Some are more equal than others

[prairiechickin]

Most of those articles refer to the fact that aboriginal offenders receive longer sentences than non-aboriginal offenders, which is why I made the claim earlier that they receive "harsher" sentences.

Thank you, these are real citations and once I can get down to the library and read them, we'll have a point to carry on a real discussion. But here's a thought off the top of my head while I still know little about the topic. Here in Saskatchewan the Native population is roughly 15% of the total, but Natives make up 80% of the inmates in our jails and prisons. I keep hearing these numbers cited by those who use them to show how unfair our criminal justice system is. I keep asking myself, are these people suggesting that 65% of the incarcerated Natives are actually innocent? Could not a more reasonable explanation be that Indians don't seem to follow the rules? I'm not talking whitey-centered rules like singing God Save the Queen, I mean rules like going to a party and sticking a knife in some guy because he looked at your girlfriend. Regina and Saskatoon are in the top five for most dangerous cities in Canada, and my neighborhood, North Central, was featured in a Maclean's article as the most dangerous neighborhood in Canada. That's not because the Mafia operates here, its almost exclusively because Native gangs are spreading through the core areas of most western cities, and with them comes drug trafficking, prostitution and the inevitable turf wars that come with that crap. So while others may wring their hands over the inequalities in our justice system that picks on the poor oppressed Natives, I'm wondering what they think is an alternative for a guy who stabs another guy for the hell of it? Maybe 80% of our prison population is Native because Natives commit 80% of the crime.

[charter.rights]

Maybe 80% of our prison population is Native because Natives commit 80% of the crime.

You were just given the cites that prove that Natives do not commit 80% of the crime but are incarcerate far more than non-natives for the SAME crimes. Repeating your same prejudices over and over again won't make them come true.

[prairiechickin]

You were just given the cites that prove that Natives do not commit 80% of the crime but are incarcerate far more than non-natives for the SAME crimes. Repeating your same prejudices over and over again won't make them come true.

Have you read all those articles cited by cybercoma? If so, give us a breakdown of what each said and provide us with some relevant statistics. I don't know what's in them because I haven't read them, the library doesn't open until 9, and I've got other things to do today. So give me the short version.

[Guest Peeves]

You were just given the cites that prove that Natives do not commit 80% of the crime but are incarcerate far more than non-natives for the SAME crimes. Repeating your same prejudices over and over again won't make them come true.

Oh get over it, those in jail are CONVICTED criminals. Convicted and sentenced to the term proscribed for THAT crime...

Bleeding heart liberals aside, the sentenced criminal had the same rights as the next guy for the same level of crime.

This isn't frontier justice. This isn't sentence by picking one out of the air!, It's Canada's courts for gods sake. The convicted were found guilty of a specific crime. There are typical sentences set out for crimes.

Tell me how a native got more than the crime deserved.

Give me an example of where a native OR OTHER criminal got a longer sentence than they deserved and stop whining about those hypothetical others, that were sentenced to LESS than they deserved.

Most victims feel every criminal that done them wrong get too light a sentence.

[Guest Peeves]

Most of those articles refer to the fact that aboriginal offenders receive longer sentences than non-aboriginal offenders, which is why I made the claim earlier that they receive "harsher" sentences.

Do they receive longer sentences than proscribed by law for the crime COMMITTED ?

How is a sentence appropriate for the crime harsh?

I dispute that claim of yours as being fallacious. One may claim what they will, but unless there can be examples referenced that support ANYONE getting a harsher sentence than is prescribed for the crime, then there is no injustice.

I may claim an overly repeated generality or second hand anecdotal evidence supports my cause, but that's not evidence. I gave you specific cases where many thought the sentence too light. Is it too much to ask for you to stop muddying the water with 'claims" and provide some proof. A proof is a proof.

[prairiechickin]

You were just given the cites that prove that Natives do not commit 80% of the crime but are incarcerate far more than non-natives for the SAME crimes. Repeating your same prejudices over and over again won't make them come true.

That 80% was a number specifically pertinant to Saskatchewan, and had nothing to do with the articles cited by cybercoma because I haven't read those articles yet. But since you've chimed in here, I assume you have, so I ask again, tell us what's in those articles.

[cybercoma]

Thank you, these are real citations and once I can get down to the library and read them, we'll have a point to carry on a real discussion. But here's a thought off the top of my head while I still know little about the topic. Here in Saskatchewan the Native population is roughly 15% of the total, but Natives make up 80% of the inmates in our jails and prisons. I keep hearing these numbers cited by those who use them to show how unfair our criminal justice system is. I keep asking myself, are these people suggesting that 65% of the incarcerated Natives are actually innocent? Could not a more reasonable explanation be that Indians don't seem to follow the rules? I'm not talking whitey-centered rules like singing God Save the Queen, I mean rules like going to a party and sticking a knife in some guy because he looked at your girlfriend. Regina and Saskatoon are in the top five for most dangerous cities in Canada, and my neighborhood, North Central, was featured in a Maclean's article as the most dangerous neighborhood in Canada. That's not because the Mafia operates here, its almost exclusively because Native gangs are spreading through the core areas of most western cities, and with them comes drug trafficking, prostitution and the inevitable turf wars that come with that crap. So while others may wring their hands over the inequalities in our justice system that picks on the poor oppressed Natives, I'm wondering what they think is an alternative for a guy who stabs another guy for the hell of it? Maybe 80% of our prison population is Native because Natives commit 80% of the crime.

You're right. They are likely committing more crimes. However, you need to carry that thought further. What is it about the environment that Natives are in that encourages such a disproportionate amount of them to commit crimes? There's lots of research into it, but I don't have any particular studies on hand to point you to. You should look into it when you get down to the library to look up those other studies. What those studies I posted do show is that Natives receive longer sentences, which is more disruptive families and communities. Moreover, once their communities get profiled, they're also put under more stringent surveillance by the police. Things that might go unnoticed or unsolved in other communities, are more likely to be caught in Native communities. So, Natives definitely are committing these crimes, but there are myriad factors around how and why they find themselves in these circumstances that have less to do with the crimes themselves and more to do with environment.

[cybercoma]

Do they receive longer sentences than proscribed by law for the crime COMMITTED ?

How is a sentence appropriate for the crime harsh?

I dispute that claim of yours as being fallacious. One may claim what they will, but unless there can be examples referenced that support ANYONE getting a harsher sentence than is prescribed for the crime, then there is no injustice.

I may claim an overly repeated generality or second hand anecdotal evidence supports my cause, but that's not evidence. I gave you specific cases where many thought the sentence too light. Is it too much to ask for you to stop muddying the water with 'claims" and provide some proof. A proof is a proof.

I'm not sure what else you would like. This isn't some "claim" that I'm making, but an empirical observation that has been made in several studies. I'm just showing that these inquiries have been made. Moreover, one of the studies that I posted (I believe I posted it anyway) shows that there is popular misconception that Natives actually receive "lighter" sentences. Just because there is some public perception of sentencing being too light, when researchers actually crunched the data, it turns out they're not. This brings me back to my original post: While I feel awful for the family and strongly believe that people need to be held responsible for the crimes they commit, an inquiry is not going to turn out the conclusions that they're hoping for. The research has been done and it suggests the opposite. Edited January 3, 2012 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

That 80% was a number specifically pertinant to Saskatchewan, and had nothing to do with the articles cited by cybercoma because I haven't read those articles yet. But since you've chimed in here, I assume you have, so I ask again, tell us what's in those articles.

You don't need to be at the library to see the abstracts online.

[prairiechickin]

You don't need to be at the library to see the abstracts online.

I thought I'd actually take the time to go down to the library and read the full articles so we could have a real discussion.

[Guest Peeves]

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/01/04/lorne-gunter-the-two-colours-of-canadian-justice/

Excerpt from link. You may wish to look up the Gladue decision that is referenced.

More opinion on 'the' sentence and the background of "preferential treatment for aboriginal offenders."

Several of Mr. Gualtieri’s bones had been broken, including some in his face and head. He sustained permanent brain damage and still has trouble reading, speaking and walking.

For this vicious attack — which Ontario Superior Court Judge Alan Whitten described as “just a notch below culpable homicide” — Smoke was given a sentence of less than two years (not quite three years with time served).

This special treatment isn’t unusual for aboriginal offenders. But the federal government shouldn’t let it stand, either. The federal Justice department must appeal Smoke’s sentence all the way to the Supreme Court in the hope that the current court will reverse, at least partially, the lunacy and inequity foisted on the country by its 1999 predecessor.

The Gladue decision, which established the practice of preferential treatment for aboriginal offenders, came at the end of a period of particularly irrational sentimentality from the court in regard to aboriginal issues. Over six years, ending with Gladue, the court manufactured out of thin air several precedents that favour aboriginals. The justices decided that First Nations oral histories should have the same force when determining land claims as land title records, written treaties and scholarly research. They also decided that aboriginals could hunt and fish with impunity, in or out of season, indifferent to most conservation regulations, because that was their traditional way of life.

Again I say, provide an example of someone in Canada in the contemporary times that have been given a sentence that is too harsh for or inappropriate for the crime.

As a Native of Canada, laws and sentences should fit the crime. Are First Nations not Canadians?

[cybercoma]

When that person gives their opinion that "special treatment isn’t unusual for aboriginal offenders," he is contradicting nearly all of the research done into aboriginal sentencing. At the very least, the research shows that the section about aboriginal sentencing has done nothing to change their sentences. In fact, most of the studies show that aboriginals actually get longer sentences. So that person's opinion piece is not based on any sort of empirical research.

[charter.rights]

Are First Nations not Canadians?

No.

There has never been a time or circumstance where any First Nation has capitulated to Canada, or applied for citizenship.

They have a unique nation to nation relationship with the Crown.

Edited January 4, 2012 by charter.rights

[Guest Peeves]

No.

There has never been a time or circumstance where any First Nation has capitulated to Canada, or applied for citizenship.

They have a unique nation to nation relationship with the Crown.

The Canada Citizenship Act was proclaimed on January 1, 1947, to extend to natives, August 10, 1960, the right to vote in federal elections.

I suggest a native (Indian) born in Canada is indeed a Canadian, subject to the laws of Canada. Otherwise a native could not vote, hold office, nor expect Canadian rights.

[Guest Peeves]

The Canada Citizenship Act was proclaimed on January 1, 1947, to extend to natives, August 10, 1960, the right to vote in federal elections.

I suggest a native (Indian) born in Canada is indeed a Canadian, subject to the laws of Canada. Otherwise a native could not vote, hold office, nor expect Canadian rights.

http://www.danielnpaul.com/CanadianCitizenshipAct-1947.html

[EXCERPT:]

. Section 9 of the said Act is amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

(4) An Indian as defined in the Indian Act, or a person of the race of aborigines commonly referred to as Eskimos, other than a natural-born Canadian citizen, is a Canadian citizen if that person,

(a) had a place of domicile in Canada on the 1st day of January, 1947, and

() on the 1st day of January, 1956, had resided in Canada for more than ten years, and such a person is deemed to have become a Canadian citizen on the 1st day of January, 1947.

That certainly seems to provide anyone born in Canada or a native residing in Canada as of indicated date a Canadian citizenship.

[charter.rights]

The Canada Citizenship Act was proclaimed on January 1, 1947, to extend to natives, August 10, 1960, the right to vote in federal elections.

I suggest a native (Indian) born in Canada is indeed a Canadian, subject to the laws of Canada. Otherwise a native could not vote, hold office, nor expect Canadian rights.

Nope.

It is illegal under international law to assume ownership / citizenship of anyone. Giving citizenship to Indians does not mean Indians have to accept it. In fact most do not see themselves as Canadians and have no intention of becoming one.

First Nations hold a "special" relationship with the Crown as allies, not citizens.

[prairiechickin]

Nope.

It is illegal under international law to assume ownership / citizenship of anyone. Giving citizenship to Indians does not mean Indians have to accept it. In fact most do not see themselves as Canadians and have no intention of becoming one.

First Nations hold a "special" relationship with the Crown as allies, not citizens.

Funny, all of my Indian friends consider themselves Canadians, where do you get off speaking for all Indians? You're "Special" allright, like the Polish Special Forces in 1939.

So what's your endgame? Do you see the New Native Economy as teams of Native Lawyers and Historians culling the depths of old documents to see where whitey fucked up and where we can extract some cash. And if we take your "We are the landlords, you are the tenants" philosophy, where does that go in 20 years? Is your vision of Native Utopia three per cent of the population lives like Pirate Kings on the royalties of their great-great-great grandfather's legacy, while their lesser non-aboriginal underlords slave to pay the taxes to cover the sins of their fathers? Did we lose a war somewhere I missed?

I've got a better idea, you were lucky enough to be born Indian in one of the truly decent countries on the planet. If you think you've got it bad, go read what the Spanish and Portugese did to Indians. Quit whining about the past and trying to make your living there, look towards the future and be part of the process of integrating into Canadian society. We gave Quebec 'Distinct Society', but we never relinquished soveriegnty, why would we give it to scatterd bands across the country?

[jacee]

Funny, all of my Indian friends consider themselves Canadians, where do you get off speaking for all Indians? You're "Special" allright, like the Polish Special Forces in 1939.

So what's your endgame? Do you see the New Native Economy as teams of Native Lawyers and Historians culling the depths of old documents to see where whitey fucked up and where we can extract some cash. And if we take your "We are the landlords, you are the tenants" philosophy, where does that go in 20 years? Is your vision of Native Utopia three per cent of the population lives like Pirate Kings on the royalties of their great-great-great grandfather's legacy, while their lesser non-aboriginal underlords slave to pay the taxes to cover the sins of their fathers? Did we lose a war somewhere I missed?

I've got a better idea, you were lucky enough to be born Indian in one of the truly decent countries on the planet. If you think you've got it bad, go read what the Spanish and Portugese did to Indians. Quit whining about the past and trying to make your living there, look towards the future and be part of the process of integrating into Canadian society. We gave Quebec 'Distinct Society', but we never relinquished soveriegnty, why would we give it to scatterd bands across the country?

Canadian citizenship was offered ... made available ... is an option ... to all Aboriginal people born inside Canada's borders, and some are eligible for dual Canadian/US citizenship because their traditional territories span the border. Some accept citizenship, and some prefer not toconsider themselves US'n or Canadian, but only citizens of their Nation.

The benefits are the same either way, as treaty rights provide all the services of citizenship anyway. The right of Indigenous people to refuse some obligations of citizenship is well established in Canadian law as, for example, native people were not subject to conscription during WW I as were Canadian 'subjects', and were exempted from military service after protesting conscription during WW II as well. They volunteered for war service at the same rate as Canadians, but could not be forced to serve.

In the First World War, Canadian aboriginal soldiers earned many medals and participated in every major land battle. The total number of native volunteers is unknown, as Inuit and Métis military volunteers weren't always counted in the records, but it is estimated more than 4,000 aboriginal people in Canada left their homes and their families to fight in the First World War. That figure accounts for one in three able-bodied First Nations men, according to Veterans Affairs Canada. The number carries even more weight, as native peoples were exempt from conscription at that time. During that war alone, at least 50 medals were awarded to aboriginal people in Canada for their bravery and heroism. The Department of Indian Affairs received scores of letters from the front commending native marksmen and scouts.

...

In the Second World War, Canada's aboriginal communities again joined in the war effort. Compulsory service for home defence began in 1940, and most aboriginal people were no longer exempt from conscription. By 1942, compulsory overseas service was implemented, and in 1943, the government declared that as British subjects, all able native men of military age could be called up for training and service in Canada or overseas. Only the Inuit were exempt.

Many native bands responded with protest marches and petitions delivered to Ottawa. The issue was raised in the House of Commons several issue was raised in the House of Commons several times, and in 1944, the war cabinet committee decided to exempt aboriginal people who had been assured during treaty negotiations that they wouldn't be involved in British battles. Still, many native people volunteered to serve in the Second World War - more than 3,000 enlisted.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/aboriginals/aboriginals-military.html

Edited January 5, 2012 by jacee

[prairiechickin]

All of this is a lot of double-speak that implies Indians are free to enjoy all the benefits of being Canadian without any of the responsibility. You don't want to be Canadian? Fine, then go back to your reservation and refuse anymore government handouts. I'd be fine with that. You get your five dollars per year treaty money, and nothing more. Then we'll see how many of you want to really be sovereign. You remind me of the twenty-somethings that live in their parent's basement yet claim all the rights and priviledges of adults. Grow up and get a life.

Edited January 5, 2012 by prairiechickin

[Wild Bill]

All of this is a lot of double-speak that implies Indians are free to enjoy all the benefits of being Canadian without any of the responsibility. You don't want to be Canadian? Fine, then go back to your reservation and refuse anymore government handouts. I'd be fine with that. You get your five dollars per year treaty money, and nothing more. Then we'll see how many of you want to really be sovereign. You remind me of the twenty-somethings that live in their parent's basement yet claim all the rights and priviledges of adults. Grow up and get a life.

It's worse, PrairieChicken! What sort of people expect to negotiate a settlement so huge that none of them will ever have to work again? What sort of people would one expect such a thing to produce?

A people grow by striving! Look at the Saudis with all their money! Islam was once the leader in science and mathematics, by a quantum level. That has not been true for over a thousand years!

Now they are rich. How many Nobel science prizes have come from Saudi Arabia? How many from the Arab world at all? Today, it seems Saudis don't actually build anything themselves. They hire foreign workers and experts to do it!

Someday, Man is going to expand into Space. Lotus eaters will be left behind.

I don't believe that being a lotus eater is a positive end for a people. I don't believe that in the long term Saudi society is sustainable. Sooner or later we will not need their oil and their whole system will crash like a house of cards.

What's not used wastes away. I would agree that aboriginals need money to develop a better living standard but it is the old idea of a hand up versus a hand out. Some bands are way ahead of this principle and deserve a great deal of respect. Others, sadly, are not. Somehow, I don't think those who are ahead share many of CR's views.

I never heard a word from CR as to what natives should and would do with the astronomical sums he proposes as a claims settlement. I guess he thinks natives would just lie around and have non-natives pop grapes in their mouth.

Without scientists, businessmen, medical researchers and the like a people will eventually die. Of this I am convinced. What a terrible thing to wish upon a people.

CR may be well intentioned but I truly believe his "solution" would be bad for aboriginals.

Edited January 5, 2012 by Wild Bill

[jacee]

All of this is a lot of double-speak that implies Indians are free to enjoy all the benefits of being Canadian without any of the responsibility. You don't want to be Canadian? Fine, then go back to your reservation and refuse anymore government handouts. I'd be fine with that. You get your five dollars per year treaty money, and nothing more. Then we'll see how many of you want to really be sovereign.

Treaty obligations are not "handouts" ... more like leasing fees for the land.

You remind me of the twenty-somethings that live in their parent's basement yet claim all the rights and priviledges of adults. Grow up and get a life.

Who are you talking to?

And what's your excuse for teaching your poor young students false information again?

Because your opinion of the law is more important than the Supreme Court's view of the law?

Instead of telling them what to think (and being wrong) why not challenge your students to find evidence for/against your theory about Treaty Four?

[Rick]

All of this is a lot of double-speak that implies Indians are free to enjoy all the benefits of being Canadian without any of the responsibility. You don't want to be Canadian? Fine, then go back to your reservation and refuse anymore government handouts. I'd be fine with that. You get your five dollars per year treaty money, and nothing more. Then we'll see how many of you want to really be sovereign. You remind me of the twenty-somethings that live in their parent's basement yet claim all the rights and priviledges of adults. Grow up and get a life.

wow..just wow...

Someone's been drinking the Tom Flanagan kool aid...

[cybercoma]

All of this is a lot of double-speak that implies Indians are free to enjoy all the benefits of being Canadian without any of the responsibility.

The benefits of boil-water advisories, inadequate housing, underfunded education, disproportionate incarceration rate, longer sentences, racism as a barrier to employment, and all. Lucky them.

[cybercoma]

It's worse, PrairieChicken! What sort of people expect to negotiate a settlement so huge that none of them will ever have to work again? What sort of people would one expect such a thing to produce?

How much is the destruction of your society worth?

[Wild Bill]

How much is the destruction of your society worth?

There's perhaps the most important philosophical difference between us, CC.

I would ask, how much is the ADVANCEMENT of your society worth?