Not just the Liberals, of course.
But those two should both learn to do a bit of role playing...put themselves in the person's shoes.
It doesn't matter whose shoes they don first...whether it's Boushie's or Stanley's.
Then switch.
Then imagine their own family farm under the same circumstances.
Enough from me.
Read this (reprinted verbatim from an email):
"
More of the Bouchie/ Stanley case again well
written and additional information on how the jury was selected.
PM and Justice Minister interfere
with our Courts to further Indigenous cry of Racism…
Clearly
not interested in facts, Justin Trudeau, your Prime Minister has hit a new and
dangerous low in his attempt to become the ultimate superhero for the Indigenous
and First Nations. In doing so, he is segmenting this country, siding with
fringe radical elements, and showing no concern about trying to interfere with
the Justice system. Rational, clear thought is being pushed to the side by
blatant political opportunism.
Predictably,
he is being parroted by his Justice Minister, Jody Wilson-Raybould, who has
already proven that she is Indigenous activist who happened to be chosen to be
Justice Minister, rather than a Justice Minister who happens to be Indigenous.
They
are playing to their constituencies in such a way that it would make Donald
Trump blush.
Of
course I am talking about the recent court case where Gerald Stanley, a farmer
in Biggar, Saskatchewan was charged with the 2nd degree murder of Colten Boushie
a member of the Red Pheasant reserve. Stanley’s subsequent acquittal took place
in front of jury of 12 in a North Battleford Saskatchewan courtroom.
Colten Boushie, was a 22 year old indigenous male, which it should be
remembered is the only reason we are talking about this case rather than giving
it a cursory glance.
The
CBC, seemingly acting as an editorial arm of the government, insistently before
and after the court case framed the case as being about racism, even before
hearing of a single piece of evidence. In the days leading up and through the
trial, the twitter monitoring journalists of the CBC, portrayed the case as one
of a “white” male shooting an indigenous “Cree” male. Extensive coverage was
given to interviewing indigenous members of the community, highlighting the
“two solitudes” theme, and calling the situation “polarized” in terms of race
relations.
This
was not a race case, as the evidence showed in the end, but that is not a
flashy or easy story to write and it certainly doesn’t fall within the
narrative being pushed by the government and a radical few.
Boushie’s
mother’s lawyer (unknown why, but interesting that she has already obtained
legal representation), Chris Murphy who said that the case
“represents the elements of a larger conversation about reconciliation”.
A 2nd degree murder case somehow being about “reconciliation”?
So what
are the facts?
First,
lets deal with the selection of the jury, because the first criticism brought
by the Indigenous was that there were no “visibly” indigenous members on the
jury, even now they do not for sure if there were indigenous members of the
jury, but why bother a narrative with such a small detail.
Using
health records to avoid bias, the courts aware of the growing climate, summoned
over 750 potential jurors reaching with their summons all the way to the border
of the North West Territories. Under normal circumstances, the courts
would only summons 250-400 persons. But the courts, in accordance and
compliance with the Supreme Court of Canada, exercised caution and over
extended, knowing that they would be open to accusations of a
non-representative jury pool otherwise. Many of the communities that were
included in their canvas are over 80%-90% indigenous; communities such as
Beauval and La Loche.
On day
one of the trial only 230 showed. There were close to 500 people who
decided that they could ignore the courts.
The
Judge, Chief Justice Martel Popescul reiterated that those that failed to
attend “could” be charged under the “Jury Act”. It was clear that a lot
of the no-shows would be Indigenous persons, so given the opportunity to
participate and extend the pool or jurors, decided not to attend. It used
to be considered a serious matter if one failed to attend for this duty, but
clearly the dialogue has changed, and Indigenous groups feel they have the
right to disregard the laws of Canada. Or do you believe that there will be
charges forthcoming?
The
Indigenous spokespersons of course explain this lack of caring in a dismissive
way, saying it was hard for them to get to court because of the isolated
nature of their communities, and they could not afford to travel for jury
selection. One lawyer stated: ” socio-economic issues can lead to people not
being available. Health issues. Its anybody’s guess”.
A few
years ago another court case reached the Supreme Court of Canada (R vs. Kokopenace) , where an indigenous
accused argued that he had a right to have indigenous persons on the jury. One
of the issues that this case explored and determined was that the response rate
to summons for jury duty on the Reserve was 10% and falling. It would seem that
the Boushie case got the same response rate.
A 2nd
issue then surfaced; that being the right of the defence in this case, as in
all cases, to have pre-emptory challenges to jurors without any reason needing
to be articulated.
Of
course, the indigenous groups said they were challenging all of the indigenous
potential jurors, only because they were indigenous, and in their view this was
another example of racism. But anybody who has been involved in these types of
cases, and in particular have dealt with the jury selection process know that
the defence always tries to exclude all jurors who show bias. Not because they
are indigenous but because they are concerned about possible bias. It is not
racism, it is our system which is designed to weed out bias, just as they
exclude the police, or sherifs.
Historically,
indigenous groups have called to get rid of these challenges, which of
course any criminal defence attorney would be opposed to, and would mean
changing the concept and basis for impartial jury selection. Whether it works
that way is another argument. .
Furthermore,
this entire matter has already been debated at length and even reached the
Supreme Court of Canada in R vs. Kokopenace where in a 5-2 decision they
decided that there was an onus to make the jury pool representative, but there
was no obligation to determine the composition of that jury. Clearly in this
latest case, there was an attempt to be all inclusive, and just as clearly
there was insufficient response from the indigenous community. You are entitled
to a representative jury, just not one you hand pick.
Now
lets detail the actual facts of the case.
Five
individuals including Boushie, all admitting to being blind drunk, were driving
around the area in an SUV, after swimming and drinking at a local fishing hole.
One “witness” claimed she was so drunk that she slept through the entire
incident.
After
leaving the fishing hole, they decided to attempt to steal from a neighbour to
Stanley, breaking a window on a truck, using a .22 rifle, that they had
been carrying around with them, “target shooting” from the vehicle. In
breaking the window, they broke the stock on the rifle. This was according to
the Crown witness Eric Meechance. (During the investigation he
failed to mention the fact that they had a gun in their vehicle, because he had
a “gun ban”. )
17 live
rounds were found in the SUV vehicle, some in the rifle itself.
They then drove on to the Stanley
farm, apparently somewhere in the process getting a flat tire.
They
drove their “loud” vehicle on to the Stanley property, where Gerald Stanley and his 28 year old son were
building a fence unbeknownst to the trespassers. The Stanleys heard and saw the
vehicle come to a stop near to one of their ATVs, and watched as a person from
the vehicle get on the ATV and appeared to try and start it.
Sheldon,
Stanley’s son, ran towards them to confront them, and the male got off the ATV
and ran back to their car and jumped in. Sheldon armed with the hammer he had
been using on the fence, got up to their vehicle and smashed the window of the
car, while his Dad “kicked at the taillight. The car then accelerated away,
spewing gravel in their haste.
But
instead of leaving the property, the car turned back and struck another of the
Stanley’s vehicles. Gerald Stanley went to his shed where he kept a pistol for
“scaring coyotes”, grabbed what he believed to be two bullets and put them in
the gun with the intent of helping his son, who again had gone to confront the
people in the car.
As he
emerged from the shed Stanley fired a shot into the air as a “warning”. He
could not see his son, but he could see two who had once again exited from the
vehicle, and they turned and looked. He then lifted his gun again and fired
“two or three times” into the air. He said he never pointed it at them, thought
the gun was empty and popped the clip out into his left hand and carried the
gun in his right as he went towards the vehicle.
As he
approached the vehicle, he saw that the lawnmower his wife had been pushing was
there, but not his wife. He said he felt a pure moment of “terror” thinking
that the car had run over her. He said he ran to look under the car, and the
car engine revved, and he assumed that he was going to get run over as well. So
he went to the driver’s window, wanting to reach in to shut off the car.
He then
sees something “metal” sticking out of the drivers side and he noticed the
driver for the first time. He slapped at the metal, and simultaneously reached
into try and turn off the keys in the ignition.
And it
is then that the gun went off, killing Boushie, striking him in the back of the
head. Although the gun was believed to be empty the defence argued that it had
to be a delayed discharge, a “hanger”. The .22 rifle was beside Boushie in the
front seat, as Boushie was in the drivers side.
Sheldon,
the son, who had run to get his truck keys from the house and was intending to
pursue them, said he heard two shots, and then a third. Consistent with his
father’s later testimony.
The
forensic evidence found by the police was consistent with this story.
That at
least is the version of Stanley which was also consistent with one of the Crown
witnesses.
Now,
how about the testimony of those in the car, after all there were four of
them. Well, unfortunately, all proved to be unreliable and their
testimony such as it was came close to constituting perjury. Crown
Prosecutor Bill Burge even warned the jury that they will
here many “contradictions” in the stories.
One of
the passengers in the Boushie vehicle, Cassidy Cross-Whitstone admitted to lying
about trying to break into a truck on the other property and about how much he
had to drink. He said he was worried about losing his drivers licence and that
he “lied about that”.
Belinda Jackson, another Crown witness had
earlier said that the only person with a firearm on the Stanley farm was a
woman standing outside their SUV, but then changed her story to say that she
saw Gerald Stanley shoot Boushie “twice” in the head. Boushie was only shot
once, and two of the other Crown witnesses confirmed hearing two shots over
their head, and then a third when they were in the process of running away.
So in
the Crown’s case. Three of four potential witnesses were found, and admitted to
lying or leaving out facts in the case. Another witness slept through the
entire matter. All of the Crown witnesses admitted to drinking heavily and
being at different levels of intoxication. All of course were indigenous, and I
have not seen a single report after the acquittal mentioning that unreliable
witnesses of the Crown were a big legal problem in this court case.
The
Crown case was so bad, one wonders if Crown was pressured into the laying of
charges. As a former homicide investigator I could not imagine getting charge
approval on a case where all of your witnesses for the Crown were “unreliable”
and admitted to high levels of intoxication.
So
where does this leave us?
The Prime Minister of this country, a
country who recognizes the need for an independent justice system, a justice
system that should not be tainted in favour of a special interest group, a
justice system that should be able to determine right from wrong without
political interference. Our Prime Minister, touring in the United States
immediately sides with the Indigenous outcry, and comments on Twitter.
“we
need to do better”
“we
have come to this point as a country far too many times”.
He then
sends them his “love”.
Of
course he is then echoed by our illustrious Justice Minister:
“Thank
you PM. My thoughts are with the family of Colton Boushie tonight. I truly feel
your pain and I hear all of your voices. As a country we can and must do
something better – I am committed to working everyday to ensure justice for all
Canadians.”
What
message are they sending? Clearly they are saying that the court system didn’t
work in this case and was biased based on race? It can not be interpreted in
any other way.
Clearly
both the PM and Wilson-Raybould were reacting as they always do, siding with
the indigenous no matter the concern or the facts of a case. Grand standing to
show their inordinate support.
In
doing so, the clear implication is that the 7 women and 5 men who served on the
jury, and the Judge who oversaw the case were tainted by racism. It displays
both a lack of judgement, a lack of experience, and a supreme lack of
objectivity on the part of these two leaders. This from a Prime Minister and a
Justice Minister sworn to uphold the laws of Canada.
But
this Liberal group for the last two years, bolstered by the two toadies, Jane
Philpott and Carolyn Bennett have done nothing but embolden the radical fringe
Indigenous leaders who are demanding different laws, a different Child welfare
system, separate police departments, greater infrastructure programs, better
schools, and a seat at Premier’s conferences as they strive to be a Nation unto
itself.
“Reconcilation”,
“colonialism”, and “residential schools” are the rallying cries and populate
every conversation, whatever indigenous problem is being debated. They have
even shamelessly compared the cultural genocide of the residential schools to
that of the Nazi concentration camps.
More
money, and more power are being demanded as part of this “reconciliation” and
the monetary spigot is wide open as there are no impossible or improbable
demands. Every government meeting is opened with the announcement about being
on the ceded or un-ceded territorial lands of the local Indigenous group, which
also furthers a point of view that most Canadians may not feel is appropriate.
The
political parliamentary opposition firmly sit on their hands, and keep their
mouths closed, clearly cowed by the thought of being branded racist, no matter
what the logic of the argument.
The new
NDP leader, Jagmeet Singh, echoed the thoughts of Trudeau
saying about the court case:
“There
was no justice for Colten Boushie…today they have again been told that their
lives have less value. We must confront the legacy of colonialism and genocide
so they can see a brighter future for themselves”. It is even more
astounding when you consider that he is a lawyer, not a high school drama
teacher, so should have had some appreciation of the facts of a case being
paramount.
Yesterday,
as I write this, finally the Conservatives and a few others are finally
speaking up about this clear political interference on the judicial system.
Conservative Deputy Leader Lisa Raitt, and Conservative Finance critic Rob
Nicholson are asking the Justice Minister and the Prime Minister as to whether
they were saying the jury had arrived at the wrong verdict.
Toronto
criminal lawyer Sean Robichaud argued that it was “wholly
inappropriate for elected officials to publicly undermine findings of a
lawfully delivered verdict, particularly if it was one with a jury.” He goes
further saying that the comments from the Prime minister and the Justice
minister that by questioning the credibility of the judiciary, “pose a threat
to Canada’s democratic system”.
The
Liberals don’t learn easily though, as today they flew members of the Boushie
family to Ottawa to meet with those oh so sympathetic cabinet ministers
Philpott and Bennett, the Public Safety Minister, and of course Wilson-Raybould
and Trudeau himself.
The Justice Minister in the
House is also expressing a need to change the judicial system and they
are now looking at quickly getting rid of pre-emptory challenges. Justin
Trudeau, in the House of Commons, realizing now that he has over-stepped, had
the audacity to say during question period, that he could not comment on this
“particular case”, to the laughter of the opposition.
The
damage is done. He has already commented, he has already sided with the likes
of Bobby Cameron, Chief of Federation of Sovereign Indigenous Nations that the
verdict was “..a bunch of garbage.” He is sanctioning the words of Perry
Bellegarde, National Chief of the First Nations who says “the system has failed
indigenous people, it remains rife with systemic rascism”
So what
has all this created?
It has
created the fringes on both sides to spout racist comments on social media and
the creation of a go fund me page for the defence costs of Gerald Stanley which
in three days has now raised $130,000.00. The divide in this country is
widening, being pushed by the ridiculous Twitter verse.
The
Orwellian “thought police” nature of the politics of Canada today is leading to
increasing polarization. The settlers of Saskatchewan who for generations
worked this harsh un-forgiving land, who “colonized” this land, are now told to
stay out of the debate.
The
jury in this case has now been branded, and must be now questioning why they
did their civic duty only to be called racists, even obliquely by their own
Prime Minister.
This
case was one of a rural crime resulting in a needless death. There was
absolutely no evidence of this being a racist driven crime.
Tragic,
as any death is, it is now further driving a wedge into legitimate debate as to
the problems of being indigenous in this country; abject poverty and abysmal
education feeding violence and disenfranchisement. The refusal to look
inward, the insistence on blaming everything on colonization, regardless of the
facts, is only going to fuel a now slow burning fire among the still silent
majority, who it can be argued, have just as much claim to this country as do
the 4% of the Canadian population who were here “first”.
We
expect our politicians to recognize the need for an independent judiciary, to
guard against politicization, to be the rational measure of policy and
programs. Trudeau, Wilson-Raybould, Philpott, and Bennett need to know that
they represent the entire country, they should not be biased to any cause
without considering the whole. It seems that they are currently incapable
of understanding this, and show no concern about attacking the very judiciary
and the laws which have founded and served us for 150 years.
The indigenous
groups don’t agree of course, so let’s open the debate, let us hear the
concrete proposals as to how they feel the system should be altered to serve
their needs. But then, let the country decide. Let the courts be the arbiter to
insure fairness and individual rights. Yes, the very same courts that they now
denigrate, but lets keep in mind they are very selective in their protestations
as Courts ruling in their favour are often lauded by them.
There
are no other options, as to do otherwise is contributing to a growing backlash
in this country. We must continually guard against allowing the radical fringes
from both sides who tend to kidnap and hijack an honest, and I stress
honest, debate and resolution. Tough, complicated issues, are not furthered
by simplistic sound bites that play to a particular audience. Trudeau and his
cronies are driving a very deep and irreversible wedge into the heart of this
country, they are dividing an entire nation. That never ends well, just ask the
Americans living in the Trump world.
In the
end this will be most detrimental to the indigenous people themselves.
Ironically, they have chosen this particular case, where there is no evidence
of racism once the facts are known, as the one that will be their hill to die
on. They should have chosen better.
And, if
Trudeau and his Cabinet would like to meet with everyone and show preferential
treatment to those that feel the court system has let them down, then warm up
the jets, there are going to be lot of people awaiting government limousines at
the MacDonald-Cartier airport.
By the way, we may need to change the name of
the airport.
Gotta say, at my old age, how I find myself frequently detesting the Liberal government in Canada.
And Kia has no comment at all this time!
