June 26, 2009
Inuit justice needs ignored for years
PIERRE ROUSSEAU, SPECIAL TO NUNATSIAQ NEWS
Unfortunately, you are quite right. (Dial "V" for violence, Nunatsiaq News, June 19)
This situation was entirely predictable and, possibly, preventable, if the Griffiths report's findings and recommendations had been acted upon as well as other recommendations about justice that were included in a number of other reports, particularly the report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal People (Criminal Justice - 1996.)
I recall that the Griffiths report was not well-received by the territorial government, or by the court, and was largely ignored.
After this report (and the RCAP reports) was released, we worked on the coming into being of Nunavut, but in terms of justice matters, instead of considering doing things differently, it was decided to streamline the same old system, allowing the Nunavut court to deal with all matters on any given circuit - it was called the unified court.
The "new" court could do everything - minor offences as well as more serious crimes and civil matters - during the same circuit, instead of having two separate courts that were already going to the communities.
(You will recall the Territorial and Supreme Courts of the Northwest Territories, which are still in existence in the NWT) but nothing else really changed.
Yet, it had become obvious that a better way to deal with crime and conflict was to increase Aboriginal community involvement in dispute-resolution processes and, for the Inuit, that included the recognition of Inuit laws and dispute resolution mechanisms.
Little was done in that respect but for the notable exception of the Akitsiraq law school, which included Inuit legal traditions in its program and provided Nunavut with a first cohort of Inuit lawyers.
(There were other Inuit lawyers, like Mr. Paul Okalik, but they were not part of a law school that had included those Inuit legal traditions in its law course.)
Judges tried to accommodate Inuit culture within the system but it's not their job to make changes to the court system - they are appointed to interpret and apply the laws, not to make them. It is the elected officials and governments' jobs to consult, decide and implement those changes.
No, instead governments decided to perpetuate the same old mainstream system that had been imposed on Inuit without consultation and despite the fact that it was widely demonstrated it did not work for Aboriginal peoples.
So, more lawyers were hired, more judges appointed. More people are sent to jail than ever and more jails are now needed to accommodate that system.
Can anyone reasonably informed argue that sending people repeatedly to jail works? That it prevents people from re-offending? The evidence is there - it is usually meaningless and it made things worse by increasing the risks of violent crimes and so did the rate of such crimes.
This is not to say that jails are not needed - quite the contrary - but they are necessary only to keep away from society those people who are so violent that they cannot anymore live a normal life in a community without putting other people at risk. They should only be released when the risks become minimal.
Short jail terms are generally ineffective and, for people who are new to crime, it often provides an opportunity to meet other inmates who have more experience in committing crimes and make contact with gangs and criminal organizations. The chances of re-offending after a jail term are significant.
The Griffiths report stated, "strategies [were] required to reduce the high levels of dependency on government among Inuit."
In other words, instead of depending on the mainstream court system, most conflicts can be dealt with and resolved at the community level by members of the communities that use a mainly restorative approach.
Canada chose to ignore this and the other reports as well as ignore Inuit legal traditions even though it is recognized at the international level that Indigenous communities applying their own laws have a better chance at reducing crime and victimization.
Additionally, the Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (No. 169)[1] of the International Labour Organisation at Article 9 recognizes indigenous dispute resolution processes - provided they comply with international and national human rights legislation.
But Canada has never ratified that Convention, unlike most Andean nations. Those nations, including also Guatemala, Honduras and Mexico, do recognize indigenous legal traditions on their territories and have embraced legal pluralism.
Even though Canada chose not to sign the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, 2007 [2], it is important nonetheless to consider its articles 4 and particularly 5 that recognizes Indigenous peoples' "...right to maintain and strengthen their distinct political, legal, economic, social and cultural institutions..." as well as article 34, which states:
"Indigenous peoples have the right to promote, develop and maintain their institutional structures and their distinctive customs, spirituality, traditions, procedures, practices and, in the cases where they exist, juridical systems or customs, in accordance with international human rights standards."
This is the modern expression of Indigenous rights, based on an international consensus that only few countries (4 or 5) opposed, including Canada.
So, yes, the knowledge was there, with supporting data, but governments decided to ignore that and chose to continue with the old ways they knew failed Aboriginal people... It is still there and, as you conclude in your editorial, wouldn't it be time now to pay attention?
Pierre Rousseau, now retired and living in East Sooke, B. C., worked as a Crown prosecutor for many years in Nunavut, Nunavik and the Northwest Territories.
 |
June 5, 2009
Excerpts from Mary Simon’s June 11 Senate speech
MARY SIMON, PRESIDENT, INUIT TAPIRIIT KANATAMI
It is an honour both as a Canadian, and as leader of Canada's Inuit, to be in this chamber to mark - and reflect on - the historic event that occurred one year ago, the Prime Minister's statement of apology to former students of Indian residential schools.
As I look around this room, I am comforted by seeing faces of Senators who have worked with, and for, aboriginal people in Canada for many years, promoting reforms inside the framework of democratic principles and human rights that have served our country for many years...
It was an apology that reached across generations, to the living and the deceased, to the former students of residential schools, their children and grandchildren, who experienced the consequences of a government policy that forcibly removed children from their homes, isolated them from their families, our language and our culture, and sought to assimilate our people into the dominant culture...
The path forward lies in reconciliation.
Reconciliation between Inuit and our Government and our nation, will have many threads... And as leaders we must weave these threads together to create a journey of healing and transformative change for Canada's Inuit.
If then, the apology marked the end of a period of misguided policy, where our language and cultural knowledge had been de-valued... It stands to reason the apology must also mark the beginning of a period when we must collectively invest in restoring the legitimacy and validity of our language and cultural knowledge.
This is one reason why it is so important that Canada reconsider its position on the 2007 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Endorsing this UN Declaration would be indicative of a country that has shifted its attitude on the validity of its aboriginal cultures, which is what the Prime Minister's apology represented...
Reconciliation will follow a path of policy changes of substance, involving setting new goals, and defining new decision-making processes, that signify a higher level of legitimacy for the Inuit language and culture.
Your decision last year to introduce Inuktitut as the first aboriginal language to be used in the Senate chamber, and two Senate committees, raised Inuktitut to a new level of legitimacy in Canada, and we must continue to build on decisions of this progressive nature.
Your voices, Senators, were heard again in the recently released report "With Respect, Canada's North" by the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources.
This report re-affirms what Inuit have been saying for many years, that, in allocating resources to strengthen Canada's sovereignty claims in the North, improving the social conditions for the people who live there, must be a key measure of progress toward our sovereignty goals.
It is absolutely critical that the development of a comprehensive Arctic Strategy by our government stem from the needs of the people living in the Arctic.
Policies and resource allocations by our federal government must enable these transformative goals.
Let me provide a few examples:
- Our country has never set national goals for Inuit education and we have the lowest graduation rates in the country. Reconciliation must involve a sustained commitment to strengthen our Inuit education systems, so we graduate more of our children.
- In the last 20 years Inuit have witnessed a rising tide of mental health issues in our communities. Reconciliation must involve a sustained commitment to investing in a comprehensive mental health strategy developed by and for Inuit.
- For many Inuit, losing their first language created a void in their lives. Reconciliation must involve a sincere commitment to replacing that void with a promise and a plan to support our efforts at reclaiming our language as the heart of our culture.
- Our coastal communities and our livelihoods are threatened by climate change. Reconciliation must involve real action on Canada's contribution to curbing greenhouse gas emissions.
You have undoubtedly heard of the recent discussion around establishing a university in the Arctic...
No single project could demonstrate our country's sincerity about the apology more than a commitment to establish a University in the Arctic, a university that would produce Inuit scholars for the challenges we face today in the Arctic.
Before I conclude my remarks, I must take a moment to raise an important issue on behalf of all Inuit but specifically for the Inuit of Nunatsiavut in Labrador.
Last year's statement of apology contained a gap, resulting in an ongoing injustice. The injustice concerns Inuit students who attended day school in Nunatsiavut, in Labrador.
These victims have been left out of the Government of Canada's acceptance of responsibility for the abuse that was inflicted on aboriginal students, and this injustice must be corrected.
I was just as pleased the day after Nunavut turned 10 years old to sign a National Inuit Education accord in the company of the Premier of Nunavut, Eva Arreak, who is here today with the minister of Education Louis Tapardjuk.
Editor's note: The text of this speech has been edited for length. For the full version, go to www.itk.ca
