Well, it’s that time again, where people are urging you to vote….or else!

The 42nd Canadian general election aka Election 2015 aka #elxn42 kicked off during the summer. So, that’s probably why you’ve been hearing, seeing, digesting more political ads everywhere (*vomit* to an increase of Harper’s ads in Ottawa right now). During this time, you probably had some lovely (or maybe not so lovely) volunteers come knock on your door or call your phone (and maybe even your cell phone, which causes you to question how they got the number to begin with) telling why you should vote for a particular candidate. Thankfully, I live in an apartment building and none of that shit happens. Also, my cell phone is still a London, Ontario area code and the only calls I receive are those asking for donations: “Yup, you got my support.” And well, the people who do call my phone (normally Liberal volunteers) do have my support (full disclosure: I voted for my Liberal candidate this past Saturday at the Canada Elections office for my riding).

Riding?

Polling station?

Voting?

What does it all mean!

Yes, there are a large number of people urging others to vote (essentially to vote out Harper). I agree, we should all vote but I’m not here to tell you what you should do or who you should vote for. Rather, I am writing this post to help lay out the “how to cast your ballot” aka vote in simple terms without all the background noise on which party you should vote for.

In order to vote, you must be 18 years old by October 19 and a Canadian citizen. There are also some new rules that seem confusing as hell and nobody can really give a clear answer when you ask them outright. But since I just voted recently and I was also concerned about these new rules (whatever the fuck they mean), I’ll do my best to make it clear about what I was concerned about, how I voted and hopefully you can use these steps to also cast a ballot for a candidate of your choosing (in your riding obviously and also that’s if you want to vote–because not voting is just as an equally valid response to this election too).

The basics:

1. You must be at least 18 years old (by election day which is October 19)
2. You must be a Canadian citizen
3. You must be able to prove your identity AND address

The main thing I was concerned about:

1. How to vote by having to prove my identity and address when I have limited options about the type of things that prove my address

Other things I was concerned about:

1. Being turned away at the polling station because of the main thing I was concerned about

The first time I voted was during the last election. I was 25 years old. I know, I know, you must be thinking, “what the hell? why should I listen to you?” The first time I tried voting I just turned 18 and I was new to the entire process. I didn’t know what it meant to “register to vote” or what it meant to “vote in your riding” and thus, I missed out on the opportunity to vote. Then next time the election happened, I couldn’t prove my address (hello, homelessness!) and so, I couldn’t vote. By the third election happened came around, I still didn’t understand the “register to vote” and I missed the opportunity to vote again. Finally, at 25 years, I ended up voting after I understood what it meant to “register to vote” and “vote in your riding.” I talked to some political friends and they were instrumental in helping me understand the entire process (and they still are helpful to me in many ways).

And so, we are here and it is election time and everyone is shouting “vote!” But really, what does that even mean?!

1. You have to register in your riding to vote
   1. What does this mean? Well, all this means is that the place where you call “home” is your riding. You find out what riding you are in by doing the following:
      1. Find your postal code
      2. Enter your postal code where it says “type your postal code”
      3. Write down riding information
         1. At this point, if you entered the correct postal code, you will be brought to a page with a bunch of different links. Some important links to pay attention include the link showing your “Elections Canada office” (where you can vote in advance of Election day and advancing voting, on advanced voting days or on Election day, which is October 19). I had a friend help me locate the Elections Canada Office information for my riding which is Ottawa-Centre (thank you Bryan!) and I wrote down the following information:
            1. Address of Elections Canada office, hours/days open and phone number. Then, last Saturday, I voted after I did some shopping.
         2. If you are concerned about transportation and actually getting to your Elections Canada office, then reach out to a candidate and ask for some help. You can view your riding’s candidates’ information by clicking on the link that says “Who are the candidates in my electoral district?” under the heading “Candidates” on this same page. A lot of these candidates are mobilizing volunteers to get voters out to actually vote. It doesn’t hurt to ask…so, ask!
   2.  If you are concerned with things like identification, then refer to this page to see what kind of identification your polling station accepts.
      1. As noted above, this was one of my major concerns. I asked everyone I could about what I could do and I also reviewed the identification page. I ended up bringing my latest prescription which has my riding’s address on it and I also brought an electronic copy of my latest utility bill (and for good measure, my internet bill). I always get nervous because I think back to that time I was 18 and was turned away…but if you have anything that helps proves your identification AND address, you are more than likely good to go.

The shitty part about some of these rules is when people can’t prove their identity AND address (like homeless folks). I’ve been there and done all of that. It’s not fun. So, I just say this from a place of love and respect: respect a person’s decision not to vote (even if they enjoy that right to its fullest as a Canadian citizen who can prove their identity AND address) and respect that some people just can’t vote (even though they want to). If you know someone who is in this situation (can’t prove their identity AND address), reach out to help them in anyway you can. I’m not sure how you can help but I know what would helped me when I was NFA (no fixed address, even though I “lived” in the area aka riding) was having someone explain to me the process, help me navigate terms/rules, and it probably would have helped if people were less shame-y/judge-y about me not voting until I was 25. Also, reach out to your riding’s candidates. They will be eager to help and answer any questions!

Respect and love.

Also, don’t forget to check out these resources:

• Elections Canada
• Indigenous politics
• Ignite our vote

Congrats! You made it. You did it. Maybe you got in on some super awesome grades. Maybe you got in a super killer LSAT score. Maybe you got in on a conditional acceptance.* Maybe you got in and you are still unsure about the whole process. Welcome to law school…one big giant “what the fuck!”

I wish I had something super witty, funny, inspiring to say.

I don’t.

I spent my first year, almost every day, going home to cry. I didn’t want to go to class and I still don’t want to go to class (I think some people go to class just to hear their own voice, but hey, that’s just me).

Maybe I am too cynical? Maybe I am too angry? But actually, I’m tired of being the one to see the good in the entire situation. Can I just be cynical and angry for one moment, please? Kthnxbai.

Your school may say it takes some initiatives to make law school more indigenous-student friendly. Your school may say it is progressive about issues you care about (and that’s why you applied to that specific school). All schools are different. But one thing that remains the same is the fact that the fight doesn’t get any better.

I read Patricia Monture-Angus’s work (and I recommend her to everyone who is indigenous especially indigenous women). She writes about the issues she faced in law school…decades ago. Well, nothing’s changed.

People will tell you to keep up with your readings and briefing like as if they are telling you something magical. It’s not news. You probably know not to fall behind but in reality, you will. Some people get “it” right away and some people don’t. Everything, for me, didn’t clue in until second semester. Still, in my first year, I knew “the law” and how to talk about “the law.” Ask me to write an exam? Forget it. I failed one too. It happens but nobody ever talks about it. Nobody ever talks about how bad they are doing or how rough it is for them. Everyone acts like everything is peachy, but it isn’t peachy. 

Law school sucks because I put faith into people and life/situations becoming better, and they don’t get better. People and society are still racist and people will say stupid shit like “you just got in because our school saved you a seat.” Everyone knows it, even the non-indigenous folks. Thankfully, nobody has said that to me directly but it happens still. It still happens because it happens to my friends at other schools.

As for me and my experiences, the things that helped me stay safe and sane were two things:

• Finding my other indigenous peers who were supportive
• Finding the Indigenous student resources

There is nobody else that will get your experiences as an indigenous law student other than other indigenous law students. They all know and have been there. They all know what it feels like to have to wear two hats: the student and the teacher. Your professor may call on you to answer to the indigenous issues brought up in class and the cool thing about that is you don’t have to answer! You are there to learn just like everyone else. It is neither your responsibility nor your obligation to be the token voice for indigenous issues–you got more important shit to deal with, like not falling behind in your readings (or dealing with stuff happening back home in your community or bearing the burden of being the first one to go to post-secondary education in your family or being away from home for a long time…you get the idea).

Law school can be very alienating and isolating. It sucks. If nobody in your family or your circle of friends have never been to law school, they may or may not understand. But understand this, they will always be there for you. Reach out to them. Call them. They probably miss you too.

Law school is also like walking back into an abusive relationship over and over again. I say to myself a lot, “Yeah, I know this place is a violent place but I’m still going to go because I have to.” Ever since starting law school, I had to go back on anti-anxiety medication. I had to start counselling back up again and I am paying for it (because my law school has shitty mental health supports directly for its students). I also had to learn to say no to things in order to protect myself. People may ask you to do a lot of things and you may want to do everything because #FOMO. The beauty in life is that you can say no to whoever you want, whenever you want.

But law school is like walking back into an abusive relationship over and over again because the law talks about everything in the abstract. You will talk about things in class that may be abstract for some but for you, it was or is a reality.

For example, sex work. People talk about Bedford as principles and rules enshrining certain values into Canadian society through the Charter but it’s all bullshit. It’s bullshit because sex workers are still living and working in fear. It’s bullshit because people act like they know what’s happening since they read a case. But they don’t know what’s happening.

From 1985 until 2013, over 300 sex workers went missing or murdered after Canada enacted its communication law in the early 1980s. The was the same communication law that was struck down in Bedford, then re-enacted under Canada’s Protection for Communities and Exploited Persons Act. And Bedford found these laws to violate sex workers’ right to life, liberty and security of the person. This is all fact and everyone can read about it.

But when you talk about issues that you know affect you personally, people will talk about the issues like as if they are abstract–your lived reality and the reality of your friends and family…gone. Poof! Just like that, all of a sudden legal principles are abstracted from cases and you are stuck with having to listen to people speak about things they have no clue about…and you just want to scream because you know what it’s like to almost be murdered, live in fear and the police not care. 

I guess I just want to say is that don’t give up. Law school is a shitty place and it’s shitty that it’s shitty but don’t give up. I want to give up every single day but I know that I’ve been through a lot worse bullshit and giving up now? The joke would be on me.

And don’t forget: Always love yourself, you deserve it. Self love is resistance; living, breathing, and waking up is resistance. They tried to kill us but we still here–many thanks to our ancestors. So, let the spirit of your ancestors carry you. You are not in this alone.

*You got into law school because you super badass. Screw grades, LSAT scores or conditions.

Whenever I read about how an Indigenous woman who worked in the sex trade died, I literally feel the pain in my body. Nadine’s pain. Cindy’s pain.

Today was a hard day.

When the verdict following the case of Cindy Gladue happened, I remember I had a dream about her, in that hotel room and there was nothing I could do to stop it. So, when I say, the violence that these women experience….I feel it. I mean it. It literally hurts to walk, to breathe, to sit, to sleep, to wake. I want to ignore the media but I can’t. It’s everywhere, including the pain. 

Even today, in a private conversation with another Indigenous woman, I said the following there and I will say it here, I bet the police know what happened and I bet they know who pushed her down that chute. Because isn’t it convenient there are witnesses, describing a ruly Indigenous woman, but all the cameras from the hotel that night are “glitchy.”

In fact, I bet it wouldn’t be too far from the truth to even suggest that maybe even one of them did it. This is a strong feeling I had today, walking around, trying to escape the pain.

Because isn’t it convenient that the same people that are meant to protect us are never there to actually “protect” us…

Do you want to review the readings I have on youth in the sex trade for a class I’ll be lecturing in November? Here they are (and yes I know the case law isn’t “good law” but there are some sections that I want to use for a discussion on youth in the sex trade, especially how the law treats and views youth in terms of their agency and their rights):

To read:

General introduction on youth in the sex trade: http://www.parl.gc.ca/content/lop/researchpublications/2011-119-e.htm#a21 (ONLY sections entitled “Child Protection” and “secure care”) AND https://kwetoday.com/2015/03/14/a-controversial-issue-youth-in-the-sex-trade/ AND http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/cj-jp/yj-jj/rr01_13/rr01_13.pdf (ONLY sections 1.2, 2.2, 2.10-2.13)

Case: Alberta v K.B. (Provincial court, family division level): ONLY paragraphs 23-54, 57, 65-72, 77-78, 87-88, 93-94, 104-105, 111-121 AND Alberta v K.B. (Queen’s bench level): ONLY paragraphs 3-5, 9-12, 21, 44-48, 52, 56, 58, 67, 69, 71-72, 75-76, 78-81, 101-104, 109 AND footnote 5

Review: Protection of Sexually Exploited Children Act

Can you spot the difference in how the law treats and views adult sex workers from youth in the sex trade?

In case you didn’t know, it is World Day Against Trafficking in Persons. Charming. What does this day actually mean? Nothing really. It’s just another day for the antis to come together, parade their victims through the media and maybe talk about how many laws their country passed within the last year to help fight against trafficking and exploitation. In other words, today is nothing new. Same ole, same ole.

Within the past year, Canada enacted several laws to allegedly fight against trafficking and exploitation, especially sexual exploitation (See Bill C-36, now law). However, Canada still has done absolutely nothing to actually address the problems that cause trafficking and exploitation in the first place.

According to the god awful Trafficking in Persons (TIPS) report published each year by the States, Canada seems to have a love affair with the topic of sexual exploitation and Canada is too shy to admit to this dalliance. Acknowledging Canada’s penchant toward sexual exploitation would mean Canada has to address its miff in addressing other kinds of trafficking and exploitation—surely people remember the gaff of the Temporary Foreign Worker Program. No? That’s okay: these kinds of government-supported programs don’t really fall under the label of “exploitation” or (state-approved) human trafficking.

Other things found in the TIPS report:

• Aboriginal women and girls are vulnerable (the report’s word, not mine) to sexual exploitation through the child welfare system and their own communities (specifically, Aboriginal communities). Yet, the report fails to acknowledge that it is Canada’s own fault for putting Indigenous folks on reserves and Indigenous children in the child welfare system. Doh!
• Canada has increased its capacity surrounding law enforcement and prosecution of human trafficking and exploitation but Canada has done zilch for labour traffickers.
• In increasing its capacity surrounding law enforcement and prosecution of human trafficking and exploitation, the report fails to mention who is being targeted by these increased law enforcement and prosecution efforts (like the increase in criminalization of youth, family members, and members of marginalized communities like Indigenous women who work in the sex trade as the media continues to out sex workers, putting them at greater risk of violence and exploitation).
• Canada does very little to help support victims. Of course, Canada sucks in supporting victims given that Aboriginal women and girls are a vulnerable group (the report’s words, not mine) and given that Canada basically ignores the issue of missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls. Remember that RCMP report? All those girls just wandered off. Can we just give the Canadian government a break, like really? I mean, if the girls who are most likely to go missing and who are most likely to be vulnerable to exploitation and trafficking just wander off, is it really Canada’s fault? C’mon, TIPS, why do you have to be so hard on Canada.
• The victim crime compensation fund in Montreal did not assist individuals in prostitution, even if they were trafficking victims. But if all prostitution = trafficking, then wouldn’t all prostitutes be trafficked victims?
• Some domestic violence shelters would not take trafficking victims out of fear of their traffickers. But if you are like me (you know, an Indigenous woman, all vulnerable) and have tried to access domestic violence support while you working in the sex trade, you will be turned away for wanting to stay in the trade or you will have to hide your working status out of fear of discrimination and stigma.
• It isn’t exactly clear where Canada stands when it comes to foreign victims but this recent anti-human trafficking initiative by police forces across Canada make it clear: “Migrant sex workers caught up in Ottawa sting face deportation.” Yup, it doesn’t get any clearer than with that news article about what happens to foreign victims. I mean, isn’t all prostitution considered to be human trafficking and if so, then wouldn’t all those in the trade be victims—not if you are Asian and in the trade by choice. Funny those double standards.

We don’t have to look far to understand what is going on with these anti-human trafficking efforts. In fact, Empower Foundation in Thailand released its statement on TIPS last year. In that statement, Empower explains what a lower grade means for countries who receive such. Basically, the US stops or reduces aid and trade with the country. Empower highlights the problems with anti-trafficking efforts in one sentence, “We have not heard of any strategy or plan to assist workers who lose their livelihoods from such actions.” Truth! What has Canada done to assist workers who lose their livelihoods from actions that allegedly fight against human trafficking and exploitation? Deportation. Criminalization. Exploitation in other trades and forms of labour (remember, temporary foreign worker program).

As Chanelle Gallant, fierce sex work activist, organizer and ally to many, outlines the problems with the anti-trafficking rhetoric by telling the story of a fictional character, Amy, a middle class white girl (because that who is most vulnerable remember?), the story seems plausible but just kidding because it is made up (much like other trafficking victims stories and research on the subject). Gallant describes Amy as “insecure, vulnerable” and then Amy “gets tricked by an older boyfriend, who is actually super mean but way smarter than [Amy].” Amy is tricked by her boyfriend, as Gallant states, “doing what is apparently the world’s most lucrative work beside being a CEO ($250,000/year).” In case you are wondering about the plausibility of this lucrative work’s income, it’s actually $260,000/year (and sometimes even $280,000/year) and I already debunked this figure in another post. But, don’t you worry because Amy is eventually saved! And then millions and millions of dollars are pumped into awareness campaigns, Gallant details.

Empower makes a bold statement, and a repeated one by many sex work activists and allies, “anti-trafficking money is attractive.” And we see how attractive this money is when the majority of those who do receive the anti-trafficking funds from Bill C-36 are antis (the only true protectors of trafficking victims… pfft). I guess the antis can continue to pimp out their victims and continue to parade them through the media because more victims mean more money! Ye$$$!

Happy World Day Against Trafficking in Persons folks!

In a recent Supreme Court decision, R v Rodgerson, the court ruled on the issue of relying on post-offence conduct. At the actual hearing, the Appellant (the Crown) highlighted that post-offence conduct “continues to be an issue.”[1]In this context, post-offence conduct is an issue for criminal trials involving juries; specifically, it is the trial judge’s instructions to the jury that is the issue—the long and wordy instructions meant to guide the jury in their decision-making.

In R v Barton, the Cindy Gladue case, the trial judge outlined the difference in evidence. There is direct and circumstantial evidence. The trial judge sated post-offence conduct is circumstantial evidence, which is in contrast to direct evidence. Essentially, certain inferences can (or cannot) be made from circumstantial evidence. The example used in the instructions to the jury in Barton pointed to fingerprints “found on one of the beer cans” in the hotel room.[2] The fingerprints would be circumstantial evidence, just like post-offence conduct.

Amber Young was murdered in October 2008.[3] Jason Rodgerson was subsequently charged with first-degree murder in the death of Amber Young.[4] Rodgerson was the “sole witness” to Amber’s death.[5] Rodgerson argued his actions relating to the death of Amber Young was in self-defence.[6] Rodgerson also argued that he had no intent to “kill or seriously injure” Amber Young, instead the “force used was purely accidental.”[7] At trial, the Crown relied on post-offence conduct.[8] The post-offence conduct the Crown relied on included: Rodgerson cleaning and concealing evidence and Rodgerson fleeing from and lying to the police.[9] Both the Crown and defence agreed that Rodgerson fleeing and lying to the police “had no bearing on the issue of Mr. Rodgerson’s intent.”[10] The defence further argued that post-offence conduct (namely, concealing/cleaning up evidence) “had no bearing on the issue of [Rodgerson’s] intent.”[11] The trial judge did not agree with the defence that post-offence conduct “had no bearing on the issue of [Rodgerson’s] intent.”[12] As such, the trial judge instructed the jury that Rodgerson’s post-offence conduct (concealing/cleaning up evidence) is relevant in establishing intent for murder.[13]

If you have been following the Cindy Gladue case, you will notice some similarities to the Amber Young case. As side from their indigeneity, the most obvious similarity is that only Rodgerson and Barton were there to testify in the death of both Amber and Cindy, and they were both charged with their murders (how convenient). Rodgerson and Barton both argued that Amber and Cindy’s deaths were accidental and thus, they had no intent to kill or seriously injure Cindy or Amber. In the case of Amber Young, the trial judge permitted the jury to rely on post-offence conduct to establish Rodgerson’s intent to kill Amber. At trial, however, in the case of Cindy Gladue, the judge instructed the jury that post-offence conduct could not be used in establishing Barton’s intent to kill or seriously injure Cindy.

Another similarity includes the fact that both Cindy and Amber consumed alcohol, to the point of intoxication, prior to their deaths (except in Barton’s defence, the defence argued that Cindy was not intoxicated and consented to sexual activity throughout). In both Amber and Cindy’s case, we also see a particular narrative within each case that constructs Amber and Cindy as prostitutes or whores. While it is an established fact that Cindy met Barton in the context of selling sex, Amber was not selling or trading sex when she met Rodgerson. In the case of Amber Young, however, Rodgerson and his roommate in their testimonies called Amber a “whore”[14] or compared Amber’s actions “to that of a prostitute.”[15] Hence, there is a narrative that constructs Amber as a “prostitute” or a “whore” despite this not being a solid fact. The drunken Indian prostitute or the drunken Indian whore who consented to the sex and then consented to their deaths—you got to love racist and whorephobic imagery.

Nevertheless, a clear (and obvious) difference remains: Rodgerson was convicted and Barton was not (even when it is clear that Barton caused the injuries which led to Cindy’s death and which the trial judge highlighted in the instructions to the jury).

After the jury convicted Rodgerson (of second degree murder), the defence filed for an appeal. The defence argued that the trial judge erred in instructing the jury on post-offence conduct, particularly how post-offence conduct established the intent for murder. At the Ontario Court of Appeal, the majority held that evidence relating to fleeing and lying to police was “irrelevant to determining whether he had the requisite intent for murder”[16] and held that the evidence relating to concealing and cleaning up evidence could only be used in a limited way. On the issue of concealing/cleaning up evidence, the majority held that the trial judge erred by not instructing the jury on the specific way this post-offence conduct could be used for establishing intent.[17]

In the case of Cindy Gladue, the trial judge was clear in his instructions that post-offence conduct could not be used to establish intent. The trial judge wrote, “You cannot consider any of the evidence of Mr. Barton’s after-the-fact conduct on the issue of intention.”[18] Some of Barton’s post-offence conduct includes: cleaning up evidence (cleaning the bathroom floor and disposing of the bloody towel used to clean up the bathroom floor), knowing Cindy Gladue was in the bathtub in the first place, making false statements to Mr. Sullivan, Veronica Chysyk, hotel desk clerk, the 911 operator, Constable Jones and the undercover officer.[19] In the instruction to the jury, Barton argued “he was in shock, didn’t know what to do and didn’t trust anyone, that he did speak to Mr. Sullivan about some of the circumstances and that he called 911 himself.”[20] Immediately following the verdict, the narrative surrounding Barton’s actions read as if Barton was pro-active in calling 911—he was a married man worried about the dead prostitute lying in his bathtub so he obviously cared enough to call 911, right (#rhetoricalquestion)? Yet, in a statement to the police, his co-worker stated that Barton told him it “would be a good day unless the cops showed up.” In a previous post, I wrote the following:

Barton’s co-worker asked him what he meant by this statement and Barton explained that there was a dead woman in his bathtub. His co-worker asked if Barton called the police. Barton did not call the police until his co-worker suggested he do so.[21]

In the case of Cindy Gladue, the grounds in the appeal focused on instruction to the jury. The judge, as stated earlier, was clear on post-offence conduct: they could not rely on post-offence conduct to establish intent. In R v Rodgerson, an SCC case decided after the Barton verdict, re-affirms that it is totally okay to rely on post-offence conduct but that the instructions to the jury must be specific and “nuanced.”[22] On the issue of post-offence conduct, specifically concealing/cleaning up evidence, the SCC, in the Rodgerson decision, stated:

“It was open to the jury to conclude that Mr. Rodgerson sought to conceal Ms. Young’s body and clean up the scene of her death in order to conceal the nature and extent of the injuries and the degree of force required to inflict them. This in turn could have been relevant on the issue of whether Mr. Rodgerson had the requisite intent for murder: the more severe the injuries, the more force required to inflict them, the stronger the inference that Mr. Rodgerson intended to kill, or to cause bodily harm which he knew was likely to cause death”[23]

Yes, a trial judge can instruct the jury on whether they can rely on post-offence conduct to establish intent. Yes, a trial judge can tell a jury not to rely on post-offence conduct to establish intent. But what is it about Barton’s post-offence conduct that makes it irrelevant to intent?

The Crown’s theory in R v Barton was that Cindy could not consent to the sexual activity because she lacked capacity and that Barton used either a sharp object or used his hand with excessive force to injure Cindy. In R v Rodgerson, the SCC states, “The more severe the injuries caused by Mr. Rodgerson, and the more force required to inflict them, the stronger the inference that he intended to kill Ms. Young or cause her serious injury.”[24] The SCC states that post-offence conduct (namely, the concealing and cleaning up evidence) is “capable of supporting the inference that he acted unlawfully.”[25] Sure, Rodgerson’s post-offence conduct to conceal and clean up evidence was more obvious (like buying bleach and attempting to bury Amber).

Still, in R v Barton, the Crown introduced expert evidence, including Cindy’s preserved pelvis. And the fact remains, Barton admitted to causing the injury: an 11 cm wound which caused Cindy to bleed to death. There was blood on the bed sheets, floor, around the bathtub, and in the bathtub where Cindy lay dead. Then, Barton attempted to clean up the bathroom, where he left Cindy while he went to work without calling 911 until his co-worker suggested he do so.

Does the fact that Cindy met Barton in the context of selling sex play a role? Surely, this fact must play a role since the defence relied so heavily on Cindy selling sex when it came to consent—(#sarcasmalert) since all sex workers consent to everything that happens to them in the context of their work, including the violence they experience, right? And most certainly, the fact that society continuously dehumanizes Indigenous women who sell sex or Indigenous women who act like prostitutes did play a role in both Amber and Cindy’s death. Remember, Rodgerson’s roommate stated Amber “acted like a prostitute”—whatever that means (like, how does a person act like a prostitute?). In other words, the justice system and all of its players relied on constructing both Cindy and Amber as prostitutes or whores to arrive at the verdicts, convicted and acquitted, respectively for Rodgerson and Barton. Where is the justice for Indigenous women who go missing or who are reported missing murdered? What is it about the justice system relying on the denigrating stereotypes about Indigenous women who are murdered?

I often wonder how my narrative will read if (and that possibility is very probable) I am reported as missing or if I am found murdered.

My education will never save me, just like it never saved Loretta Saunders.

The burden I carry as someone who has survived all the violence is unbearable at times. I ask myself, what can I do, as a law student, a future lawyer, to change how the courts and lawyers treat Indigenous women, both the living and the dead? I often think about Cindy Gladue and her family. As I write this, I think about Amber Young and her family. Who is else thinking about Amber Young and her family? I often wonder how the justice system hurt both families. I often wonder how I can help. But, we all should be asking these questions. We must do better. Society must do better. To the Crown, criminal defence and the trial judges who preside over the cases similar to Amber and Cindy: you must do better.

[1] http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/case-dossier/info/webcast-webdiffusion-eng.aspx?cas=35947
[2] R v Barton: Instructions to the jury at para 41.
[3] http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/15456/index.do at para 11.
[4] http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/15456/index.do at para 1.
[5] http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/15456/index.do at para 12.
[6] http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/15456/index.do at para 2.
[7] http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/15456/index.do at para 3.
[8] http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/15456/index.do at para 4.
[9] http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/15456/index.do at paras 4-5.
[10] http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/15456/index.do at para 5.
[11] http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/15456/index.do at para 6.
[12] http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/15456/index.do at para 6.
[13] http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/15456/index.do at para 6.
[14] http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/15456/index.do at para 12.
[15] http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/WebDocuments-DocumentsWeb/35947/FM020_Respondent_Jason-Rodgerson.pdf at para 18.
[16] http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/15456/index.do at para 8.
[17] http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/15456/index.do at para 8.
[18] R v Barton: Instructions to the jury at para 120.
[19] R v Barton: Instructions to the jury at para 76.
[20] R v Barton: Instructions to the jury at para 81.
[21] https://kwetoday.com/2015/04/23/the-case-of-cindygladue-tells-indigenous-sexworkers-that-some-lives-matter-more-than-others/
[22] http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/15456/index.do at para 34.
[23] http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/15456/index.do at para 55.
[24] http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/15456/index.do at para 19.
[25] http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/15456/index.do at para 20.

Hello readers, 

Approximately 5 years ago, I created a blog and decided to name the blog “kwetoday.” Kwe means woman in my traditional language, Anishnabemowin. As you know, I frequently write about feminist issues and sometimes I respond to issues in Canadian media. More specifically, I write about issues relating to missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls, sex work, human trafficking, and my personal experiences in sex work, law school, and in general, my crazy adventures in life. My writings from this blog have been used in many courses at universities across Canada (generally, at no cost to the people using the writings) and many people from all around the world read my writing.

Since creating the blog, I have used the same laptop—a trusty Mac (so old that they don’t make the kind I own  anymore). Over these years, I have had to replace my screen, battery or power adapter/cord. Right now, I am requesting help to raise funds to help purchase a new laptop. 

To help raise these funds, I created an indiegogo campaign. Contributing to this campaign will allow me to continue to write at http://www.kwetoday.com. Moreover, by contributing to the campaign, you will also help me to continue to organize with other activists and leaders in indigenous feminist and sex work communities. Much of the organizing in these communities takes place online via social media (Facebook) or other online gathering places (google hangout, skype). Because my current laptop is so old, I am limited to when and where I can assist with organizing in these communities (I cannot open google hangout or skype on my current laptop and Facebook conversations crash my browser). So, not only will your contributions help support http://www.kwetoday.com, but your contributions will also help me to continue to assist the communities I write about and assist the communities I represent.
You can also donate directly via email (if you have my email). If you want to use email money transfer and do not have my email, please leave a comment below with your email and I will reply directly to your comment via email. All comments must be approved before they are posted. 

Note: Any funds that are raised above the desired goal will be donated to an organization providing support to families of MMIWG2S (missing and murdered Indigenous women/girls/two-spirited).

My childhood home, for some, would be considered small. To me, my home was and is perfect. My home is on the south side of the Highway 17B. A deck wraps around the north, west and south side of the house. Growing up, I recall watching cars go by while I sit on the deck in the sun/shade (depending on the time of day).

There are two doors near the front of the house, one on the west side and one on the north side. The door on the north side of the house is a patio door that slides open with a screen over top half of one side of the patio door. When facing inwards, looking inside, you can see the kitchen. From the door, you can see our kitchen table in the centre of the dining area that is on the opposite side of the kitchen counter, which hides the stove. My dad frequently sits at the kitchen table at any time during the day.

On this particular day, my dad sat at the table early in the morning. I used to figure skate when I was younger and on this day, I just finished a morning figure skating practice with lessons and coaching. My mom used to wake my sisters and me up early in the morning to head to these figure skating sessions. I remember hating waking up that early (I swear it was usually before 6am but it might have been just after 6am). I remember hating walking into the cold arena. Yet, by the time I completed the early morning sessions and by the time I was home, I didn’t mind the early AM workout and early start to the day.

After one morning figure skating session, I can remember coming home, excited and overjoyed to begin my day. As my mom turned down the driveway, I noticed the kitchen lights on. Then, as I walked up the stairs leading to patio door and as I noticed by dad sat at the kitchen table that morning, I reached to open the screen door covering the sliding patio window (aka the “patio door”). My dad looked up at me with his usual stoic facial expression, watching me reach for the patio door. Still feeling thrilled to be done the AM figure skating session, I waved happily at my dad, failing to notice that the glass part of the patio door remained locked and closed.

*BAM*

I smacked my face and entire body into the glass part of the patio door. Full blast. My dad shook his head, unimpressed. I laugh, take a step back and obviously now realize the glass part of the patio door remains unopened. I open the patio door, fully. Still, I am happy and excited to begin the day.

That’s first year law school: sometimes people notice that the glass part of the patio door is closed and they reach to open it. Others? Sometimes, like me, we forget that the patio door might be closed. Then, once we smack our faces and entire body (from sheer eagerness to begin the day) against the closed patio door/windowpanes, we take a moment, step back and realize that we need to slow down, open the door fully.

As for follow up from my previous post on failing an exam in law school, I passed and second year begins in September. I am still excited and eager as ever. Okay, maybe I am a little bit scared, but this time I will remember to take a step back, pause and open the door fully before I smack my face into any more windowpanes.

The following are taken directly from various survivors of Indian residential schools who have been quoted in the TRC report (page 48-49):

“no hugs, nothing, no comfort…

…no love, there was no feelings

…nobody to comfort, comfort you

…nobody comforted you

…you learn not to cry”

And then white society wonders why we can’t forget, as the hurt and pain is passed on from one generation to another. We were taught not to love ourselves, our family, our home, our communities.

And then sometimes we, ourselves, wonder why have a hard time showing and expressing love to one another, to ourselves.

Today, I am reminded that love is more than just three words.

Love is decolonization.

I feel like the RCMP #MMIW report is just one big giant replay of Austin Power movie clips.

The recent update (just like the last report) is basic criminological theory—Thanks Captain obvious! Okay, maybe basic criminological theory is not so obvious.

First, it appears that the fact that most Aboriginal women “knew” their perpetrators is what (allegedly) differentiates the issue of MMIW from other types of violence against women and mainstream media thinks this fact is news. Basic criminological theory, however, tells us that most victims of any type of crime know the perpetrators (regardless of the race, age, gender, etc). Basic criminological theory also tells us that crime isn’t random. In other words, people just don’t go around committing crime aimlessly. Policing also doesn’t happen indiscriminately. Policing of certain bodies and spaces is targeted. Surprisingly, this is stated in the MMIW report. The report reads, “[this report] will mean more targeted crime prevention…” (p 3). Yet, we all know what that targeted crime prevention means for Indigenous communities. And in case this isn’t obvious to my readers, it means more criminalization for Indigenous communities.

Like Adam, he highlights what is missing in the media discussions surrounding the RCMP report and he also points out the fact that if a victim is non-Aboriginal, the probability that a “spouse/family/intimate [is] involved in any given homicide increases.”[1] So yeah, victims of crime know their perpetrators and this fact increases if they are non-Aboriginal. And I agree with Adam, in his post, that the media reporting on the MMIW issue is telling us a much different story than what the report is telling us. However, I believe that the report is also telling us a lot about policing responses and their biases to the issue of MMIW.

Let’s have a brief look at the history of the Conservative’s government actions to “assist” Indigenous communities address the MMIW issue.

In 2005, the federal (then-Liberal) government in partnership with NWAC created the Sisters in Spirit initiative. The SIS project began to collect names for the MMIW database. However, in 2010, the federal (Conservative) government cut off all funding to the Sisters in Spirit database project.[2] The federal government then redirected funds to other areas. Some of these areas include their vague and obscure “Economic Action Project” or increasing policing initiatives in Indigenous communities (as evidence in the RCMP report’s Executive Summary). So, to all those people telling Harper to get on with a MMIW Inquiry? Yeah, I hate to break it to you but I don’t think it will be happening anytime soon. But do I think there is value in asking for a response, other than a racist response that blames all Native men for the MMIW issue, from the Conservative government? Yes. The Conservative government lack of response tells us more about our government and its colonial history than anything else. The Conservative government’s silence and inaction on the MMIW issue speaks volumes. But watch carefully who blindly follows and supports the Conservative government’s initiatives and legislation *cough* NWAC *cough*

Next, the RCMP report also tells us that “[the report] is the most comprehensive data that has ever been assembled by the Canadian policing community on missing and murdered Aboriginal women.” While yes this is true, it is also true that the Conservative government effectively defunded previous comprehensive data-collection efforts by Indigenous organizations. This wasn’t the only time the Conservative government effectively shut down critical research and data-collection on important Indigenous issues, like Indigenous health.[3] And that RCMP report? It even cites violence against women as a major health issue (p. 6). I agree but does anybody remember NAHO? The one thing, however, I cannot agree with is the RCMP claiming to be the “first” in comprehensive reporting on the issue when the Conservative government has been effectively defunding important research and data collection on the MMIW and related issues (and then redirecting funding to policing initiatives).

The RCMP report, I presume, seems to only focus on those MMIW that are 18 years and older. I ask: Did the report include all the young Indigenous women and girls who have been reported missing or murdered and/or are supposed to be in state care? Did the report include those lives lost due to the violent and ongoing child welfare policies which forcibly remove Indigenous children from their homes and into state care? Did the report include all those who have been human trafficked? No. The RCMP even goes onto state that those who have been reported missing may have “wandered off” (I guess this is what some “experts” mean by “self-trafficking”). And well, looks like we solved the problem to all those young Indigenous women and girls who are “at-risk” of going missing: let’s just put up fences or you know, lock them up in state care (or other state institutions)!

Despite all of the above and before these reports, in 2010, The Missing Women Commission of Inquiry was established.[4] The report that came from that is available here. Yes, it is long and despite it being relevant to a specific region (and the gong show that it created), it is similar to the recent RCMP report in one major way.

The RCMP report notes that it also includes “illegal occupations” in employment status. The report only considers employment status as relevant to characteristics of perpetrators (p 13, note 23). The report does not go into much detail about “illegal occupations” of missing/murdered Indigenous women, except for on page 15 and again on page 17 of the report. On page 15 of the report, the report tells us that the solve rate (meaning where police laid a charge or where police recommended to the Crown a laying of a charge, or where the police identified a suspect and the incident is cleared) for women in the sex trade is lower than other homicides and the solve rate for Aboriginal women in the sex trade is lower than non-Aboriginal women in the sex trade. Given that the report cites involvement in the sex trade as a risk factor for murdered Aboriginal females, I wouldn’t be surprised if this report is used to justify the ongoing criminalization of women in the sex trade all in the name of “protection” (as if criminalization has ever protected women in the sex trade).

However, the report isn’t stating the obvious here: the obvious is that the ongoing criminalization of prostitution puts Aboriginal women “at risk” of not being able to seek redress through the justice system (even after they are murdered or reported missing).[5] More importantly, the ongoing criminalization of prostitution puts Aboriginal women “at risk” of not being able to receive equal protection and benefit of the law.[6] Criminalization and policing of Indigenous women’s lives creates a self-fulfilling prophecy by putting Indigenous women in these “at risk” situations and then tells policing agencies that Indigenous women need more criminalization in their lives to “protect” them from violence. Further, the Missing Women Commission of Inquiry report also states that the “retrenchment of social assistance programs, the ongoing effects of colonialism, the criminal regulation of prostitution and related law enforcement strategies” contributes to the marginalization of women.[7] So, if homicide victims who are Aboriginal women and who are also in the sex trade have a lower solve rate in comparison to non-Aboriginal women in the sex trade and other homicide victims, then there is something wrong with the way the police respond to Indigenous women in the sex trade instead of something “inherently wrong” with the sex trade. Specifically, the issue is with the police and policing tactics, and not Indigenous women, or Indigenous men and Indigenous communities. Like maybe, also HELLO! Let’s not blame Indigenous women who sell sex for their outcomes (and just because the RCMP state that they do not intend to engage in victim blaming doesn’t make it so). 

The Missing Women Commission of Inquiry report also cites major systemic bias involving policing responses to the missing and murdered women of DTES.[8] It is those women who were involved in the sex trade, including many Indigenous women, that were treated as less than human and who did not receive equal protection and benefit of the law. When I read the RCMP reports, I read the same thing: Indigenous women in the sex trade continue to be seen as less-than human and that their status in the sex trade is seen as a “risk” factor instead of policing responses being seen as creating that risk—even when the RCMP explicitly state that these same women have a lower solve rate than any other homicide victim.

Next time you read this report ask yourself: what is the RCMP not saying? There is much to be learned from this report and no matter how fuckin shitty these reports are, these lessons are not as obvious.

[1] http://andrewkurjata.ca/blog/2015/06/20/mmiw-2015/

[2] http://apc-cpa.liberal.ca/blog/missing-or-murdered-women/

[3] http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/national-aboriginal-health-organization-s-funding-cut-1.1194520

[4] http://www.missingwomeninquiry.ca/

[5] The term “prostitution” is used purely as a legal term and is used to highlight that prostitution is still criminalized, especially among those who predominantly occupy street-based forms of work, like Indigenous women.

[6] See page 56 for discussion on equal protection and benefit of the law in the Missing Women Commission of Inquiry http://www.missingwomeninquiry.ca/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Forsaken-Vol-3-web-RGB.pdf

[7] See page 12 http://www.missingwomeninquiry.ca/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Forsaken-Vol-3-web-RGB.pdf

[8] See page 56 for discussion of systemic bias in police responses http://www.missingwomeninquiry.ca/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Forsaken-Vol-3-web-RGB.pdf