#15. Conversation about Colton Bouchie: Misfire of Justice

This morning, Ralph and I discussed over our breakfast the feeling of hopelessness in the process of reconciliation when it comes to Canada's legal system. While we are not related to the Boushie family, their injustice at losing one so young in such a way is felt by many, including us.  

Like a lot of people, (although, clearly not enough), we are outraged by the continued failure of the justice system. Yesterday, it showed us that justice is targeted subjectively and wrongfully concentrated on those who are disadvantaged rather than those who are individually responsible for their actions. The public debate over the institutional racism of the Canadian justice system and their stigmatized victims is too narrow of a focus. Blaming the system, based upon historical racism, is not enough. In every circumstance, we should also be looking at those who are responsible for denying rights and justice in the now. I'm not normally one to encourage verbal lynching, but clearly specific individuals had a role and we need to be talking about their actions and what we can do to educate and bring to light the facts of this case.

Since the murder occurred (and murder it was), an extremely concerning vote took place at the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities (SARM) convention. 93 per cent of delegates voted in favour of a resolution calling on its leaders to lobby the federal government for more relaxed self-defence laws. Lionel Story, deputy reeve of the Rural Municipality of Kindersley, which submitted the resolution, said it was not a response to Boushie’s death, but rather an effort to make would-be criminals “think twice” before trespassing on people’s property. We all see the message between the lines, the justification for vigilantism and  violence.

Relying on ordinary empathy, religious ideas, or moral common sense—particularly in our pluralistic and racially divided society—can take us only so far. Its our role then to actively address apathy and ignorance to blatant injustice. Votes, such as the one made in Saskatchewan by Rural Municipalities and the role that social media and reputable media sources, are leaps toward a very dark and violent future. 

"The power of the media to create and destroy fundamental human values comes with great responsibility. Those who control the media are accountable for its consequences.” (United Nations International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR)) In Rwanda, radio played a big part in sharing the message “go to work” as a call to kill the Tutsi and the Hutu who opposed the Rwandan regime. That an individual or group killed someone in response to the radio broadcasts or newspaper articles was not required to prove the incitement to genocide charge.

How do we live in a world where self-defence is cited against the unknown. How do we justify murder when the gun was pointed, and whether the pin struck or not at the squeeze of a finger, it was pointed at someone's head. Someone's child. Someone who had a future. 

Global news (yes I just lambasted the media and now are using their investigative skills) shared a telling summary of the cases that have set the foundation for the Gerald Stanley's acquittal.

• In the Karman Willis case, the 16-year-old was shot and killed after she and her friends decided to joyride, in two pickups, on the property of Weibo Ludwig at 4:30 a.m. on the morning of June 20, 1999. Because they couldn’t confirm who pulled the trigger, the public was never able to get a proper answer to the question of how much force someone is allowed to use to defend their property.
• In 2012, farmer Brian Knight was given a suspended sentence on appeal after previously pleading guilty to criminal negligence when he shot someone who tried to steal his ATV in the middle of the night. In that case, the perpetrator didn’t die. The court recognized Knight’s right to attempt to apprehend the thief, but said that he shouldn’t have recklessly used a firearm to do it.
• In 2016, landowner Eugene Dalton was found not guilty of aggravated assault and other charges after he shot a northern Alberta man in the arm as he and his friends tried to steal his ATV. He wounded Philip Janvier in the upper left arm and the court found there was no “intent” to harm in making its verdict.

In no way am I suggesting that theft should go unpunished. However, it is not a reasonable justification of vigilantism and murder under the muse of property protection. Justifying murder as a punishment for theft, or the potential of theft, is where this jury is leading our society. 

In the book Proper Studies (1927) by Aldous Huxley he says that "facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored". We can only hope that an appeal will be granted and that this time the pin strike will fire and justice will prevail. We can only hope that we can find other solutions to prejudice and racism than violence. 

Update: Very good friends of ours brought up a good point with us after reading the post, one thing we didn't go into is the reason behind some of the aforementioned thefts, and the association with drugs and alcohol which is not necessarily race related. In these cases, it is likely that they fall under the drug associated crimes, under the term economic-related crimes. Economic-related are the case when an individual (or groups) commit a crime to fund a drug habit. I would argue that in general drug use and associated or pre-existing poverty is symptomatic of a broader problem in Canadian society that now crosses all backgrounds.