Friday, December 03, 2021

I BELIEVED IN IT WHEN I WAS 16, STILL DO 
Climate crisis fuels push to drop voting age to 16

As Canada and the world see increasingly frequent examples of climate chaos by the week, the slow legislative move to give more of a say to those who will have to deal with it started over again in Ottawa.

When Parliament was dissolved for the election last summer, a slate of pending bills went with it, but Sen. Marilou McPhedran rose late last month to put one of them back on the table.

The newly named S-201 she sponsored has passed first reading, and McPhedran and its supporters hope the effort will eventually lead to Canadian citizens aged 16 and 17 winning the right to vote.

The Independent senator from Manitoba hopes the move might revitalize the country’s democracy, while some youth advocates said it was beyond time these teens get a bigger say, specifically on climate policy.

“It's becoming increasingly evident that the climate crisis is here and it requires robust actions now,” said Manvi Bhalla, who advocates for a louder political voice for young people as president of the group Shake Up The Establishment.

Just last month, three major storms featuring so-called "atmospheric rivers" battered British Columbia, destroying critical infrastructure. The storms followed devastating wildfires and summer heat waves that represent a lethal mix of cascading climate impacts from a warming planet.

Bhalla said what happens now will determine humanity’s future and that of the world’s landscapes and other beings — and young people deserve to have a say.

“Youth have no stake in the game but our futures and deserve to have a say in shaping this future given that we were born into this crisis with no sense of agency over its inception,” she said.

The voting rights push, meanwhile, made sharp progress in Germany over the summer, with the three parties forming its next coalition government all committed to lowering the voting age to 16.

“It’s not as radical an idea as many might think,” said Sara Austin, the chief executive at Children First Canada, a key backer of a separate legal challenge launched on Tuesday by young people in an Ontario court.

That brief argues youth are just as capable of making rational voting decisions as those over 18 and that the applicants have been denied a constitutional right to avoid discrimination based on age.

“Imagine if 16-year-olds could vote about the future they want,” said Catherine McKenna, Canada's former climate change minister who did not seek re-election in 2021. “They'll be 45 in 2050 when we need to be net-zero. I'll be 80.”

“I want to hear their voices now about what we need to do to get there. They'll live far longer with the consequences of our action or inaction,” she said in tweets supporting McPhedran’s bill.

For Bhalla, young people hope for an equitable, healthy and sustainable life — a slow life — and know what needs to be done to make it happen.

“It is beyond time to recognize and legitimize their intelligence and passion as an ends to meet these goals,” she said.

Morgan Sharp, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter, Canada's National Observer

Young Canadians file suit against federal over minimum voting age


Wed., December 1, 2021



Several young Canadians are taking the federal government to court in an effort to strike down the minimum voting age.

They argue that denying citizens under the age of 18 the right to vote in federal elections is unconstitutional.

They contend the minimum voting age violates two sections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

They say one section of the charter guarantees the right to vote for all Canadian citizens without an age qualification.

The Canada Elections Act sets the minimum age for federal elections at 18.

Thirteen youth from across the country ranging in age from 12 to 18 are part of suit, which hasn't been tested in court.

"They each want to participate meaningfully in Canadian democracy by exercising their right to vote before age 18," said the claim, which was filed in Ontario's Superior Court of Justice on Tuesday.

The youth argue election rules have change significantly over time and should continue to do so.

"Initially restricted to property-owning men aged 21 and older, voting rights in Canada have been gradually extended to other Canadian citizens such as women, racialized people, Indigenous people, inmates, and citizens who live abroad," the claim said.

"This progressive enfranchisement was driven by our growing recognition that 'every citizen' must include those who may have been excluded from social and political participation."

The young people are joined in the suit by Justice for Children and Youth, a non-profit legal aid clinic dedicated to advancing the rights and interests of young people in Canada.

Tharan D’Silva, 12, is among those taking the federal government to court and "believes that youth have intelligent, developed political views that the government must acknowledge," the claim said.

"He is passionate about health care, climate change, and education, and participates in a social club for kids with autism," it said.

Katie Yu, 15, from Iqaluit, Nunavut, is also part of the claim.

She is "committed to raising awareness on climate change, mental health, suicide prevention and racial justice, and how these issues impact the North," the claim said.

"Minimum voting ages present an unjustifiable restriction on the right of citizens to vote in Canada," the claim argues.

The youth say being denied the right to vote "perpetuates stereotypical and prejudicial attitudes that young people are less capable and less deserving of participating in Canadian democracy through the voting process," according to the document.

Those qualifications aren't imposed on those older than 18, they claim.

"Vague and unsubstantiated assertions about maturity are not enough to justify depriving a large portion of Canadian society their core political right," the claim said.

The federal government did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Dec. 1, 2021.

Liam Casey, The Canadian Press

Ex-Google scientist Gebru opens AI institute year after tumultuous exit

By Paresh Dave 

(Reuters) - Timnit Gebru, the computer scientist whose disputed exit from Google's artificial intelligence research team prompted debate across the tech industry about diversity and censorship, said on Thursday she has launched a small lab to continue her work freely.

The Distributed AI Research Institute has raised $3.7 million from foundations and aims to critically study services from big tech companies as well as propose AI-based solutions to issues such as food insecurity and climate change, Gebru said.

It joins several non-governmental projects such as the Algorithmic Justice League that are advancing ethical use of AI. Critics worry that without proper safeguards systems including for facial recognition and credit scoring could lead to mass surveillance and racial discrimination.

Gebru has hired a fellow based in South Africa and expects to add other researchers next year. They will publish studies and educate activists and lawmakers globally.

"I want to make sure DAIR is not just working on research papers," Gebru said. "I want to be an institute that realizes you have to engage with various groups of people."

Gebru, who is Black, has said Google fired her a year ago for criticizing its lack of workforce diversity and for fighting managers who objected to publishing a paper she co-wrote on potential social and environmental costs of language technology. Google has said it accepted Gebru's resignation.

Her speaking out about the incident drew praise from many scientists and engineers, but others questioned her work and tactics. Alphabet Inc unit Google in the aftermath reorganized the ethical AI research team Gebru had led, fired her co-leader and lost the pair's manager to Apple.

Freedom to pursue whatever led Gebru to start DAIR over joining another company. But sustaining it without becoming beholden to sponsors or other powers will be the challenge, she said. Initial backers include the MacArthur, Ford and Rockefeller foundations.

(Reporting by Paresh Dave in Oakland, Calif; Editing by David Gregorio)
The supply chain crisis is wreaking havoc on the environment as carbon emissions from ships and seaports reach the highest rate since 2008

insider@insider.com (Bethany Biron)
© Provided by Business Insider A container cargo ship in Rotterdam Harbour on April 4, 2021 in the Netherlands. Niels Wenstedt/BSR Agency/Getty Images

Carbon emissions at seaports are up significantly since the start of the pandemic, a report found.

The rise stems from an increase in consumer demand and congested ports during the supply chain crisis.

Emissions at four of the world's largest ports are up 79% since the start of the pandemic, according to the study.


The supply chain crisis is taking a toll on more than just shipping, its also wreaking havoc on the environment.

Carbon emissions at major seaports have reached the highest rates since 2008, according to a recent report from Singapore's Nanyang Technological University. According to the study, pollutant emissions across four of the world's largest shipping ports — in locations including Singapore, Los Angeles, Long Beach, and Hamburg, Germany, — have increased by 79% since the start of the pandemic.


And though maritime shipping currently accounts for 3% of global greenhouse gas emissions — a higher rate than airplanes — scientists predict that at current rates it could comprise upwards of 17% by 2050.

Pollutant emissions, which started rising in response to increased consumer demand during COVID-19 lockdowns, have been further exacerbated by historic levels of port congestion. The backlogs are contributing to "prolonged turnaround time" and extended idling, during which ships continue to emit harmful gases, according to the report.

Adding to the problem, container ships — which the NTU report found to have the sharpest increased rate of emissions — have started increasing their speed by 22% if weather permits to account for increased demand, Mike Konstantinidis, CEO of METIS Cyberspace Technology, told Quartz.

"Lockdown measures and other COVID-19 restrictions on human activity have upended the landscape for the shipping sector and significantly affected the operating patterns of maritime and trade, revealing significant increases in pollutant emissions in the seaports in our study," Adrian Law Wing-Keung, a professor at NTU's School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, wrote in the report.

Southern California, home to the biggest seaports in the US, has been hit particularly hard by the supply chain crisis. As of Wednesday, Marine Exchange reports there are 134 ships waiting off the coasts of Los Angeles and Long Beach, as 110,000 empty containers currently litter shipping yards and roads in the region.

Now, increased carbon emissions mark the latest in a series of growing challenges for the cities. According to the NTU report, emissions at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach increased by double and two-thirds, respectively.

Looking ahead, environmental organizations are calling for change from some of the world's largest retailers. A report released earlier this week by Stand.earth and Pacific Environment found that Walmart, Target, Amazon, and IKEA contributed to a collective increase of 20 million metric tons of carbon emissions between 2018 and 2020.

"The retail brands that fill our homes and lives with their products bear a direct responsibility both for the pollution that the maritime shipping in their supply chains creates and for taking the necessary actions to demand emissions reductions now and 100 per cent zero emissions shipping this decade," the report said.
FARMERS
Oregon officials ask public help to find killers of 8 wolves

Officials in Oregon are asking for public assistance to locate the person or persons responsible for poisoning eight wolves in the eastern part of the state earlier this year.

© Provided by The Canadian Press

The Oregon State Police has been investigating the killing of all five members of the Catherine Pack in Union County, plus three other wolves from other packs, the agency said in a news release Thursday.

“To my knowledge this is the first wolf pack to be killed by poison in Oregon,” said Capt. Stephanie Bigman of the OSP in Salem. “To my knowledge there are no suspects. All investigative leads have been exhausted and that is why we are reaching out to the public for assistance.”

Wolf advocates were stunned by the news.

“This is horrific,” said Sristi Kamal of Defenders of Wildlife in Portland. “This is quite clearly an intentional and repeat offense.”

Oregon has only about 170 wolves within its borders, and the loss of eight “is so egregious,” Kamal said.

“The poisoning of the Catherine wolf pack is tragic and disgusting” said Sophia Ressler, a staff attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity. “No wolf should have to suffer such a fate. Awful events like this show how much more work is needed for us to coexist with these vitally important animals."

A group of conservation and animal protection groups late Thursday said they were offering a combined $26,000 in rewards for information leading to a conviction in the poisonings. The rewards were offered by the Center for Biological Diversity, Cascadia Wildlands, Defenders of Wildlife, The Humane Society of the United States, Northeast Oregon Ecosystems, Oregon Wild, Predator Defense and WildEarth Guardians.

Wolves once ranged most of the U.S. but were wiped out in most places by the 1930s under government-sponsored poisoning and trapping campaigns.

More than 2,000 wolves occupy six states in the Northern Rockies and Pacific Northwest after animals from Canada were reintroduced in Idaho and Yellowstone National Park starting in 1995.

However, wolves remain absent across most of their historical range. Wildlife advocates argue that continued protections are needed so they can continue to expand in California, Colorado, Oregon and other states.

The Fish and Wildlife Division of the Oregon State Police was alerted on Feb. 9 that a collared wolf from the Catherine Pack was possibly deceased.

Troopers responded and located five deceased wolves, three males, and two females. The wolves were located southeast of Mount Harris, within Union County. Investigators also found a dead magpie in the vicinity of the dead wolves, the agency said.

The animals were sent to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service forensics lab in Ashland to determine the cause of death.

On March 11, State Police were told a mortality signal from an additional wolf collar had been received in the same general location. Searchers found a deceased female wolf, a skunk, and a magpie all very close to the scene. The female wolf was determined to be a member of the Keating Pack.

In April, the federal lab released findings consistent with poisoning as the cause of death for all six wolves, the skunk, and two magpies.

In addition, two more collared wolves were found deceased in Union County after the initial incidents. In April, a deceased adult male wolf from the Five Points Pack was located west of Elgin, and in July a young female wolf from the Clark Creek Pack was located northeast of La Grande, the county seat.

Toxicology reports confirmed the presence of differing types of poison in both those wolves, the OSP said.

Nicholas K. Geranios, The Associated Press
THE STATE VS THE PEOPLE
Nova Scotia government heading back to court against disabilities group

HALIFAX — The Nova Scotia government says it will appeal a recent court decision that found there was discrimination against people with disabilities who had sought improved services and housing in the community.

© Provided by The Canadian Press

A day after the Oct. 6 Court of Appeal ruling, Premier Tim Houston said his government heard the court's message "loud and clear," and he pledged to work with the disabilities community.

He also said he didn't believe citizens should have to take the government to court to make it "do the right thing." 
APPARENTLY THEY DO

But in an emailed comment Thursday, Community Services Minister Karla MacFarlane appears to shift the Progressive Conservative government's approach.

MacFarlane said "many significant questions" arise from the Appeal Court decision, including how other social programs could be affected, so the province has decided to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The minister also said the court decision places a legal requirement on the department's disability support program and that she needs "to better understand that requirement." The cabinet minister noted she was speaking on behalf of the premier, who has been outside the province.

The landmark Appeal Court decision said the provincial government's failure to offer people with disabilities "meaningful'' access to housing and care is reflected in long wait-lists. The court also said the situation amounted to a violation of their basic rights.

The appeal was originally launched by the Disability Rights Coalition. During a hearing a year ago, its lawyer Claire McNeil argued the mistreatment of people with disabilities included unnecessary institutionalization, lengthy wait times, and forced removal to remote areas of the province far from family and friends.

After the court's decision, the coalition urged the government not to launch an appeal and to respect the equality of people living with disabilities.

On Wednesday, the group held a news conference where those participating appeared to believe that further court action wasn't likely and that the remedy for the discrimination would go back before a human rights board. McNeil had urged the province to take the approach of negotiating and working with the coalition during the hearing to set up a timetable for reforms.

On Thursday, Vince Calderhead, one of the lawyers who argued the original human rights case, said he was deeply disappointed by the Houston government's change in stance.

"It’s appalling that the ‘solutionist’ premier is now choosing to fight people with disabilities in court rather than do the right thing and comply with its fundamental human rights obligations," he wrote in an email, referring to Houston's campaign mantra that the Tories would work to solve long-standing problems.

"This appears to be a blatant stalling tactic rather than ‘doing the right thing.’ This represents a continuation of decades of stalling on the rights of persons with disabilities."

The original human rights case was launched by three people with intellectual disabilities who spent years confined in the Emerald Hall psychiatric hospital despite medical opinions they could be housed in the community. The board decision ruled the individual rights of Joey Delaney, the late Beth MacLean and the late Sheila Livingstone were violated, but it also ruled against the separate claim by the coalition that the system was discriminating more widely against people with disabilities.

The coalition appealed the board's finding on systemic discrimination and won before the Appeal Court.

The Appeal Court also upheld and extended the findings of individual discrimination against the three, doubling the compensation paid to Delaney from $100,000 to $200,000, while the compensation due to MacLean — who died in September at a local hospital — went from $100,000 to $300,000.

In her email, MacFarlane said the government will not be appealing the findings regarding MacLean, Livingstone and Delaney.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Dec. 2, 2021.

Michael Tutton, The Canadian Press
The acquittal of Kyle Rittenhouse raises questions about white privilege

Jasmeet Bahia, PhD Candidate, Sociology, Carleton University 

Recently, two highly publicized trials came to a close. One involved three white men found guilty of killing Ahmaud Arbery, an unarmed Black man who was attacked and killed while jogging in Brunswick, Ga.

© (AP Photo/Andrew Selsky) People carry out a

The other case centred around a white 18-year-old named Kyle Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse shot three people during an anti-racism protest. Jurors acquitted him of all charges.

In case you missed the details of this highly polarizing case: Rittenhouse shot and killed two men and injured a third during a protest in Kenosha, Wis., in 2020. The protests were in response to the police shooting of a Black man, Jacob Blake. Rittenhouse claimed his shots were fired in self-defence.

Both trials have brought up questions about race in America, Black lives, whiteness, the future of protest and self-defence. The Rittenhouse case also raises questions about when whiteness protects white people and when it does not.

In the last decade, the American public has witnessed both civilian white men as well as police injuring and killing innocent Black Americans with few consequences. Some extreme cases result in death, but other examples of harassment and violence are abundant.

The harassment of Black people in their daily lives, such as birdwatcher Christian Cooper or Shayne Holland, who was asked to leave his apartment complex swimming pool, is a more quiet, insidious violence.

In the case of Rittenhouse, however, both the accused and the victims were white. Those who are familiar with the American justice system aren’t surprised by the non-guilty verdict. Rittenhouse is added to a long list of white men who have everything stacked in their favour in a court of law.

Rittenhouse had his (white) boyhood and a favourable judge who banned anyone in the court from labelling the shooting victims as victims.

While Rittenhouse is not connected to any white supremacy groups, his lionization by them has given him social and political clout. Former president Donald Trump, FOX News media host Tucker Carlson and other online commentators in far-right chat rooms are applauding Rittenhouse as a “sweet kid” and vigilante.

Who does ‘whiteness’ save?


The acquittal of Rittenhouse and his celebrity among right-wing extremists proves that white skin colour alone is not enough to protect white people. If whiteness is not enacted in service to white supremacists, it is considered a threat to them.

The white victims, Joseph Rosenbaum, Anthony Huber and Gaige Grosskreutz, have been called “race traitors” by the far right, meaning their whiteness stopped shielding them from the violence of other white people.

History is full of examples of this. Abolitionist Elijah Parish Lovejoy, civil rights activist Viola Liuzzo, Heather Heyer — who was protesting the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Va., in 2017 — and the 168 adults and children who died in the Oklahoma City bombing are part of a history of white supremacists killing those they deem unfit for their version of whiteness.

After the civil rights movement, as legal and social repercussions against violence against Black Americans were put in place, white supremacist groups felt that they could not be as openly violent as they had historically been. This pattern of violence — failing to protect white people who take the side of racialized communities — will likely be exacerbated by the Rittenhouse acquittal.

The betrayal of white supremacy by allies is seen as so egregious that any obstacle to the dominance of white people will be removed regardless of the colour of their skin.
Fear of being replaced

We have increasingly seen more violent counter-reactions to the Black Lives Matter movement. Many of those who attend in opposition to the movement are hyper-vigilant about defending what they see as “American values.”

The idea that white men are protecting society from Black peple has been part of the American narrative since the era of slavery. This fear of being replaced by people of colour persists today and contributes to a sense of fragility.

The protection of white safety is ingrained in western societies, including within our legal systems. The Rittenhouse trial has likely created a sense of safety among right-wing groups as this case establishes historical precedent for their actions to be labelled as self-defence.

While Ahmaud Arbery was killed due to his Blackness, Rittenhouse’s victims shared an identity with their perpetrator. The praise for Rittenhouse, as well as the denouncement of his victims by white extremists, highlights the question of who is safe under white supremacy and who is not.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Jasmeet Bahia does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
CROWN ASKED FOR JAIL
Edmonton police officer will have criminal record but no jail time for assaulting Indigenous man

Emily Mertz 
© Wes Rosa, Global News The law courts in downtown Edmonton Tuesday, Oct. 20, 2020.

Edmonton Police Service Const. Michael Partington, who was found guilty of a 2019 assault, was sentenced Thursday. He was fined $2,000 and will have a criminal record but serve no jail time.

Read more:
Crown seeks jail time for Edmonton police officer convicted of assaulting Indigenous man

Partington was found guilty of assault in August. The charge stemmed from an arrest that took place in the area of 115 Avenue and 95 Street on Aug. 27, 2019.

Another officer had stopped an Indigenous man for riding a bike on a sidewalk without a bell.

Video of the confrontation shows the victim on the ground in a prone position. He screams in pain as the officers both kneel down over him. The footage shows Partington drive his knee into the man’s back.

Video: Edmonton police officer charged with assault

Partington was joined in court for the sentencing Thursday by his wife, who is pregnant and due this month.

The judge acknowledged the positions of the Crown and defence "could not be further apart."

The judge, Hon. Peter Ayotte, said the prominent aggravating factor was breach of trust. Ayotte said altercation involves violence, the video shows it resulted in "immediate significant pain."

"The offender, in committing offence, abused a position of trust and authority," Ayotte said.

The judge said the fact that the victim is a racialized minority makes it an increasingly relevant matter.

The defence argued Partington did not know the man was Indigenous at the time.

The judge also said there is a strong argument for making this a matter of public record.

The judge said granting the discharge would be contrary to the public interest.

READ MORE: Video from 2018 shows Edmonton police officer using his knee on man’s neck during arrest

The incident was caught on camera and widely circulated, sparking a debate over the officer’s actions and potential consequences.

Crown prosecutor Carla MacPhail argued on Oct. 27 that Partington should serve jail time — 60-90 days — followed by 12-18 months probation.

MacPhail said the context of the assault was a man riding a bike with no bell — a “very non-urgent situation” that led to a “violent confrontation” with “extreme consequences for all involved.”

MacPhail pointed out that the victim is a member of a racialized minority, and while she was not alleging the assault was racially motivated, that fact “can’t be ignored.”

She argued the victim was in a position of vulnerability and said Partington’s knee could have resulted in worse injuries.

She said jail time would serve as a wider deterrent for other law enforcement officials and would denounce Partington’s actions.

READ MORE: Edmonton Police Service constable charged with assault in relation to 2019 arrest

The defence argued that message is already being sent loud and clear and jail time isn’t required.

Partington’s lawyer Mike Danyluik argued that news coverage of the incident serves as a big deterrent and pointed out the video will be online forever and the fear of job loss or the financial impact is a stronger deterrent than jail time would be.

The defence argued that it’s dangerous to bring race into the case since Partington saw the suspect for only for a few moments and his face was turned away.

The defence had sought a suspended sentence — 12 to 18 months probation, 120 to 180 hours of community service and instructional programming on police use of force.

Danyluik argued Partington has led an otherwise exemplary personal and professional life apart from this one moment.

-- With files from Morgan Black, Global News
Long Plain First Nation settles century-old land claim with feds

A Manitoba First Nation has finally settled a land dispute with the federal government that has gone on for more than a century.


Long Plain First Nation has announced that the federal government has agreed to pay them approximately $32 million in compensation, stemming from a deal agreed upon way back in 1916.

The agreement will also see the Ojibway and Dakota community that sits near the city of Portage la Prairie be given the option to acquire up to 708 hectares of land.

The community first submitted a claim in 1999 arguing the federal government had, in 1916, failed to administer land sales according to the terms of a surrender deal, but the claim was not accepted for negotiations until September of 2011, more than 10 years after it was filed.

The compensation agreement was recently both ratified and formally completed by Crown-Indigenous Relations Minister Marc Miller.

Long Plain First Nation Chief Dennis Meeches held the role of Chief in 1999 when the claim was first filed and said he has been fighting for the settlement ever since.

“It took us more than 20 years to finally get this settlement,” Meeches said while speaking to the Winnipeg Sun on Thursday. “So this is a long time coming, but we are happy and we are relieved to finally get this done.”

Meeches added he is happy to see compensation after what he said was decades of the federal government in Canada taking land from First Nations people.

“This was just another example of the treaties being signed and then the federal government just continuously coming after our lands,” he said.

Meeches said the compensation will have positive impacts on the community and its members.

“The settlement will ensure that our children will enjoy a bright and prosperous future.”

In a statement released by Minister Miller, he said he believes the agreement will work to right some of the wrongs the federal government has inflicted on Long Plain First Nation over many decades.

“This achievement marks a significant step toward addressing the wrongs done to the community and rebuilding Canada’s relationship with Long Plain First Nation,” Miller said.

“Through mutual collaboration and the community’s engagement, this agreement between Long Plain First Nation and Canada represents a mutual understanding to rectify the error in our history for the members of the community and for the generations to come.”

Miller also applauded Meeches for the work he has been doing for more than 20 years to seek compensation for the community.

“Congratulations to Chief Meeches and Long Plain First Nation on the successful completion of this historic settlement,” Miller said. “We recognize the harm caused to Long Plain First Nation by Canada’s failure to administer the land sales according to the terms of the surrender.”

According to the federal government Long Plain First Nation community members will now benefit from a trust annuity, something normally used in estate planning to minimize taxes on large financial transactions.

The feds said that individuals will also receive a share of annual distribution money.

— Dave Baxter is a Local Journalism Initiative reporter who works out of the Winnipeg Sun. The Local Journalism Initiative is funded by the Government of Canada.

Dave Baxter, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter, Winnipeg Sun
Ontario Academic Looks At History Of Forced Sterilization Of Indigenous Women

(ANNews) – An academic at Wilfrid Laurier University in Waterloo, Ont., has been researching the forced sterilization of Indigenous women for more than a decade.

Karen Stote, who teaches Gender and Women’s Studies, told Alberta Native News that her interest in the topic goes back to her undergraduate years in the early aughts, when her Indigenous peers and teachers told her about the eugenics practiced against Indigenous women in their communities.

“I went looking for something to read on the issue and there was nothing to tangibly read,” Stote said.

There have historically been more than 1,200 Indigenous people forced to lose their reproduction capabilities, with the vast majority of them women, at Indian Hospitals across Canada, including Camsell Hospital in Edmonton.

Stote released a book in 2015, entitled An Act of Genocide: Colonialism and the Sterilization of Aboriginal Women, which was based on her PhD research.

“We already know that Alberta and British Columbia had eugenic legislation in place and that in Alberta, Indigenous people were disproportionately targeted,” said Stote.

Indigenous people made up three percent of Alberta’s population, but by the time the eugenics legislation was repealed in the 1970s, 25 percent of its victims were Indigenous, she said.

But sterilization continued after the eugenics program ended, with the justification shifting from one of racial inferiority, which had fallen into disrepute, to birth control, which became legalized in 1969.

“It made the issue something between the doctor and their patient,” said Stote. “For Indigenous people, interacting with western medicine has been used as a tool of colonialism. There’s a fundamentally coercive power dynamic going on there.”

Stote said research on the topic has found “consistent problems with informed consent” from the women being sterilized, who were pressured into doing so by health authorities, often in a language they didn’t speak.

She’s working on a new book based on the testimonies of 100 Indigenous women — 60 of them in Saskatchewan — who have come forward with their experiences of being forcibly sterilized from the ‘70s to as recently as 2018.

“When you look at those documents, there’s a consistent trend of viewing Indigenous women’s reproduction as problematic,” Stote said, outlining how many Indigenous people who left their reserves due to poverty found themselves living in the same conditions in cities.

“There’s a trend there of viewing Indigenous people and women in poverty as being a drain on provincial budgets.”

Sterilization is just one of many forms of violence used by settler society against Indigenous women, she added.

“There are connections between the violence that Indigenous women experience on their bodies and the violence that is being committed against Indigenous lands,” said Stote. “Non-Indigenous people have a responsibility to play in ending that violence.”

Jeremy Appel, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter, Alberta Native News
BC
Bills to uphold Indigenous rights given royal assent

Bills 18 and 29 celebrated receiving official royal assent on Thursday, Nov. 25. Previously introduced on Nov. 17, the bills added Indigenous identity as a protected ground under the B.C. Human Rights Code. This was the province’s next steps in advancing Indigenous human rights and reconciliation for the trauma they endured through residential school.

“Through Bill 29, we have also added a non-derogation clause to the Interpretation Act. This clause makes it clear that provincial laws uphold, and do not diminish, the rights of Indigenous Peoples as outlined under Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982,” says David Eby, Attorney General, and Murray Rankin, Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation in a provincial press release. “Bill 29 also requires that the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples be used to assist in resolving disputes over the meaning of B.C.’s acts and regulations.”

Eby and Rankin also addressed the longstanding systemic racism that Indigenous peoples endure. Despite the recent advances in reconciling these past horrors, there is still a long way to go.

“In the Declaration Act – which passed unanimously in the B.C. legislature two years ago tomorrow – we outlined the importance of including Indigenous Peoples meaningfully in our work to ensure provincial laws are consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples,” they add. “That commitment was at the forefront as we developed these bills.”

Haley Grinder, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter, The Columbia Valley Pioneer