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

               Pam Palmater and Toronto Police Inspector Steve Irwin Giving Testimony Before Parliament (CBC News)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's your move Ontario. #racismkills

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[xv]Ibid.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First Question:

Senator Mitchell: My next question would probably go to Ms. Palmater and Mr. Bennett. The bill originally had "unlawful advocacy," and I believe that's been taken out. But I also believe that it still leaves a gap, and that is to say that you can do something unlawful that is perfectly non-terrorist. In fact, the gap really is absolutely, perfectly acceptable civil disobedience within a democratic society, which is a hallmark of a democratic society, provided that you're prepared to take the consequences within the rule of law for having done that. Could you comment on that?

Ms. Palmater: I'm glad you asked that question. It's a really good one.

The fact that they are intending — it hasn't been passed yet, I understand — to take out the "unlawful" part does not address the whole other range of activities contemplating the disruption of the economy, for example, where a First Nation makes a very targeted strategy in partnership with others to make sure a pipeline doesn't go through by legal means, by civil disobedient means, by the exercise of their international rights — all of those things that might not fall under protest, might not fall under dissent, because often times "protest" is very narrowly defined.

There's a problem with wording, and Justice Canada lawyers will know this very well. It's poor wording. It doesn't encapsulate all the ways in which we are already criminalized. Look at the number of people who are already over-imprisoned, who are charged, who are arrested, who are assaulted, and Bill C-51 hasn't even passed yet.

My submission to the house was very specific about those things, not just the extent of the surveillance, but look at the number of people who are considered criminals for what they do now. Minister Valcourt has already said that we are threats to national security, and DND has considered that our activities in advocating for our rights are a level of insurgency, so this is before Bill C-51 even passes.

Unless there is very specific language specifically addressing the activities of First Nations, we will be captured under this.

Senator Mitchell: The implications of the treaty struck me some years ago when somebody said that a treaty means nobody was defeated. It was an agreement nation to nation not to fight anymore. It's a powerful concept.

Second Question:

Senator Jaffer: I have questions for each of you, and I'll start with Ms. Palmater.

We're all aware of Ms. Blackstock's — I would go so far as to call it harassment. Even without this bill, what has it been like for you and your organization when it comes to issues you're working on? What challenges do you already face?

Ms. Palmater: That's a really good question and it was the subject of my submission to the house.

What we're talking about, without anything in this bill being passed yet, we're already overrepresented in prison. Even though the Supreme Court of Canada in Gladue said you have to stop imprisoning First Nations people, we're being imprisoned more, not less.

When the Supreme Court of Canada in Marshall said we had a recognized treaty right to fish and sell it, DFO and the RCMP came in, rammed our boats, beat us with clubs, maced us, arrested us and put us in jail.

I only have to talk about Listuguj. Especially in Quebec, it's been highly problematic. They've invaded Listuguj twice. In Oka, Ipperwash, an unarmed land defender was murdered. Gustafsen Lake, one of the largest attacks by the RCMP on a civilian population; Esgenoopetitj. You've got Elsipogtog, Caledonia. It goes on and on in terms of the way the military has been used against First Nations people. And the justice system itself, we're more likely to be arrested, imprisoned and those kinds of things.

Senator Jaffer: I'm going to have to stop you there because I have two more questions.

Third Question:

Senator Dagenais: Ms. Palmater, correct me if I am wrong; you referred to the infamous Oka crisis of the 1990s, or something like that. We are not at all talking about the same situation. There was a sort of guerilla conflict between your community and the town of Oka regarding a golf course. We need to be careful. I was a police officer with the Sûreté du Québec. I was there when the Sûreté du Québec intervened. Let us remember that a police officer died in the process, because we were trying to protect your community as much as the town of Oka.

I would ask you to be careful.

The Sûreté du Québec was present for a year in Akwesasne to maintain order and protect the community, because there were people from the Mohawk community who were in the drug trade and had killed each other. I hope you have all of the details of that matter.

You have to be careful when you accuse police officers of abusing their powers. I was there, and I saw it with my own eyes.
[English]

Ms. Palmater: Every single commission that has ever been done in this country, every single study, every single United Nations report on Canada's activities towards indigenous peoples, have all confirmed as fact — not accusation, but fact — the blatant, overt and systemic racism and disproportionate application of the law in a negative way against First Nations people. You can read any of those reports, any time, and they will confirm that.

Saying that there are some Mohawks who run drugs is like saying all Canadians are serial killers, just because some Canadians have been serial killers. What that does is propagate more racism against First Nations people, as if we're all criminals in addition to terrorists, and that's not acceptable.
[Translation]

Senator Dagenais: I do not want to have a debate with you.

At the time, police officers from the Sûreté du Québec were asked to protect your communities. The Sûreté du Québec was there, because you did not have a police force to protect you anymore. You know, the United Nations are another matter, but sometimes they should come see how things are on the ground.
[English]

The Chair: Colleagues, we are at the end of the time for the panel.

(Taken from official transcript).

Videos of my responses to the three questions above can be found at the following links:

Question 1:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5XPVC6v5IY

Question 2:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZGOgEgZokI

Question 3:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3H4k1apVks

RCMP Report on Murdered and Missing Aboriginal Women is Statistically Skewed

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

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

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

            (1) official Aboriginal "status";

            (2) officer discretion; and

            (3) self-identification.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We should all stay focused on pushing for both a national inquiry and for an emergency action plan to protect our women and girls and address the underlying root causes and inequities which make them vulnerable to begin with.


* I use the term "Aboriginal" in this blog to reflect the terminology of the RCMP report only.

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

*Mr. Romeo Saganash (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Welcome and thank you to both of our witnesses this morning.

 I want to start with Ms. Palmater. I've been in this business for more than 30 years as well. I've been called many names, too. All of our protests and challenges posed by aboriginal peoples in this country are always related to the economy of this country: resource development is, of course, an important aspect to all of that.

The far-reaching proposed provisions in Bill C-51 are therefore somewhat a direct threat to section 35 rights. National Chief Bellegarde recommended that we scrap this bill. You say that this bill must be withdrawn because it's not fixable. I happen to agree with that.

For 150 years in the history of this country, governments have always been adversaries to aboriginal peoples in this country. We both know that. What we've always considered as rights issues have always been viewed or treated as police issues or law and order issues, on the other hand—by successive provincial, federal, and municipal governments, I might add.

Will this proposed legislation make matters worse or better for indigenous peoples in this country, and why?

 Dr. Pamela Palmater: Thank you for your question. It's an important one because, as I stated, it doesn't just impact indigenous peoples, it impacts the rest of Canada: environmentalists, unions, women's groups, children's advocates.

We have to get real about what is the clear and present danger here. How many Canadians on Canadian soil have died from acts of terrorism? Compare that with how many thousands of murdered and missing indigenous women and girls there are. Where is the Bill C-51 to protect them? How many husbands have killed their wives? How many serial killers have we had? Yet we're focusing on Bill C-51.

The problem is this bill isn't really about terrorism. If you do an analysis of this omnibus bill, the focus is, just as you've said, less about being anti-terrorism and more about protecting the status quo in terms of power relations and economic relations. This new national security law focuses on threats to sovereignty, territorial integrity, diplomatic relations—of all things—economic stability, critical infrastructure. All of these things are an essential part of the daily lives of Canadians and first nations. Passing this bill for any activity, any person, any purpose that threatens national security so defined as financial stability and territorial integrity, makes us all suspects.

Canada won't even have to pass this bill, the terrorists will have won. What is terrorism? Fundamentally it's the denial of life, liberty, and security of the person. If Canada goes ahead and takes those rights away, terrorists just have to sit back, job done.

We worked far too hard in our treaty negotiations. We worked far too hard in the development of the charter, and the Constitution, and all of the international laws that protect core, fundamental human rights, to allow that to happen because we want to protect some corporate economic interests.

Mr. Romeo Saganash: Given that your access to information request has shown that you've already been surveilled for perfectly legal civic actions, is it reasonable to assume—let me put it that way—that if this law is passed, this legislation is passed, you could be viewed as a terrorist for the same lawful activities?

Dr. Pamela Palmater: Bill C-51, as currently written, would capture everything under Idle No More. Imagine, Grand Chief Matthew Coon Come of the Grand Council of the Crees offered a quote for my submission as well that said that had their activities been done today as opposed to back then, there wouldn't be the negotiation of the the James Bay Agreement, they would all be in jail. The Idle No More movement, which was a historical coming together of first nations and Canadians peacefully dancing and singing and drumming, would now all be monitored—if it isn't already, as the media has indicated that we are clearly monitored—and perhaps arbitrarily detained. All of these things are very frightening for this country.

Keep in mind that the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples protects us, grants us, and recognizes under international customary law that we can act autonomously, that we can occupy our lands. Under the Department of National Defence's manual, occupying our lands, advocating for autonomy, and advocating for political rights is described as “insurgency” alongside jihadists. It is no comfort that there is a proviso saying that lawful activity, lawful dissent, lawful protest, lawful art—whatever that is—won't be captured by this bill, because the second we do a round dance in the street without a permit, it very quickly becomes unlawful.

We have to remember that I already went over all of the very validly enacted laws that Canada has had that have ended up in the killing, murder, rape, violence, sterilization, and scalping of our people. Those were valid laws. The only way to protect ourselves was to act unlawfully in resistance. What we're saying now is that the clear and present danger to first nations and Canadians is in the environmental destruction and the contamination of our water, and that we have a right to defend our life, liberty, and security to protect our future generations. Under this bill that will all be captured as a threat to national security and/or terrorism.


 The Chair: Thank you very much. Your time is up, Mr. Saganash.
...

Hon. Diane Ablonczy: Okay, thank you very much.

I just wanted to give Ms. Palmater time to put her legal training to work. And her activist knowledge and just to help us to understand how you feel that Section 2 Activities might impact you.

The Chair: Ms. Palmater, we've already expired the time but I will certainly give you an opportunity to just briefly to respond to that if you wish.

Dr. Pamela Palmater: Thank you for asking because as you probably know I was a lawyer for Justice Canada and worked on legislation and have taken training in legislative interpretation and regulatory drafting. Which is why I was quite shocked that this legislation ever made it here. The Justice Canada lawyers, that I know would never have said that this is any where near constitutional.

The problems are that little list that you just read, is just a list. It's just an example, some examples of what would be threats to national security. There is no limit on the threat to national security. That “any activity”, means any activity.

My problem is under the Bill, who gets to decide? Clearly, it's Canada and independent law enforcement officers. What's happening here is there is an infinite number of offences that are created, it's not knowable. And we have a right as citizens to basic tenet of law. We have a right as citizens to know the offence for which we're being charged, to be able to predict it in the future. We know we aren't allowed to steal things, so we don't steal things, or we know there's consequences.

Under this Bill, it's literally anything. And that's a problem in law, basically, and it's certainly doesn't correspond, it would never survive a Constitutional or Charter challenge, and I think that the former Supreme Court Justices have been pretty specific about that.

Thank you.

The Chair: Excuse me, Mr. Palmater, you are well over the time.


Thank you very much.

We will now go to Mr. Easter, please.

Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Thank you to both witnesses for your presentation today. And also for both your efforts out there beyond your appearance at the community, one on policing and one of legitimate public dissent, that profiles issues. I think that both are important in a democracy.

First starting with you Ms. Palmater. You've mentioned the need for special first nations advocate. And I'm making an assumption here, I expect that relates to the section in the Bill where CSIS can apply for a warrant to do certain things.

I take from your comments you're suggesting that if the Bill goes through, there needs to be an amendment in that area that would allow for special advocates, in this case, first nations, that would be able to, I guess, provide the other side of the argument, before a judge in terms of whether or not a warrant is granted.

Am I correct in that? Do you want to expand on that a little bit?
 
Dr. Pamela Palmater: Sure, just to be clear, I'm saying there is no way to save this bill at all.

Hon. Wayne Easter: I understand that.

Dr. Pamela Palmater: My recommendations were how to address the problem right now. We have a crisis right now, first nations being targeted by police officers and the government at large. If this bill were to pass and they added this provision of a special first nations advocate for all of these core processes, that wouldn't stop first nations from being targeted to begin with. That's like trying to provide compensation to murdered indigenous women after they've already been murdered. It's too little, too late. So I don't think it would be effective to counter all of the rights violations that are 
currently under Bill C-51.

Hon. Wayne Easter: Coming back to the request. One of the problems with the current bill where CSIS goes to a judge, the Minister of Justice called this judicial oversight. It's not. It's traditional authority to allow CSIS to do certain things. There are some that feel you need the balance before that judge that makes that decision. That's what I'm trying to target on. Would there be better balance if you had a special advocate with first nations expertise where CSIS was asking a judge for that warrant to do certain things?

Dr. Pamela Palmater: I think it would be more balanced than the current unbalance that there is in the bill keeping in mind that this bill also turns the justice system on its head and how our constitution works. That in fact, judges are, their role is to uphold the constitution and charter rights and not to find ways to get around them. So really asking them to undo all of their training or how we govern ourselves, even with the first nation advocate isn't going to really address the core problem.


Hon. Wayne Easter: I hear what you're saying. Thank you.

*Taken from Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security Committee Meeting March 24, 2015 - Evidence #57 - Unedited Transcript Copy provided by House of Commons Canada.

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

Dr. Pamela Palmater (Chair in Indigenous Governance, Ryerson University, Department of Politics & Public Administration, As an Individual)* 

Thank you for inviting me here today to speak. I want to first acknowledge that we're on the traditional territory of the Algonquin Nation and that's not just the polite acknowledgement. That's the very reason why all of you get to sit here today. Were it not for the cooperation, generosity, kindness, and political alliances, Canada wouldn't be what it is. Were it not for the peace treaties between our nations that are now constitutionally protected and form part of the foundational aspect of Canada, none of us would be sitting here today. I think that goes to the very heart of Bill C-51 and why I am opposed to it.

Canada has placed Bill C-51 before indigenous peoples without any information, analysis, details on how it will impact our nations, any consultation, information or consent from our part. It is a gross violation of our nations to nation relationship.

I don't have time to go through all of the technical legal details and problems with this bill except to say that I echo all of the concerns that have already been brought and will be brought by the thousands of lawyers in this country, security experts, former prime ministers and former Supreme Court of Canada justices. My main concern is how this bill will impact me, my family and indigenous peoples all over Canada and our treaty partners, other Canadians.  

Canada has a long history of criminalizing every aspect of indigenous identity. From the scalping bounties in 1949, which nearly wiped out my Mi'kmaq Nation, to the Indian Act, which has outlawed our culture, our right to educate our own children, and even excluded indigenous women from our communities. Every aspect of our identity has been criminalized, both historically and continues into present day. In every single instance, we've had to resist all of these laws, keeping in mind these were all validly enacted laws. It was legal to take Mi'kmaq scalps; it was legal to confine us to reserves; it was legal to deny us legal representation. All of these things were law in Canada. We had to be criminals as in, we had to break the law in order to preserve our lives, our physical security, and our identities. We are being faced with this very problem again with Bill C-51.

Over the years, these laws have morphed into provincial and municipal regulations that deal with even our traditional means of providing subsistence—hunting, fishing, gathering have all been so criminalized for indigenous peoples that we end up skulking around in the forest just to be able to provide food for our families. Every single court case that has been won at the Supreme Court of Canada has been a battle between indigenous peoples trying to live their lives and exercise their rights and identities facing some kind of criminal or regulatory charge.

In every single instance, we have been labelled as criminals, treated as criminals, and one need only look at the current prison population to understand that this is still the case; not just the case, but as Howard Sapers, from the Office of the Correctional Investigator, has indicated, a “national crisis and embarrassment.” And why? Not because we're actually terrorists; not because we're more culturally predisposed to being criminals, but as a direct result of Canada's discriminatory laws and policies. There have been endless justice inquiries, which have pointed to the infection in our Canadian justice system of racism. The Donald Marshall wrongful prosecution inquiry, the Manitoba justice inquiry, the Ipperwash Inquiry, say that every aspect of our justice system, from the arresting officers, to the lawyers, to the judges, to the prison systems, overtly and systemically discriminate against indigenous peoples. That's our current reality.

Bill C-51 proposes to take that to the last and final step. All we have left now, as indigenous peoples are our thoughts. Our private thoughts will now be criminalized. It will now be possible to be considered a terrorist for storing alleged terrorist propaganda on our own personal computers. My declaration of sovereignty, and I'm going to say it before Bill C-51 passes, I'm part of the sovereign Mi'kmaq Nation. That kind of material on my computer could be considered terrorism, a threat to national security because it's a threat to Canada's sovereignty.

Welcome to the new terrorist.

My name is Pam Palmater. I'm a lawyer, I'm a professor, I'm a mom, and I'm a social justice activist. I've won numerous awards for my work in social justice, women's equality, and children's rights but depending on whose radicalized view you speak of I have also been called a radical, bad Indian, eco-terrorist, enemy of the people, top-five-to-fear Canadian, dangerous militant, and Waco extremist.

My biggest concern isn't how I'm presented in the media or by government officials, I'm stronger than that. My biggest concern concern is how this impacts me right now, the level of government surveillance for a law-abiding, peaceful, social justice activist, who's never been arrested or convicted of any crime.

In my ATIP to CSIS they explain that they have a right to prevent subversive and hostile activities against the Canadian state which is why they have a file on me. However they don't offer me the courtesy of saying why I would be considered subversive or hostile, in fact everything I do couldn't be more public.  

In my ATIP to Indian Affairs they would not confirm that they monitor me. However they said they do conduct an analysis of me and my activities because I'm an active voice. That analysis comprised 750 pages of documents which tracked all of my whereabouts, what provinces I was travelling to, where I was speaking, and the dates and times. However they could not provide my security file because it was destroyed.

When I attend gatherings, rallies, protests, or public and private events I often cannot make cell phone calls, send texts, or access my social media, my bank cards, or my credit cards. I can be at an Idle No More rally or protest and text my children but I cannot communicate with the very chief who has the same protest. This causes me great concern for my safety. How am I supposed to help ensure the comfort and safety of the people at rallies and myself if I can't communicate with anyone...and I don't have to remind this committee the staggering statistics and vulnerabilities of indigenous women in this country.

I contacted the RCMP as well. They never responded to my ATIP, however individual RCMP officers at various events have confirmed that they were there to monitor me. At numerous protests I have been informed by RCMP and provincial police that I had to keep my protest peaceful. Sometimes they didn't identify themselves. At speaking engagements the host first nation would demand that any undercover RCMP, or Ontario, or other police officers identify themselves and in many cases they did.

What's more concerning is the number of government officials that follow me around from speaking engagement to speaking engagement and often identify themselves when called upon to do so. Probably the most shocking is when I travel internationally in countries like Samoa, Peru, England, and Switzerland only to be informed by local authorities that Canadian officials are there to monitor me. That's very frightening in a country where I have committed no crime, but to advocate peacefully on behalf of my people.

In the Prairie provinces the RCMP are very active. They will often call ahead to the University of First Nations where I'm speaking and ask them to identify what my target will be or where I plan my protest. This isn't just a problem for me. We've all heard about Cindy Blackstock and others. Skipping of course to what my recommendations are because I can see that I'm out of time.

Bill C-51 must be withdrawn there is no way to fix it. There must be proper public information consultation, specific consultation for indigenous peoples, and a proper parliamentary study. Directing Justice Canada to rubber stamp the bill is compliant even if it has a 95% chance of being overturned in court is not democratic.

We need an independent review body to report on the ongoing surveillance of indigenous peoples that will take complaints, do proper investigations, and offer redress.

Finally, we're in desperate need of a special first nation advocate to be appointed for any and all court processes in all provinces and territories whenever applications are made in secret for court warrants. This person would be an amicus, a friend of the court who would be independent and can speak to all of the various constitutional and indigenous rights at stake. This is absolutely essential especially if Bill C-51 is to be passed.


The Chair: Fine thank you very much, Ms. Palmater.

*Taken from: Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security Committee Meeting March 24, 2015 - Evidence #57 - Unedited Transcript Copy provided by House of Commons Canada.

Bill C-51 The Anti-First Nation, Environmentalist, Scientist and Bird-Watcher Act

 

Prime Minister Harper’s Conservative government has introduced Bill C-51 The Anti-Terrorism Act, 2015 which it claims is needed to protect Canadians from terrorism. Experts and commentators have called the bill, which will create a secret police force for Harper: terrifying, illegal, unconstitutional, dictatorial and totalitarianism. In case you don’t know what totalitarianism means, it’s a term usually reserved for fascist (extremist or dictatorial) leaders that lead a centralist government that does not tolerate differences of opinion and tries to exercise dictatorial control over many aspects of public and private life – including thought. Voila: Bill C-51.

 

The media reports that the Liberals and NDP have all but acquiesced to the bill and will only offer mild resistance in the form of suggested amendments. They may even call for some oversight, but will not challenge the massive violations of Canadian rights, liberties and freedoms which are enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedomsand constitutionally protected. And this is how it happens. Dictators throughout history have only been able to do what they did to their citizenry because they were permitted to do so. No single man has the power to destroy a country governed by the people for the people – unless the powerful people around the dictator allow it to happen.

In a world where Canada used to pit environmentalists, scientists, doctors, teachers, and even bird-watchers against First Nations who peacefully defended their lands, Idle No More helped bring us together. As treaty and territorial allies, First Nations and Canadians face a formidable foe and threat to our collective futures. Idle No More raised awareness about the break down in democracy in general and human and Aboriginal rights specifically. Hundreds of thousands of people across Canada rose up against Bill C-45 – the large, unconstitutional omnibus bill pushed through Parliament without debate which threatened our lakes and rivers. This time, the threat is personal – any one of us could go to jail for thinking or voicing our opinions.

 

 

I originally hesitated to include this chart in my blog, but I think we all need a reminder of the freedoms upon which Canadian democracy rests – for without them, Canada descends into the lethal, dark hole of a deadly, dictatorial police-state.

CHARTER	RIGHTS, FREEDOMS or LIBERTIES PROTECTED
2(a)	Freedom of conscience and religion
2(b)	Freedom of thought, belief, opinion, expression
2(c)	Freedom of peaceful assembly
2(d)	Freedom of association
6	Right to enter, remain in and leave Canada
7	Right to life, liberty and security of the person
8	Right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure
9	Right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned
11(b)	Everyone charged with an offence: right to be tried in a reasonable time
11(d)	Everyone charged with an offence: innocent until proven guilty
15	Everyone is equal before and under the law
25	Charter can never be interpreted to deny Aboriginal & treaty rights

 http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-15.html

All of these rights, freedoms and liberties will be suspended with Bill C-51. This bill creates what has been described as Harper’s "Secret Police force" with terrifying expanded powers. The purpose of the bill is to eliminate any “threat to security of Canada” which includes any activity that undermines the sovereignty, security or territorial integrity of Canada. It also includes some of the following:

-          interference with the administration of justice;

-          interference with diplomatic relations;
-          the economic or financial stability of Canada;
-          terrorism; and
-          interference with critical infrastructure.
.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&DocId=6932136

  

The specific powers granted under the bill greatly expand the powers of CSIS (Canadian Security Intelligence Service) from an organization that collects and analyzes information related to security – to one which can take law enforcement action. They are further empowered to take measures against anything they deem to constitute a threat to Canada – inside or outside of the country. Additional anti-terrorism powers under the bill include:

-          Materials deemed to be terrorist propaganda can be seized or removed from a website;
-          Standards of investigation and arrest will be lowered from proof to suspicion;
-          Police may arrest someone if they merely “think” that a terrorist act “may” be carried out; and
-          Deny air transportation to anyone who they “suspect” may be engaging in terrorist activity.

According to security law experts like Craig Forcese and Kent Roach, this new offence of “advocating or promoting terrorism” is not at all clear and Canadians should be extremely concerned about its conflict with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. One of their concerns is that it gives the police “substantial and unusually invasive powers” to be exercised under their own discretion. A significant change from offences against the promotion of hatred, is the fact that anti-terrorism applies to statements made in private and implies extensive wire-tapping. They fear this bill will result in “speech chill” – the fear to exercise our right to free speech.

http://www.antiterrorlaw.ca./

 

For First Nations, this completes the circle of criminalizing every aspect of who we are as Mi’kmaw, Maliseet, Mohawk and Cree Nations. When they made it against the law to be a Mi’kmaw person, our population was reduced by 80% for the scalping bounties placed on our heads. When speaking our languages and practicing our culture was considered anti-Canadian, they enacted laws to outlaw our ceremonies and killed upwards of 50% of our children they forced into residential schools. When we refused to die off, they forcibly sterilized our Indigenous women and girls without their knowledge and consent to reduce our populations. Standing by and watching our Indigenous women and girls go murdered and missing was a gross violation of our right to life by the RCMP, provincial police and Canadian governments.

  

When we survived, Canada made our traditional way of life a criminal act – hunting, fishing, trapping and gathering became criminal or regulatory offences which landed us in jail, resulted in beatings by the RCMP and/or our gear, vehicles and boats were seized. The defense and protection of what little lands we have left resulted in Canada bringing out the RCMP and army to stop our people. When we drummed and danced in Idle No More, we became the targets of illegal monitoring, publicly vilified and categorized as radicals, militants and terrorists. Now, our very voices, our private discussions and even the defense of our sovereignty is now an act of “terrorism”.

 

 

We warned Canadians, that what happens to First Nations under Harper’s dictatorial regime is just a sign of things to come for Canadians. To Canadians who value their freedoms, the beauty and bounty of our shared lands and waters, and the peaceful right to live the good life as you see fit – everything is about to change. Canadians will, for the first time, be treated like First Nations people - without the protection of their basic rights, freedoms and liberties. Even someone who re-Tweets or reposts a comment made by someone else on Facebook could potentially be captured under this sweeping legislation. Our ideas themselves will now be criminalized. Our private lives and opinions will be invaded, monitored and criminalized. For Canadians, this is a frightening new turn of events that may well override our basic human rights, liberties and freedoms – an end to Canada as a democracy as you’ve known it.

Our decades long experiences with murdered and missing Indigenous women and girls, Starlight tours and the deaths of our Indigenous men while in police custody, the wrongful shootings of our unarmed peaceful protestors, the over-imprisonment of our Indigenous men and women, and the palpable fear many of us have of law enforcement will be part of the Canadian reality unless we stop this Bill now. We are allies in this territory. First Nations fought alongside Canadians in many wars to protect these lands. We lived up to our treaty obligations to protect you and be your allies. Now it’s time for Canadians to stand up and restore this treaty and allied relationship - and protect our collective rights.

Canada has violated First Nations’ constitutionally protected Aboriginal and treaty rights and basic human rights for decades. If we do not stand together now, this is what Canadians have to look forward to for their children. Please act to stop Bill C-51 now – before it becomes an act of terrorism to even speak about.

 

 

#stopBillC51 #rise #standup #idlenomore #INM #mmiw #foodfor7gens

 

 

 

*pictures linked from Google Images - copyright rests with individual sites.