Gerald Stanley trial in the death of Colten Boushie

465 posts / 0 new
Last post
Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Only things that are right in front of our faces, like every Indigenous person being refused a spot on the jury.

That's just a matter of keeping track of who's subject to being excluded.  It's not "right in our face" that the reason is racism.

Quote:
If I am repeating these things too much, well maybe it is because they are being studiously ignored.

No, they're being studiously challenged.  You've been a bit quick to pronounce that they can only be explained by racism.  And, if someone suggests any other explanation, you say "haven't I already educated you that it's racism?  How many more times must I tell you my opinion?"

6079_Smith_W

Again, it doesn't matter what they were caused by. Remember that case in Toronto where the barber refused to cut that woman's hair?

The reason was his belief. Doesn't matter; it ended with a tribunal having to deal with it as sexist discrimination.

It is no different in this case. The end result is racist discrimination. In fact there is also that ruling that lawyers are not supposed to use this process to unfairly game the jury.

And we also have several arms of the federal government identifying this specific abuse as a problem, and working to change it. This is a bit more than just my opinion.

And that ruling in the states which says explicitly that using repeated challenges against an identifiable group is against the law and can be challenged. Not Canadian law I know, but I trust you get the point that it doesn't matter if one has another motive, or is just playing dumb.

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
The reason was his belief. Doesn't matter; it ended with a tribunal having to deal with it as sexist discrimination.

OK.  In other words, it's not that those barbers "hated" women.  But if their religion forbade them from touching one, the outcome was sexist regardless.

That's what I asked about the Stanley trial.  Did the defense (or the Canadian justice system) "hate" Aboriginals?  Or was the outcome racist regardless?

Quote:
In fact there is also that ruling that lawyers are not supposed to use this process to unfairly game the jury.

Good grief.

Everyone swear on a stack of pancakes that you'll only use the right to disqualify a juror for any reason, any possible reason whatsoever, for the good of everyone and never "for evil".

You seem genuinely committed to believing (though never supporting) the idea that the peremptory challenge is solely intended to keep Aboriginals out of the system.  Are you that sure that it's not used when neither the victim nor the accused is Aboriginal?  Or do the Crown and defense always want them gone, even when the Crown represents a Tamil shopowner and the defense represents an Irish alleged shoplifter?

Aristotleded24

Mr. Magoo wrote:
You seem genuinely committed to believing (though never supporting) the idea that the peremptory challenge is solely intended to keep Aboriginals out of the system.

There's an expression when it comes to sexual harassment that it's not the intent, but the impact that matters. That is what is at play here in the Stanley trial. I don't see what the point of these hypothetical instances of a lawyer wanting Aboriginal jurors disqualified in other cases has to do with this case in particular.

6079_Smith_W

Actually I didn't say that racism was the only purpose of peremptory challenges. Quite a few times I have referred to its abuse - both regarding Indigenous people, and most recently in the post just before your own regarding any identifiable group. But I am fine with it gone. As a matter of fact you said you were as well.

I said quite clearly that yes, using the challenge in a way that refused all Indigenous people is racist. Doesn't matter if a lawyer just thought it best for the client. Again, this is not just my opinion. It is an abuse that is specifically being targetted in the wake of this trial.

Pondering

Mr. Magoo wrote:

You seem genuinely committed to believing (though never supporting) the idea that the peremptory challenge is solely intended to keep Aboriginals out of the system. 

Smith didn't make those claims. 

Fortunately the law is periodically updated. If it is required to own property, that too is an issue for me. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Sussex_Justices,_ex_p_McCarthy

R v Sussex Justices, Ex parte McCarthy ([1924] 1 KB 256, [1923] All ER Rep 233) is a leading English case on the impartiality and recusal of judges. It is famous for its precedence in establishing the principle that the mere appearance of bias is sufficient to overturn a judicial decision. It also brought into common parlance the oft-quoted aphorism "Not only must Justice be done; it must also be seen to be done."

The same principle applies here. It isn't necessary for us to have the solution in this thread to establish that there is a problem that needs to be addressed. I am certain that if officials study the issue they can come up with better than what we have now. 

Paladin1

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Paladin, whatever you believe, sometimes juries do not make a fair decision. But the more fundamental problem is that whether white people can be fair or not, that doesn't make it right to deny Indigenous people a place on a jury. And if you say you want a lawyer to retain that right you seem to be implying white people are fair, but Indigenous people are not.

It sounds like a defense attorney who's getting paid $50'000 or $100'000 to use the system, and whatever tricks they can, go get their client found not guilty.

In my experience with harassment investigations or when someone is charged and there is clear suspicion that there is a conflict of iinterest or the defendent won't get a free trial at a local level it is moved to a higher formation. In this case the trial should have moved to Saskatoon or even out of province if that's permitted.

Quote:
About 750 were called, and over 200 showed up. I'm not aware than anyone did a breakdown of that, but questions were raised about how easy it might have been for some people to get there.

The juror said half of the 100 FN people that showed up asked to be removed from the case.

6079_Smith_W

One of the lawyers needs to request a change of venue. This was one thing that was gone over in the news here.

And what juror said that? Source please. Though it doesn't matter. Last time I was called up lots of people asked to be excused. Who wants to give up two or three weeks of their lives? People have jobs and responsibilities.

And we have already dealt with false claims that Indigenous people were turned away because they were allegedly wearing political shirts. That was not true.

The only thing that does matter is that every Indigenous person who was chosen - four of them - were challenged and sent away.

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
And we have already dealt with false claims that Indigenous people were turned away because they were allegedly wearing political shirts. That was not true.

This needs some sort of falsifiable "proof"?

Your counter-assertion, that they were turned away "because racism" seems to need nothing more than your solemn oath.

6079_Smith_W

A source that is a bit more than heresay would be nice, since I doubt Paladin was talking about one of the actual jurors. But as I said, there were lots of people trying their best to get out of that room when I got called up. So I question what one can read into it.

Again, the only thing that really matters is that every Indigenous juror who did get called up was refused.

Paladin1

6079_Smith_W wrote:

And what juror said that? Source please. Though it doesn't matter.

If it doesn't matter why cite a source?  I'll look for it anyways though I suspect you'll discount their truthfulness. Just to clairify it wasn't someone picked for the jury but someone who showed up and was going through the selection process. They were pointing out other races that were present. But I'll try and find the write up anyways.

Quote:

The only thing that does matter is that every Indigenous person who was chosen - four of them - were challenged and sent away.

How many other people were challenged and sent away?

 

6079_Smith_W wrote:

A source that is a bit more than heresay would be nice

uhh

Quote:
And we have already dealt with false claims that Indigenous people were turned away because they were allegedly wearing political shirts.

Isn't your "proof" here also heresay as well?

 

 

Pondering

Magoo, whether or not the motivation was racist the outcome was racist. 

6079_Smith_W

Actually in response to the claim on this thread I emailed the Saskatchewan Coalition Against Racism. The person who wrote me back was in the room and confirmed that no one who was turned away was wearing "Justice for Colten" shirts, or anything like that.

So yes, it is a verifiable source. And you  know what, I was curious because I figured it couldn't have been one of the jurors. I am interested if it was something you heard on social media or from an actual news site, but don't knock yourself out. As I said, I am not surprised, as there are a lot of reasons why people might not want to or not be able to serve on a jury.

 

Paladin1

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Actually in response to the claim on this thread I emailed the Saskatchewan Coalition Against Racism. The person who wrote me back was in the room and confirmed that no one who was turned away was wearing "Justice for Colten" shirts, or anything like that.

I'm not so sure I would consider that an unbiased source but okay.

Quote:
And you  know what, I was curious because I figured it couldn't have been one of the jurors. I am interested if it was something you heard on social media or from an actual news site, but don't knock yourself out. As I said, I am not surprised, as there are a lot of reasons why people might not want to or not be able to serve on a jury.

No David Carradine's for this guy. I'm pretty sure it wasn't social media but an actual article. I'll keep looking.

And I hear you about jury duty. I was excused 2 or 3 times.  Personally I think the fact (if it's true, lets say) that half of the FN juror candidates asked to be dismissed shows that there wasn't a big one sided attempt by FN to find Mr Stanly guilty regardless of the trial.

6079_Smith_W

You don't need to look; it's actually fine. I was just interested if it was actually a juror, and if it was an article.

And sure, I guess "anti-racist" is a bias. Does that mean that to be unbiased you have to not care about racism?

(rhetorical question. I'm not fishing for an answer)

No one was wearing a political shirt, so it wasn't a value judgment.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Magoo, whether or not the motivation was racist the outcome was racist.

If a random lottery chooses 12 caucasian male jurors, is that outcome also racist?

6079_Smith_W

I guess that is one of those things that depends, Magoo. It's not as racist as stopping any Indigenous person who turns up in a random lottery from sitting on a jury, but we were already talking in this thread about moving venues.

A random choice is random, but if it is in a community where there is reason to believe someone might not get a fair trial then indeed it might be discriminatory. That's why moving venue is an option if someone thinks there is a valid reason.

But are 12 white men going to by definition going to come up with a racist decision? Not necessarily, and no one said that they would, though I'd say there are some situations where we might lack understanding that some non-white people, or women do have.

I think the Saskatoon coroner made a good decision to ensure First Nations presence the jury called this week. It's hard to say if a process like that might be appropriate for criminal trials; I could see that it might be problematic. But that's why they have lawyers looking at problems like this, and not guys like me.

 

 

Pondering

If the pool was 50/50 male-female or male-POC and a random pull produced 12 white men I would suspect a problem and challenge the results. In cases where that could happen the pools should be separate if need be. Maybe jurors need better compensation and accomodations if they must come from a distance. I'm sure there are dozens of other ideas on how jury selection could be improved to better suit modern times. 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
A random choice is random, but if it is in a community where there is reason to believe someone might not get a fair trial then indeed it might be discriminatory. That's why moving venue is an option if someone thinks there is a valid reason.

What would the valid reason be, though?

I totally get why the defense (or perhaps Crown) might move for a change of venue, but it seems to me as though their reasons for that would not be any more valid than their reasons for using a peremptory challenge.  Moving the venue to get a whole new jury pool not made up of "those people" can't really be valid if exempting them individually isn't.  Heck, I think you could argue that it's even a bit worse.  Instead of "I don't like the look of that guy", it would be "I don't like the look of this town".

Paladin1

Mr. Magoo wrote:

"I don't like the look of this town".

Oh ya. That sounds kinda racist.

6079_Smith_W
Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Thanks.

Quote:
A change of venue is the legal term for moving a trial to a new location. In high-profile matters, a change of venue may occur to move a jury trial away from a location where a fair and impartial jury may not be possible due to widespread publicity about a crime and its defendant(s) to another community in order to obtain jurors who can be more objective in their duties. This change may be to different towns, and across the other sides of states or, in some extremely high-profile federal cases, to other states.

So this is going to result in (for example) more Aboriginal jurors how?

What this really comes down to is that we can choose to either:

a) intentionally tinker with the makeup of a jury, through peremptory challenges, change of venue, or other means.

or

b) not.

Those are really the only two options.  If we're not OK taking our chances with random selection then we're basically either trying to change the jury to the benefit of the defendant or for the benefit of the Crown.  We can't really pretend it's for the benefit of the jurors.

As far as making it easier for jurors to be jurors -- reasonable accommodation, reasonable compensation, etc. -- sure, by all means.  There could be an uptick in the number of marginalized jurors who can now serve, but they're not really a stakeholder in anyone else's trial, and really, I doubt if it's going to set the justice system on its ear.

 

6079_Smith_W

This isn't about more Indigenous jurors.

You asked if 12 white male jurors were necessarily biased. I said not necessarily, but pointed out that there are cases in which they might be, and someone would call for a change of venue.

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
You asked if 12 white male jurors were necessarily biased.

Well, no.  What I actually asked was whether if a random lottery chooses 12 white male jurors, that outcome would be racist.

Misfit Misfit's picture

Someone posted this article before but I could not find it. Perhaps it was deliberately removed.

A prospective juror who was not selected to the jury commented about definite bias by some of the Indigenous prospective jurors and according to the witness, this is why they were excluded.

The Toronto Sun article...

From the article...

"However, the reason there were no Aboriginal Canadians on the jury in this controversial case is because so many deliberately opted out of the process. Other First Nations prospective jurors, meanwhile, were openly and outwardly biased during the selection process."

"As the prospective juror describes, some of the remaining 45 or so were vocal in expressing their bias and signalling to everyone in the room they were unfit to serve on the jury. 

“You could audibly hear some of them talking amongst themselves, discussing how they were going to hang Stanley, or they were going to make sure he gets hung, or that if they don’t get the results they want, that they were going to handle it themselves..."

Paladin1

That's the article I was talking about.

6079_Smith_W

That's quite the article.

And Magoo, I thought I answered that question as I understood it back at 418 (third paragraph), and we were on to examples of how they might be found to be biased.

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Well, it IS the Toronto Sun, and they do seem to lack any corroboration.  But the idea of prospective jurors kind of wanting out does have an air of reality to it.

Would it address the concerns with Aboriginals being denied the enviable right to sit on a jury, miss six weeks of work and get a free ham sandwich every day if they could be chosen to sit on a jury deciding whether a Sikh shopowner killed his Sikh accountant over a gambling debt?  Is that the sort of thing we mean when we want more Aboriginal jurors?  Or do those Aboriginal jurors have to decide a trial involving a fellow Aboriginal for justice to be done?

Paladin1

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Would it address the concerns with Aboriginals being denied the enviable right to sit on a jury, miss six weeks of work and get a free ham sandwich every day if they could be chosen to sit on a jury deciding whether a Sikh shopowner killed his Sikh accountant over a gambling debt?  Is that the sort of thing we mean when we want more Aboriginal jurors?  Or do those Aboriginal jurors have to decide a trial involving a fellow Aboriginal for justice to be done?

Great question.

Pondering

On the issue of juries if we are to have a nation to nation relationship with FNs then perhaps the solution involves consulting them on possible remedies. Perhaps they could collect names of people willing to serve on juries and negotiate improved funding for participation. 

 I doubt they would be interested in cases which do not involve their people. They are Canadians but they are not Canadians like any other. 

Nation to Nation can't just be a philosophical statement. It has to be literal. We have to completely change our attitudes and treatment of FNs people. Schools are supposed to start teaching real history but all Canadians need to be educated on just what was done to FN people in our name. 

6079_Smith_W

I think not shooting them might be a good start.

In cases like this, not assuming deceit and bad intent, while giving white people the benefit of the doubt and absolute rights at every turn. And thinking a bit about what is appropriate response.

Treating them like every other Canadian when it comes to taking crimes against them seriously, and when informing family members that a loved one has been killed.

Listening to what they have said, not what we want to hear - because their leaders have said they want legal reform. There were prospective jurors willing to serve, and called up in that room. That's not the problem. Someone refused them.

While they may not have that annoying habit that a lot of white people have of thinking that everyone else's business is something we assume we know all about and need to have a say in I don't see that they wouldn't see themselves as just as much a part of our society as everyone else. Because they are. They are neighbours and friends of mine. My son's debate partner, and the hosts whose house we were at for a meeting last night. I know we are trained to think of them like shifty aliens because we stole their land and treat them like shit, but they aren't. That's just us not knowing how to handle our responsibility. As societies I'd say they have a hell of a lot more concern for this country than our governing society does.

Nation to Nation in a literal sense also means respecting the treaties that we have signed, and taking seriously the damages we owe for genocide against these people. If you want to know why we have kids drinking and breaking into farmyards, a good place to start might be the fact that their communities are being starved, and they are surrounded by white people who hate and mistrust them, we spent the last century stealing their kids and destroying their families, and when an incident like this happens a white guy can shoot one of them dead and get away with it.

 

lagatta4

Does this sound familiar? Far away, in Australia:

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/mar/27/man-who-killed-in...

6079_Smith_W

Yup. Familiar.

The publisher which rejected Stanley's book telling his side of the story is now getting hate mail.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/publisher-alarmed-by-emails-afte...

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:

I know we are trained to think of them like shifty aliens because we stole their land and treat them like shit, but they aren't. That's just us not knowing how to handle our responsibility. 

That may be how you were raised but it is not how I was raised. 

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Nation to Nation in a literal sense also means respecting the treaties that we have signed, and taking seriously the damages we owe for genocide against these people. If you want to know why we have kids drinking and breaking into farmyards, a good place to start might be the fact that their communities are being starved, and they are surrounded by white people who hate and mistrust them, we spent the last century stealing their kids and destroying their families, and when an incident like this happens a white guy can shoot one of them dead and get away with it. 

An individual "white guy", even if he is a jerk, should not be punished to make up for the historical (and current) mistreatment of indigenous peoples. Those are two entirely separate issues. Criminals, homeowners and drunk drivers etc. often get a slap on the wrist no matter what the colour of their victims, especially if those victims are poor in comparison, or female. 

6079_Smith_W

We do treat them like shit, and mistrust them, and we did steal their land, and you benefit from it as much as the rest of us, and as much as you might think you are not a part of it, Pondering. It isn't just about one guy anymore than it is about individual acts of racism. Our whole society is built on them being ripped off, and it continues to be that way.

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:
We do treat them like shit, and mistrust them, and we did steal their land, and you benefit from it as much as the rest of us, and as much as you might think you are not a part of it, Pondering. It isn't just about one guy anymore than it is about individual acts of racism. Our whole society is built on them being ripped off, and it continues to be that way.

I don't treat them like shit I treat them with respect even when they are sitting on the sidewalk drunk, even the one shitting in the metro. If I had the power to force the government to settle all claims respectfully and fairly I would. 

As a member of society, no matter what my colour, I am impacted by the history of my country. There are indigenous people benefiting from historic mal-treatment of indigenous peoples. Black people too. Both participate in this society because they have no choice. Neither do I. I try to change the world for the better as best I can.

I am Catholic by birth but I do not believe in original sin. 

Let me ask you something Smith. Are you paying a 10% tithe on your net income to indignous peoples? Put your money where your mouth is then you can lecture me on inherited sin. 

You want individual people convicted of crimes based on their race and the race of the victim to make up for historical mistreatment. That isn't justice. 

6079_Smith_W

A lot of people frame this as "original sin" as a means of saying it is over, something done by other people, and we don't deserve it. In fact there is nothing inherited about it. We are doing this to them right now.

Geez. Someone already challenged me to hand my house over to them as a means of trying to shame me. Sorry, but that dishonest ploy (dishonest because I am sure you have no intention of doing that) isn't pointing at what this is really about. 

In fact, I am trying to give that percentage to them by pressuring government to share royalty revenue which rightfully is theirs, and settle land claims and treaties which are not being honoured. Our city IS trying to do that, even though it is not yet a full measure. That's what Nation to Nation means.

But since you ask I do help fund some of those measures. Does that absolve me of our debt? No way, when you look what is really being done to them, and the scope of what we have taken, and ruined. It is a drop in the bucket.

I could give away everything I have, and I'd still have the greatest advantage, which is the colour of my skin. This is about changing ways of thinking, not assuming you can just buy your way out of our responsibility.

 

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:
 

A lot of people frame this as "original sin" as a means of saying it is over, something done by other people, and we don't deserve it. In fact there is nothing inherited about it. We are doing this to them right now.

I said current as well as historical but that doesn't suit your agenda. I said I want all treaties respected and for negotiations to be fair. I support more money for education and child welfare and housing and transportation and clean water and whatever else is needed.

I just don't support convicting someone based on the colour of their skin which is what you want to do. Your logic is because many white people are racist then Gerald must be racist and his actions must have been rooted in racism.

6079_Smith_W wrote:
Geez. Someone already challenged me to hand my house over to them as a means of trying to shame me. Sorry, but that dishonest ploy (dishonest because I am sure you have no intention of doing that) isn't pointing at what this is really about.   

It isn't dishonest and I have no intention of doing the same. You want to hold me personally responsible but you don't consider yourself personally responsible. 

6079_Smith_W wrote:
 In fact, I am trying to give that percentage to them by pressuring government to share royalty revenue which rightfully is theirs, and settle land claims and treaties which are not being honoured. Our city IS trying to do that, even though it is not yet a full measure. That's what Nation to Nation means. 

So is my city. Nation to Nation does not include convicting people on the basis of race. 

6079_Smith_W wrote:
 But since you ask I do help fund some of those measures. Does that absolve me of our debt? No way, when you look what is really being done to them, and the scope of what we have taken, and ruined. 

No kidding. That does not mean your accusations of racism towards individuals are justified. In fact I would say you are trying to make yourself feel like you are fighting for indigenous rights when you are just insulting people who already support indigenous rights. 

That you want individuals to pay for the sins of the country does not make you less racist. 

6079_Smith_W

Let's back up a bit here because you seem to be fitting the guy who was found not guilty for a martyr outfit simply because some of us (including some legal authorities) are pointing to abuses and serious mistakes in this case. That is not making someone pay for systemic wrongs. I know Easter is coming up, but the Stanley trial is over and he walked free. Maybe pick a more appropriate metaphor.

6079_Smith_W

You yourself said you thought he was guilty of manslaughter. So what are you talking about?

And where, anywhere, ever on this forum did I claim I was not racist? We are all influenced by it. In fact, when I mentioned an occasion when I caught myself doing it your response was to say that I'm racist and you are not.

Who is better is really not the point, Pondering, because we all benefit from our privilege, and the racism which is heaped on them. The point is try and help to change this. And we can't do that without acknowledging how we are influenced by it.

 

 

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:

You yourself said you thought he was guilty of manslaughter. So what are you talking about?

And where, anywhere, ever on this forum did I claim I was not racist? We are all influenced by it. In fact, when I mentioned an occasion when I caught myself doing it your response was to say that I'm racist and you are not.

Who is better is really not the point, Pondering, because we all benefit from our privilege, and the racism which is heaped on them. The point is try and help to change this. And we can't do that without acknowledging how we are influenced by it.

We are all influenced by some form of prejudice because it is a natural human tendency to classify everything and look for commonalities. What matters is supporting the honoring of treaties and restitution to damaged communities. 

When you say 100% of white people are racist you drain the word of any significant meaning. Even if we all are that is the least of the worries of indigenous peoples. It's a parlour debate. They really don't give a shit about our subconscious they just want to be treated fairly. 

If not being as poorly treated as indigenous peoples is being privileged then I am, but it isn't something I can stop myself from being so I don't feel guilty based on the colour of my skin. I am not responsible for the sins of my father. My country is therefore the country must pay. 

What we need to do is honor our legal agreements with Indigenous people and follow the Reconcilliation roadmap. 

Yes I believe Gerald Stanley is guilty of manslaugther based on dangerous handling of a firearm. To my mind it is the responsibility of gun owners to discard ammunition old enough to cause any kind of misfire, to store firearms safely, and to follow all reasonable well-known safety guidelines. I am the opposite of a gun person and even I know people are supposed to keep a gun pointed down even if they believe the gun isn't loaded. I don't know if legally, not following that rule, equates to manslaughter. Apparently not. 

I don't believe the Crown met the burden of proof. I still believe Gerald's account of what happened is within the realm of reasonable possibility. That is the legal bar, not just "believing" something. To convict I would have to think there is no chance his version is the way things happened. I don't think that. I don't think anyone who had a gun that day intended to kill another person. 

I think the Boushie family should sue him for wrongful death which includes accidents. 

On another development.

https://globalnews.ca/news/4104500/colten-boushie-family-gerald-stanley-...

Stanley's lawyer approached book publishers on Stanley's behalf. So far he is being turned down. 

The Boushie family should offer to sell their story in a way that would honor Colton and the indigenous community. It would be much more riveting than Stanley's story. Done right it would embarrass the hell out of Canada. 

It could even cover the topic of residential schools and the damage it did to indigenous communities. Colton's mother showed a page of a school notebook on the fallout, what it did to families. It could show the conditions they live under. Tell Colton's story.

I don't know if anyone here ever watches APTN. It is excellent. In the hands of the right people it could express the experience of being indigenous in that community. It could easily become known worldwide and become an awards winner if done well. 

That would accomplish more than a million lectures on the pervasiveness of racism. 

6079_Smith_W

And the publisher is getting hate mail for it. See #434.

"In the hands of the right people"? I think APTN is in fine hands right now. They do have international recognition, and are expanding into the United States:

http://j-source.ca/article/aptn-honoured-at-inaugural-international-indi...

 

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:

And the publisher is getting hate mail for it. See #434.

"In the hands of the right people"? I think APTN is in fine hands right now. They do have international recognition, and are expanding into the United States:

">http://j-source.ca/article/aptn-honoured-at-inaugural-international-indi...

Yes, I did say I watch APTN and it is excellent. I'm suggesting APTN could do the story justice so that it is genuinely told from an indigenous perspective in a non-exploitative manner. 

Aristotleded24

6079_Smith_W wrote:
Yup. Familiar.

The publisher which rejected Stanley's book telling his side of the story is now getting hate mail.

">http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/publisher-alarmed-by-emails-afte...

Wow. Stanley shoots someone and doesn't do any jail time and it's not his family that has to cope with a death as a result of what happened, and he's making himself out to be some kind of victim?

After the legal aspects of this case were concluded, his lawyer released a statement expressing condolences to the Boushie family. A show of good faith on Stanley's part would involve meeting with Boushie's family and/or the Red Pheasant Cree Nation and ask them what can happen for reconciliation. I'm not holding my breath for that to happen.

zazzo

I always wondered about why the Stanley family never expressed any regrets to the Boushie family over the death of Colten Boushie, especially considering that they insisted it was an accident.  An expression of regret at the outset might have helped to reduce the tension.

Paladin1

 

6079_Smith_W wrote:
Yup. Familiar.

The publisher which rejected Stanley's book telling his side of the story is now getting hate mail.

">http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/publisher-alarmed-by-emails-afte...

What I gathered from that situation was that the lawyers approached publishers to put out a writing about the facts of the case and some issues their side felt were misrepresented or lies. Their view of setting the story straight. Any way you look at it it's very poor optics and a poor idea all around.

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Wow. Stanley shoots someone and doesn't do any jail time and it's not his family that has to cope with a death as a result of what happened, and he's making himself out to be some kind of victim?

I'm not goingto suggest that the Stanley family is suffering anywhere near as much as the Bouchie family but as the perpetrators in this they have their own stress and issues to deal with and may not be walking away from this without a hitch or whatever that saying is.  I can see them being bombarded with online and physical harassment, developing hyper-vigilance because of the fear of retribution and having their lives forever more under a microscope.  Again that no way approaches losin a family member but I doubt they're in a good place either right now.

Paladin1

zazzo wrote:

I always wondered about why the Stanley family never expressed any regrets to the Boushie family over the death of Colten Boushie, especially considering that they insisted it was an accident.  An expression of regret at the outset might have helped to reduce the tension.

 

Any competent lawyer would have told him and his family to shut up and not talk to the media or reach out to the Boushie family.

6079_Smith_W

... and not go around peddling a book to "tell his side of the story".

He's already got a legion telling his side of the story.

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
A show of good faith on Stanley's part would involve meeting with Boushie's family and/or the Red Pheasant Cree Nation and ask them what can happen for reconciliation. I'm not holding my breath for that to happen.

Uh, wait, what?

He has to apologize to the Red Pheasant Cree Nation?

Really?  Boushie's family might make some common sense, but he also needs to apologize to the Red Pheasant Cree Nation?

I don't think that this is really what "reconciliation" means.  Whatever Stanley did or didn't do, he didn't choose who would be in that car.  The people in that car chose him.

 

Paladin1

I've been trying to read up on reconciliation. There are 93 or 94 different points to address but it seems like the biggie is the school thing.

Does apologizing really mean anything these days? Anytime I call a government office they apologize for the wait times, do they mean it? Doubt it.   Trudeau just apologized on behalf of Canada to Fn who were hung 5 or 6 years before Canada was even a country. It was in BC which was under British rule at the time.  Getting hung up on apologies seems like a distraction of real issues.

Pages