7-year-old FN given "haircut" by teacher's aide - authorities say "no big deal"

I am deeply saddened by this event and question the intention of the teacher's aide. Was it a lack of cultural awareness or out and out prejudice? Why would they cut anyone's hair? Any parent would be outraged if someone, anyone took the liberty of cutting their child's hair without permission. What makes this worse is that it is done shortly after the apology for residential school abuse, for actions just like the one just taken. Are teachers aides not given cultural sensitivity training?

I am angry that no criminal charges have been laid. Does this mean if I am sitting in a chair at the bus stop and someone sneaks up from behind, cuts my hair I have no rights? This does not make sense to me.

Most of all I am very sad for this little boy and his mother. What is the message here? What has he internalized? This was an assault on his spiritual beliefs! Harm has been done to him. To turn him to the mirror, to hold his shoulders, to "show him" how it is done is an outrage. Did someone just hit the repeat button? No doubt this sounds familiar to many residential school survivors. This is also harming them. A reminder of how things have not changed. Painful to bear witness to for anyone who gets it, more painful for those who have already lived this through this experience.

Tansi

I heard this reported on CBC radio yesterday.  I can't add anything new to the expressed outrage here, other than I'm similarly outraged.

I'm not as interested, however, in writting e-mails or signing petitions.  In this instance in particular, the T.A., the Board, and the Crown are, at absolute best look, displaying a level of  ignorance that is indistinguishable from racism.  On one hand, they do not have a mind capable of change, or on the other,they have a mind unwilling to change.

I understand, and maybe I am wrong, that it's possible to bring a private prosecution.  I think it's high time, particularly for aboriginal people and people of colour, to take such a tack if indeed this avenue is open.

Clearly, one of the ways racism is expressed is through selective prosecution.

It would be interesting to review the prosecutions undertaken by this particular Crown Attourney against aboriginal people.

I think it needs to be a larger investigation into why she wasn't charged immediately.

I think it needs to be a larger investigation into why she wasn't charged immediately.

I'm sure there has been.  The Crown has probably had to explain his inactions to people he'd rather not be explaining his inactions to.  And, in spite of all the fundraising he's likely done for this political party or that, he's probably set his appointment to the bench back a year or two.

I'm sure there's a very untransparent disciplinary code at work here, just like in Keswick.  The problem is it's discipline not for being wrong or racist, but for making someone above in his chain of command have to answer questions.

None of which inspires trust in the judicial system, certainly amoung First Nations people, but also amoung non-aboriginals who might spend more than twenty seconds thinking about it.

Which really, really, really, really shows what a lie it is that not charging the T.A. was in the public interest.  It very much is in the public interest.

Not sure this is the right focus. The school hired this TA. The school is responsible for what happens to every kid in its care. I'm sure, if the public outcry is loud enough, the school board authorities would be quite relieved to have all the attention and blame fall on this "bad apple". But this incident took place over one month ago. What have the authorities done to get at the root of the problem and ensure it never recurs?

Ok, but what is offensive about being a beautiful young blond woman?  Just like the jerry Seinfeld episode where he dates

that good looking woman who seems to always get her way...I don't think that is offensive. 

Why else is everyone sticking their neck out for this TA? It makes no sense that this chid was victimised and clearly under the

criminal code:

265. (1) A person commits an assault when

(a) without the consent of another person, he applies force intentionally to that other person, directly or indirectly;

SO my conclusion is that the perpetrator of this crime is a person that the crown would rather not pursue charges against because of her deportment.  Be it looks or personality...

but of course I am not an expert on the subject, it is just my opinion I don't think anyone should be offended by my conjecture. 

For the people who live in this country who actually know about the atrocities that were done to the First Nations, Inuit and even Métis, I'd doubt it would be a majority of them that would hold such mind sets. I wouldn't be surprised if it were, but I don't think most of them would be in favour of such treatment. One problem is apathy, people are either feel or are made (encouraged) to feel like their opinion doesn't matter and that they can't do much if anything to bring about change when up against big government and business. I don't know if it's changed, but I know throughout school I, and many others, were taught that, more or less, the Europeans and FN/Inuit got along fairly well, lots of trading with few problems.
Anyway, I felt ill reading this, and how it doesn't render charges for the asst. teacher. Besides being native, being a boy could also be another reason for the teacher wanting to cut his hair, after all, the girls in the class weren't targeted. If putting your hand on someone without their consent can result in assault charges, then forcing a hair cut on someone should, without question.
Even though having shaggy/long hair for males is more accepted now, it's far from common. I've had long hair to some degree for the past 12 years, and can remember the negative reactions and comments from within school and outside.

No actually the reality would be "the white person convicted would receive a slap on the wrist". If this had been a FN person who did it to a white kid full measure of the assault sentencing would happen.

The states minion steps out of line

drop on them like a ton of bricks

that'll address the problem til the next time

as a father i would go ballistic if some educator cut my childs hair.

I think the crown attorneys in Thunder Bay concluded that a conviction would be highly unlikely.  If there were a conviction, the person convicted would receive essentially a "slap on the wrist."

And in other juristictions, crowns attourney throw likelyhood of conviction to the winds if they feel like sending a message.

It is a very Canadian reflex to give massive benifit of the doubt,  and to cast in the best possible light, the actions and inactions of our elected and appointed officials.

In the best of circumstances, that's poor citizenship.  

But if we take a look at how our courts in particular have opperated in the recent and not so recent past there is nothing to indicate why this reflex is a good idea, and plenty to indicate it is a very destructive reflex.

Thanks will do again and to the ombudsman too first thing tomorrow!

The school is responsible for this event, just as any employer is vicariously liable for the actions of its employee - unless, sometimes, if it can clearly prove that the employee was acting on their own and in reckless disregard for clear policies or laws.

Until I see proof that the school had done everything possible to avert such anti-child and racist behaviour on the part of its staff, I have a modest proposal:

1. The school authorities issue a public apology and assume responsibility for this attack.

2. They shut down classes for one day (or half day or whatever) to mark this event - and hold assemblies to talk to the kids and let them talk about what happened - so as to give teachers, children, and the public something to remember all their lives.

Just focusing on laying charges against some individual (the one who got caught!) is necessary, but insufficient. Racism and anti-child behaviour does not emerge from within a few individuals' brains and it will not be addressed by fear of penal consequences alone.

Good point, Unionist!  And good idea, too!