Skip to main content

“I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.” ~~ John G. Diefenbaker

FORSETH: The comments of Attorney General David Eby, at least in my opinion, very much pre-judges the reasons why an individual may be before the courts


Three days ago (Dec 16th) in Williams lake, BC NDP Attorney General David Eby issued a statement in support of the new Indigenous court: 
 
Okanagan Correctional Centre
Our government is committed to addressing the over-representation of Indigenous peoples in the correctional system, which has its roots in systemic discrimination and the impacts of inter-generational trauma from residential schools.

The Province is working with Indigenous communities to establish Indigenous courts throughout British Columbia. These courts offer alternative sentencing options that honour traditional cultural practices, support rehabilitation and acknowledge the impact the person’s actions have had on others.

Attorney General Eby then continued, “I’m very pleased that Melissa Gillespie, provincial court chief judge, has increased access to these more culturally appropriate approaches in Williams Lake by approving the community’s proposal for an Indigenous court.

He then concluded, “It will support better outcomes for people in conflict with the law and help reduce the over-representation of Indigenous peoples in our jails. It also brings us one step closer to reaching one of our most important goals as a government – building a justice system that better respects and addresses the needs of Indigenous peoples.”


Let me begin by saying that it is a sad state of affairs when an individual, no matter their race, colour, sexual orientation, or religious beliefs must be concerned about speaking out for what they believe may be wrong.

I find myself in that very position now, however I am going to state what I believe regardless.

While I believe the Indigenous court system provides positive results, I think the comments of Attorney General David Eby very much pre-judges the reasons why an individual may be before the court system in the first place.


Furthermore, I believe it is also prejudicial towards the expectations of the resulting outcomes of a trial – whether in a regular or Indigenous peoples court.

Dozens of people we walk past, and see every single day, live lives that are very much developed by their family’s history, their upbringing, outside influences, if they have been sexually or physically abused, by genetics, through the ravages of drugs and / or alcohol, and by how they themselves have chosen to live.

Each on has their own story – sometimes good – sometimes bad – and sometimes very ugly.

Some may be scared by the impacts of war ... sustained sexual abuse ... the list goes on.

How we chose to make our way through life however, is a decision we have to make – and for some it is a painful, gut-wrenching, difficult thing to do.



Society and government therefore, I believe, is obligated to provide every support needed for those who have been victimized. That support must cover a wide range of things from counseling, education, safe places to live, treatment centres ... and those are just the obvious ones.

The costs will be high, but what is a human life worth, and how much value do we place on it?  What will be the never-ending costs of doing nothing?

The comments of David Eby should make us stop and consider if this is a road we want to travel, or if instead we want to provide individuals with what they need to become whole within.

To me, that’s an outcome that we should be striving for.

So, with that, I say to  Attorney General David Eby, ‘Again, I have no doubt the Indigenous court system provides positive results ... that said ... no one segment of society, before the court system, should be pre-judged as to the possible reasons for why they are before the court system ... it’s the wrong course of action’.

Comments

  1. Well given the dysfunctions of the past I'm willing to give this experiment a chance; a lot will depend on the details of the individual cases.
    Also, sending a young First Nations person to jail for a first offence would likely produce only a more hardened criminal so diversion could be productive.
    But diverting a repeat offender only because s/he is First Nations would be unwise, depending on the circumstances.
    In short, I don't think this experiment is worth opposing.
    Also, Eby has been doing a superb job as A-G and doesn't deserve any campaign against him.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

FORSETH -- Given the noted infractions of this agreement with OneBC leader Dallas Brodie, I request the Party immediate suspend the leadership campaign of Yuri Fulmer

I have personally emailed the following to the Board and Administration of the Conservative Party of BC:   TODAY (03/30) Yuri Fulmer, a candidate for the leadership of the Conservative Party of BC, made a pact with ONEBC leader Dallas Broldie, that if he is elected will commit the Conservative Party to the following. Specifically, the pact states : This Memorandum of Understanding outlines the definitive electoral and governing alliance that will be executed upon Yuri Fulmer’s election as Leader of the Conservative Party of British Columbia OneBC Party commits to not nominating or authorizing candidates in 88 of British Columbia’s 93 electoral districts. In exchange, the Conservative Party of BC, under the leadership of Yuri Fulmer, commits to not nominating or authorizing candidates in five (5) specific electoral districts . OneBC will be the sole standard-bearer for the right in those five districts. The specific ridings will be determined through mutual negotiation and fin...

Delays to the replacement of the Red Bridge? Kamloops North Thompson MLA Ward Stamer says they are, “Totally Unacceptable.”

I think it’s totally unacceptable that on one hand the Ministry of Transportation and Transit (MoTT) is saying they’re going to be responsible for putting together multiple replacement options with public engagement, and then in the same breath they're saying, ‘Oh, and by the way, we're going to start our geotechnical environmental and archaeological site assessments on both sides of the river, possibly beginning this summer.’ According to Stamer, that should already have been done. “Obviously, we're pretty sure it will be in the same location because there's really no other place to put it. So, if you're going to put in a bridge, you think that at least you'd be doing the archaeological assessments first off”, stated Stamer.   “If it's determined it has to be a free-span bridge, and it can't have anything or very minimal impact in the riverbed, they should already be determining that. It would help in the design, wouldn't it?” Stamer indicated...

Your government has a gambling problem (Troy Media)

Provinces call it “revenue,” but it looks a lot like exploitation of the marginalized The odds of winning Lotto Max are about 1 in 33 million. You’re statistically more likely to be struck by lightning than to win it. But your government is betting that statistics won’t hold you back; they’re counting on it. Across Canada, provincial governments not only regulate gambling, they also maintain a monopoly on lottery and gaming by owning and operating the entire legal market. That means every scratch card is government-issued, gambling odds are government-set, casino ads are government-funded and lottery billboards are government-paid. And these are not incidental government activities. They generate significant revenues that governments have powerful incentives to expand, not constrain. It would be one thing for our governments to encourage us to engage in healthy activities. We can quibble about whether the government should be trying to convince us to be more active or eat more vegetabl...

Labels

Show more