholicism continues to have a widespread following, it is not as dominant as it was during Confederation. Further, a variety of new religions are currently practiced throughout the country. Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism, and Buddhism are now common throughout Canada, with 7.2% of Canada's population reporting practicing one of these.¹² The increase in religious diversity is likely the reason some Canadians believe the inclusion of word “God” in our national anthem is no longer appropriate as it tends to connote a Christian reference.

 

Canada is becoming a more diverse place. In 2017, it is hard to pinpoint whom a Canadian is or what they might look or sound like.

 

 

¹ Statistics Canada, “Canadian Statistics in 1867”, (Ottawa: Statistics Canada, 2009), online: </www65.statcan.gc.ca/acyb07/acyb07_0002-eng.htm>.

² Ibid.

³ Ibid.

⁴ Ibid.

⁵ Laura Aylsworth & Frank Trovato, “Demography of Indigenous People” (1 February 2012), The Canadian Encyclopedia, online <www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/aboriginal-people-demography/>.

⁶ Statistics Canada, “Some facts about the demographic and ethnocultural composition of the population”, (Ottawa, Statistics Canada, 2008), online: <www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/91-003-x/2007001/4129904-eng.htm#2>.

⁷ Ibid.

⁸ Ibid.

⁹ Ibid.

¹⁰ Aylsworth & Trovato, supra note 5.

¹¹ Statistics Canada, “2011 National Household Survey: Immigration, place of birth, citizenship, ethnic origin, visible minorities, language and religion”, (Ottawa: Statistics Canada, 2011), online: <www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/130508/dq130508b-eng.htm>.

¹² Ibid.

 

Music Monday: Throwback to 1867

As a further tribute to our faculty’s annual Law Show this past weekend, this week’s blog theme will focus on differences in pop culture between 1867 and 2017. It’s the week of throwbacks! We will compare people who lived in and around 1867 with people today who make similar cultural contributions, 150 years later. Though not directly in concert with the BNA Act, it is evident that culture and politics intertwine. To kick off this throwback week, we begin with a musical comparison.

Considering that popular music styles evolved quickly in the 20th century, it’s safe to say that music was drastically different in 1867. In western music culture, it was the romantic period. Music was expressive, emotional, and it produced legends like Beethoven and Schumann (Robert and Clara!). They had only pens, paper, and their own minds and experiences to inspire their music.

Nowadays, our musical influences include Justin Bieber, Kanye West, and Beyonce, not to mention the endless sources on the internet from which artists can get inspiration. We have digital online music writing programs and online instruments, making music easier than ever to compose, perform, and share. John Adams, a 20th and 21st century minimalist composer, warned about the overuse of technology in music composition, stating,

“We’re in danger of an overflow of extremely mediocre music… partly because composing has become dangerously easy. Everyone can carry around software programs on a laptop and compose a new piece in a single evening. But the trouble is, of course, that the software dictates the parameters of what you can do, how you can think”.¹

While there are downfalls in the modern age of music composition, music is unique in that the finished product can exist forever, electronically. Composers and musicians are not just working with and against their contemporaries; they do so also with those who came before them. In this 21st century contemporary post-modern era of music, we see composers taking influence from all areas of music, and from all time periods to give listeners new experiences.

For example, Adams’ work On the Transmigration of Souls is a choral piece that pays tribute to the victims of the 9/11 attacks. The song does not follow any obvious musical structure, and incorporates whispering, noise, and other non-traditional sounds throughout the composition. As a young child, I performed this work with my choir, and I can attest to the fact that it was not “typical”. In fact, I can recall many rehearsals during which we all struggled to remember the lyrics and flow to this 25 minute-long piece, because to us, it didn’t make musical sense. It incorporated victims’ names and quotes from family members of victims, changing themes and never staying in one “place” for too long. At the time, it seemed like the epitome of post-modern non-sensical music.

Had I dug deeper, I would have discovered that it wasn’t such a far stretch from works of the 19th century. Adams has stated in interviews that he has an obsession with composer Ludwig van Beethoven; that, “we [all] have music that we love so much that we kind of want to get under the skin of that composer, for me taking not so much melodies but just harmonic fragments”.² Adams uses his privileged position as a musician who follows some of our culture’s best composers to incorporate their art into his; creating something new from something old.

Fittingly, we performed On the Transmigration of Souls alongside Beethoven’s Symphony No 9, a 19th century classic. Adams’ piece is a commemoration of those who died in 9/11, intended to provide a “memory space”³ where listeners can be alone.⁴ In contrast, Beethoven’s 9th is a rejoice of freedom. These two songs are performed together all over North America, and tell a story of oppression and mourning and eventual release.⁵

Comparing Adams with Beethoven is only one example of how music between then and now can differ, but still be complementary. By no means do I wish to hear One Direction juxtaposed with Schubert, but to isolate music from 1867 as totally different and irreconcilable with music from today could be a mistake. For choir nerds like me, the ability of musicians to pull influence from 150 years ago is exciting: it leaves open endless possibilities for composers of the future.

¹Guy Dammann, “We Are All Living in Fear”, The Guardian (15 October 2008), online: <www.theguardian.com/music/2008/oct/15/usa>.

²NPR Staff, “John Adams Mines Beethoven’s Mind”, NPR Music (10 November 2015), online: <www.npr.org/sections/deceptivecadence/2015/11/10/450560466/john-adams-mines-beethovens-mind>.

³Tom Huizenga, “John Adams’ Memory Space: ‘On the Transmigration of Souls’”, NPR Music (10 September 2011), online: <www.npr.org/sections/deceptivecadence/2011/09/10/140341459/john-adams-memory-space-on-the-transmigration-of-souls>.

⁴Ibid.

⁵Benjamin Carlson, “What Does Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony Mean”, The Atlantic (7 September 2010), online: <www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2010/09/what-does-beethovens-ninth-symphony-mean/62556/>.