Injustice is Death - End the Drug War: National Day of Action - Feb. 20, 2018

By Jeff Shantz

Drug war laws, policing, and criminalization kill people. Straight up. They do so simply so that the state can regulate peoples’ bodies and what some people choose to put into them. And these bodies are regulated, punished, on the basis of class and racism. In a serious way death is a certain outcome of drug prohibition. In 2017, 1422 people died after using drugs in British Columbia alone. This year we are facing over 4000 overdose deaths in Canada. It must end now.

On February 20, 2018, people in communities across Canada stood up to call for an end to the drug war on the National Day of Action on Drug Decriminalization. I participated in the rally, march, and red zoning of the Law Courts building in Vancouver along with about 200 people who turned out on a frigid day. Actions across the country put forward the message that “Injustice is Fatal.” There were five common demands:

1.       Decriminalize all drugs immediately

2.       Decarcerate those with drug convictions

3.       Defund the Department of Justice and use the resources to properly fund and support health care initiatives

4.       End red zoning which places conditions on people that restricts their access to parts of the city even if they have not been convicted of anything

5.       Expansion of needle distribution and overdose prevention systems, including in prisons

The rally began in Victory Square at Hastings and Cambie in downtown Vancouver. Jordan Westfall, executive director of the Canadian Association of People who Use Drugs (CAPUD) asserted the five demands. He pointed out the social and health related harms of criminalization.

The next speaker was Dr. Susan Boyd who pointed out that in 1998 there was a press conference with activist Bud Osborne and Member of Parliament Libby Davies in which they explained that these deaths are preventable, and why. Government in Canada has ignored their call. Dr. Boyd noted that from 2010 to now, drug arrest stats, for heroin, meth, and now fentanyl possession have been increasing instead of decreasing. She asked: “Why are we arresting anyone for drug possession?” In the midst of a crisis we must decriminalize drug use, open overdose prevention sites, and make prescribed drugs available.

Following these introductory speeches we marched to the Law Courts to raise the demands. At the courthouse participants spoke out against the drug wars. First up was Dave from VANDU (Vancouver Area Network of Drug Users). He argued that stigmatization will not end without decriminalization.

The next speaker was Malcolm of the Western Aboriginal Harm Reduction Society. He reported that yesterday alone he saw six cops around one person just to grab there stuff (as police continue to steal belongings from poor people). He added that racism against Indigenous people is a central part of the drug war in British Columbia. Acknowledging the strength and community of people in the downtown eastside, Malcolm ended by saying: “Down here we are all family.”

Following was Simona of the BC-Yukon Drug War Survivors. She told the gathering that she was arrested most recently in front of VANDU. She was red zoned and told she could not go to Main and Hastings. This meant that she could not access her programs at the Carnegie Centre. This is purely vindictive by the state. She wanted those assembled to know that she uses drugs an she is alright—sand wants to assert that clearly and strongly.

Scott, a social worker in the downtown eastside started by saying that he has spent years in jail himself and was jailed because of drugs. He wanted people to know that he never got any help in jail, for anything. He now works with people who are criminalized and insists that we need to change drug laws and how we relate to people and work together. He noted that substance use is a way of dealing with oppression in this world (including the oppression of policing). People in the downtown eastside are among the most oppressed and have much to cope with. Drugs are a coping tool.

Several speakers emphasized the injustice of red zoning. Red zones carve people out of their communities, restrict access to family, friends, and needed services. Red zones hurt people who are not convicted of anything. It is a form of profiling, and poor bashing (the state would never dream of red zoning corporate criminals). It is a violation of peoples’ rights. Quite simply, red zoning needs to end.

A key theme of the day, stressed by several who spoke, was the foundation of reciprocity, giving, and sharing that marks community in the downtown eastside. Culture saves lives. Several people suggested this makes it the healthiest community in Vancouver, distinct from areas of social separation and apathetic detachment.

Counter to this are the actions of police. Several speakers spoke to the fact that police steal peoples’ homes and belongings on a regular basis. And we need to recognize this for what it is—theft and violence. Cops are robbing trusted dealers and forcing people to go to dealers they cannot trust. Obscenely, police are using the crises to push for increased budgets and looking to diversify or rebrand as harm reduction or healthcare services (which they cannot actually provide and should not be involved in anyway). And they consume resources that could be better deployed among real healthcare and social care organizations (including, of course, grassroots ones). In some jurisdictions drug war cops are looking to cash in on upcoming cannabis legalization in a despicable display of hypocritical Canadian justice.

In Neil Magnusson’s words, the war on drugs is actually a war on people. Criminalization is the only crime. Prohibition kills. Use is not criminal. In his view, cops only play a role in hurting people. He argued that the only people who should be arrested are politicians and public servants, including cops, who are harming people through criminalization and prohibition. He made a call to arrest Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. The managers of the drug was have real blood on their hands.

The action ended with a symbolic red zoning of the courthouse as those assembled locked arms in a human chain closing off the entrance.

As Scott suggested: “End the drug war—Love the People.”

Beyond the Psychology of Poverty: Anti-Colonialism and Justice - Feb. 13, 2018

By Jeff Shantz

A report on the second annual Metro Vancouver Aboriginal Executive Council conference. Vancouver Aboriginal Friendship Centre. February 13, 2018

The conference “Reversing the Psychology of Poverty: A Policy Engagement Conference” hosted by the Metro Vancouver Aboriginal Executive Council proved a lively, important, and compelling venue for discussing a range of crucial issues of truth, reconciliation, colonialism, anti-colonialism, decolonization, and justice (social, economic, political) in the present context. It went beyond its initial focus in some highly significant ways. Speakers included Kevin Barlow, Rocky James, Sue McIntyre, Chas Desjarlais, Dan Guinan, Ginger Gosnell-Myers, Colter Long, and Norm Leech.  

The conference set out to analyse and critically develop approaches to the so-called psychology of poverty, a rightly contested notion that can have the consequence of individualizing social problems and locating them in personal rather than social factors. Several impacts of a psychology of poverty were identified. They included the following. First, living below the poverty line creates generations of people willing, even expecting to cope with less. That is they may stop asking for more, for what they deserve. Second, there is a learned defeatism that suggests things will never improve. Third, people can feel the need to take risks, opting for short term gain over longer term opportunities. Fourth, Indigenous people are pushed to internalize cultural identity as inferior. Fifth, anger and frustration (which can be productive or unproductive).

The issue of education is given much attention in discussions of reconciliation, and as a university instructor this is something of much concern. It is noted that education is healing but, at the same time, people have to heal before they can learn. These are integrated, but one cannot learn if some basic needs are not met (health, nutrition, housing, etc.).

Resistance and Resilience

Significantly the discussions very soon shifted focus organically to meaningful analyses of the structural and systemic roots of poverty and psychology. Several crucial issues were brought forward.

During the first question period it was posed that there is a need to shift focus away from the emphasis on trauma, that has characterized much reconciliation discourse, to the violence that causes trauma. Focusing on psychologies of trauma can serve to privilege the forces and structures of power.

The original violence that causes trauma is colonialism. Children are still put out into a colonial world, even if education and culture are done in the home, community, and schools. Emphasis is still on success in a colonized world. A key question is raised about reconciliation and restoration: “Is it building a world that is healthier or is it making people more individually “successful” (on certain markers of materiality) in a fundamentally unhealthy world?”

It is worth pointing out that services seem oriented toward changing the individual to make them appear less traumatized in a traumatized and traumatizing environment. But the environment remains largely unchanged and it remains harmful and destructive.

Resistance and renewal must be in balance in addressing structural colonial violence. Four emphases were brought forward. These were as follows. First, food security and nutrition. Second, affordability. Third, a sense of belonging. Fourth, a meaningful sense of hope for the future. And this is all to be done while not forgetting about the violence of colonialism and domination. In belonging one can feel contributing. In contributing one can feel hopeful and create the conditions for change that they want to see. This is forward thinking and positive rather than reacting in the world to seemingly outside conditions.

There is a need to create home, not only homes. Physical, emotional, nutritional needs must be addressed. Attention needs to be given to “spiritual homelessness” on stolen lands. Real questions are posed to us about how to maintain collectivism in an individualist and individualizing culture.

On Justice

The final session involved an explicit and sustained focus on justice and notions of social versus criminal justice. As a criminologist, and active member of the Social Justice Centre, I was especially attuned to this discussion and will focus most of my report here. The session was facilitated by Norm Leech with Colter Long.

The justice session began, appropriately enough, by stating clearly that the big injustice we all face is that we are colonized. At some point someone colonized all of our families. It was pointed out that injustice comes first in thinking about justice for Indigenous people, on the basis of the very fact of colonialism. That injustice also includes, but is not limited to: racism; homelessness; children in care; education; inequality; government structures; the justice system. How do justice issues relate to other issues? Well, housing problems for people who have been incarcerated, for example. Colonial justice clearly does not work for Indigenous people, and, it was pointed out, it does not work for non-Indigenous people either. Most are targeted and processed for being poor or discontented.

Norm Leech made the point that people are in conflict with the law, because the law is in conflict with them. The laws were written in conflict with Indigenous people. They are not in conflict with the law, the law is in conflict with them. Leech asked: “When was there justice for Indigenous people?” The answer was straightforwardly: “Before colonization.” So that is what justice would look like for Indigenous people.

It must be remembered too that each nation had their own laws for maintaining care and stability in the nation and care of and with the land. Those laws and systems of justice were developed over hundreds of thousands of years. They were well developed and practiced. In the stories are the laws. Many of these records have been lost because they were not written down. And because those who carried oral learnings were erased through colonialism.

Mainstream society talks about reconciliation but says little about truth. So genocide is not mentioned and the term itself is avoided in mainstream society. Yet Indigenous people focus, rightly, on the truth of genocide. How does one talk about genocide recovery? Genocide is a group process. Community recovery rather than only individual recovery is the central focus.

It was asked if it is useful to fix or propose policy and program changes to “solve” justice issues for Indigenous people within prevailing frameworks? Solutions have been colonial “solutions.” Money, policy, curriculum, positions. Restorative justice is based on Indigenous justice. But it has been coopted in some ways. It was suggested that in consultations people not trust the government. Do not answer their questions. It was recognized that governments, police, etc., will not take information and act in a way that is helpful in meeting peoples’ needs.

People want justice, and they want justice advanced. One respondent suggested doing it their own way without the state’s laws. So these sorts of transformative approaches are being discussed. They are desired by people. And they are realistic. Yet reconciliation approaches tend to marginalize or diminish them, posing them as unrealistic or “out there.”

Culture saves lives. Sharing economies save lives. It was pointed out that these are what are saving people in the fentanyl crisis. Not criminal justice systems, which make the crises worse. In sharing economies no one need be alone. There are responsibilities to the community. But the community also takes care of you. Learning is done in the community, for the community, and in service to the community.

The Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development was raised. It identifies three conditions for economic success. First, sovereignty and self-rule. Second, capable governing institutions. Third, a congruence between institutions and Indigenous political culture. This did not generate detailed discussion or debate. It was pointed out that one cannot be fully self-sufficient and self-reliant if you go to the colonizers for funding.

The colonized system is the problem and every system within it is the problem. Fitting better within that system is not working for Indigenous people.  Answers are found in pre-colonization. Five hundred years of experience show that colonial criminal justice systems  do not work except for colonial elites.

Importantly, the discussion moved to a consideration of prison abolitionism. There is a need to think about things to do for people targeted by police and the criminal justice system. It can include providing housing for people who have been imprisoned. It requires, more broadly, thinking how to be transformative in developing practices. It requires creating cultures where we do no feel a need to call the police and do not need to. This includes, again, communities of care.

There are some who do real  harm, but they are not the ones that the criminal justice system spends most of its time and resources dealing with. They are not even a small minority of people processed by the system. And on the whole there are relatively few examples of extreme evil.

One step in abolition is the decriminalization of illicit substances. The money used on criminalization could be taken out of the criminal justice system and policing and put into social health and well being. Defund the police and support actual caregivers in the community.

Conversations need to be held in communities more. It was suggested that people not ask permission to do what works. Do it according to the needs of the people in question. Do it if it works. This includes doing it under the radar. It is alright to be subversive.

On the whole this was a productive conference. Over almost eight hours a range of crucial issues were addressed. And responses were honest, direct, and often bold and visionary.

Problematic Substance Use and Harm Reduction in Surrey - Public Talk by Michael Ma, KPU - Feb. 13, 2018

By Mike Larsen

I am writing to congratulate our colleague, Mike Ma, for his excellent Arts Speaker Series talk, 'Problematic Substance Use and Harm Reduction in Surrey, BC’. The presentation was well-attended and informative, and the audience was composed of KPU community members, journalists, and activists.

Mike’s talk was based on his ongoing survey-based research in the 135a / Surrey strip area on issues related substance use, housing, and homelessness. The project (80 surveys conducted so far with 120 to go) provides a picture of who is using what kinds of substances, with what kinds of consequences, and - crucially - how these questions relate to housing, homelessness, and poverty. While the research is still in progress, the findings so far are fascinating. Some of these findings confirm (and provide data to support) common or anecdotal notions about substance use and homelessness, while others provide a basis for much-needed demystification.

Of particular interest to me were findings about the lack of available / accessible treatment spaces and statistics regarding participant experience of overdoses (80% reporting overdosing, with the median being 5-7 overdoses per participant) and the prevalence of fentanyl as a sought-after drug or adjunct (33% had asked for fentanyl and many ask for heroin and are aware that it contains fentanyl). Unsurprisingly, 90% of Mike’s participants self-identified as homeless, with 99% having been homeless within the last six months. I encourage you to speak with Mike about his research, and I look forward to future updates on this project.

After providing a review of his preliminary findings, Mike provided some contextualizing remarks about drug use in Surrey, the surveillance and public order policing of drug users, and the politics and policies of harm reduction, detox, and treatment.

Following the talk, questions and discussion focused on culturally appropriate harm reduction and treatment options for Indigenous community members, the language and cultural categories used to frame the discussion about fentanyl (‘clean’ vs. ‘dirty’ drugs, ‘poison’, etc.), and policy and service options.

Generally, the event was great, and I came away with some ideas for classroom discussions and new FOI requests.

Thanks, Mike, and congratulations!

Challenging Solitary Confinement - Public Talk - Feb. 6, 2018

“Challenging Solitary Confinement” A Report.

By Jeff Shantz

On January 17, 2018, BC Supreme Court ruled that the practice of prolonged and indefinite solitary confinement in Canadian prisons is unconstitutional. The decision came in response to a challenge from the BC Civil Liberties Association. In a lengthy ruling, Justice Peter Leask found that the laws surrounding so-called administrative segregation in prison discriminate against Indigenous and mentally ill inmates. On February 6, 2018, a panel of prisoners’ justice advocates, including moderator Caily DiPuma, the BCCLA lawyer who argued the case spoke on issues of solitary in Canada and the implications of the ruling.

The Speakers

The first speaker was Bibhas Vaze, counsel to the family of Christopher Roy, a prisoner who took his own life while in solitary. Vaze is a litigator with 10 years of experience working with prisoners, specializing in law related to incarceration, especially filing habeas corpus. He started by saying that in his work he assumes that prisons do not cooperate. It is  not a cooperative process.

Notably, Vaze was clear that rule of law does not really exist within prison. He said that in working on cases he expects that at some point he will have to go to court to bring rule of law within prison walls. Positive decisions are never enough. He noted that there is a history of legal decisions that are not brought within prison walls—there is a fundamental non-compliance with the law. Supposedly great laws are often not applied in prisons.

Vaze told the audience that it is necessary to understand that prison administration and solitary have to be thought of as a whole. Prison cultures work through competing interests—and these are not the interests of the prisoners.

Vaze reflected on his work with the family of Christopher Roy. He noted that in the inquest into Roy’s death it was reported that there was no mental health staff for segregated inmates. Non-qualified psychologists and social workers did assessment on him and found no risk—shortly before he killed himself. There was no time provided for release. Instead he was threatened with transfer to Kent, a more violent institution. In fact they served him papers on the transfer at his segregation cell. Two hours later he was found hanging in the cell. There were no qualified medical personnel at the institution to revive him.

Vaze emphasized that in Roy’s case the existing laws could have been followed—they were not. It was not a problem of the absence of laws, but the absence of compliance.

The second speaker was Lora McElhinney of Joint Effort. Joint Effort is an abolitionist group started by a prisoner on Prison Justice Day forty years ago, From an abolitionist perspective they look at the capacity of communities to provide resources that people might benefit from in prison, including specific programs. Their view is that these programs can be better provided in and by communities. Prisons do not serve either communities or prisoners.

McElhinney suggested that segregation is the worst of the worst, but everyone in prison suffers in various ways. These include the decline of mental health. Prisons overlook or downplay root causes.

It was noted again that in prisons policy takes over from law and arbitrary decisions become the order of the day. Policies become more labyrinthine and keep the community out and the prisoners in.

Cecily Nicholson, another Joint Effort member, acknowledged the fugitivity that is part of everyday practice in the downtown eastside of Vancouver. She spoke to the gendered aspects of punishment and the reproduction of trauma in women’s lives. Nicholson emphasized the disproportionate racialization of imprisonment. Indigenous women do harder time. They do the majority of solitary. They are subjected to more maximum security placements. And they are subjected to more use of force interventions.

Nicholson stressed the inherent cruelty of prisons and reminded the audience that it is an outcropping of genocidal policies. While the Justice Minister makes a push to “Indigenize the prison system,” Nicholson noted, following a recent tweet by Ryan McMahon, that community supports and resources are more needed and helpful than Indigenizing the prison pipeline, which remains a system of cruelty. 

Speaking next was Yves Cote,a person with lived experience in prison, and i solitary, serving two life sentences. He noted that he has experienced every level of incarceration. Cote argued that worse than segregation is transfer out of province, away from family, friends, connections, and communities. Yet the Correctional Service of Canada is thinking about using that as an alternative to segregation.

The final speaker was Jennifer Metcalfe of Prisoner’s Legal Services. She expressed excitement about the decision and the possibilities it raises going forward. She is optimistic that they can change the culture. Metcalfe told the audience that her group has received reports from prisoners of guards slipping razor blades under cell doors of people at risk of self harm. They have heard multiple reports of this from multiple people.

The brutality of prison guards and their central role in resisting reforms was noted by all speakers. Metcalfe spoke of pushback from guards’ associations who want to be able to use solitary. It is a matter of convenience for them.

Question Period

The question period was also fruitful and a number of issues were given additional attention. It was generally agreed that in the short term there is a need for a culture shift from all involved in the prison system (health care providers as well) to break them from the corrections mindset. It was also suggested that a change federally returning to a Conservative Party of Canada government will make that impossible.

It was reiterated that guards and staff associations have been the major part in keeping solitary in place. They have, in fact, gone to great lengths to maintain it. It is more convenient for guards and it takes fewer resources for the prison system. Priority is placed on staff comforts and resource costs. These are not reasons for abuse of people. And guard associations are not properly unions and really have no place in the labor movement.

It was pointed out that as bad as federal prisons are, provincial prisons operate behind closed doors. No one is looking inside them. They are out of control. Levels of brutality are high and unobserved outside. It was noted that one cannot even FOI data because they do not even keep it.

McElhinney stressed that cultures like those of prison administration have to be forced. They do not shift on their own or voluntarily.

DiPuma concluded by reflecting on the limits of what she does as a lawyer. It was pointed out that under Section One of the Canadian Charter the government can justify their reasons for restricting human rights. The court will decide if the reasons are legitimate.

Vaze noted that Brown v. Board of Education in 1954 did not de-segregate schools in the United States. Much of the work of the NAACP over the next 50 years was going to small districts and ensuring that the decision was implemented. And this was also in a context of civil rights movements.

Conclusion

Justice Leask said the existing rules create a situation in which a warden becomes judge and jury in terms of ordering extended periods of solitary confinement. He wrote:

“I find as a fact that administrative segregation … is a form of solitary confinement that places all Canadian inmates subject to it at significant risk of serious psychological harm, including mental pain and suffering, and increased incidence of self-harm and suicide.”

The reality for prisoners right now is unchanged. The court gave the government 12 months to draft new law that meets the Charter.

All panelists were in general agreement, even the abolitionists (and I consider myself one), that the decision on solitary is an important one. McElhinney said that while an abolitionist she was still excited about the decision. It ahs opened spaces to talk about abolition and prison harms and the work that needs to be done. But it is only part of a wider goal. The judgement must be subject to a longer view.

Abolition will not come through litigation. We do need multi-level approaches to get to abolition. And as criminologists it means we have a responsibility to teach and work toward abolition. Criminologists must reject the conversion of their departments into recruitment centers for the prison industrial complex. We must oppose the intrusion into our departments by police, prison guard recruiters, and border security agencies. This means rejecting their presence in the classroom, in co-op programs, and at job fairs on campus.

The public still has much to learn about what goes on in prisons every day. There is a need to expand the discussion to talk about everything, not only the high profile or “hot” topics. In response to a question about why it is that prisons have been repeatedly non-compliant without any consequences, Cote pointed to the demonization of prisoners in the public. The public says lock them up and throw away the key.

Regardless of laws and oversight it will only be as effective as people are willing to advocate for. And change requires persistent mobilization and conscientious vigilance.

Fighting for Space: Travis Lupick and Ann Livingston on Drug Users' Struggles in Vancouver

Vancouver Public Library. January 11, 2018

Event report by Jeff Shantz

Travis Lupick, a journalist with the Georgia Straight, has written a number of important pieces on the opioid crisis in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside (DTES). Recently he released his book Fighting for Space, which chronicles grassroots struggles of drug users in Vancouver to support and defend themselves and fight for their needs over the course of decades. On January 11, 2018, he was joined by Ann Livingston, a founding member of VANDU (Vancouver Area Network of Drug Users), a key figure in the book, and in the struggle, for a book launch.  

Lupick started by saying he decided to write the book to discuss today’s opioid crisis by looking back at an earlier crisis in the 1990s. He wanted to see what lessons could be learned from then and applied today.

He began the talk with a picture of Liz Evans who quit her job at Vancouver General Hospital at 25 over frustrations with the treatment of people dealing with mental health issues. She ended up running a hotel in the DTES in the 1980S, with her partner Mark Townsend, at a time when the drug problem was growing and the HIV and AIDS crises were growing in Vancouver. The hotel was the Portland. It would become a center of anti-poverty organizing. The presenters recount that the Portland was really as peoples’ place. People were welcomed there when they were not welcomed elsewhere.

Ann Livingston showed up around the same time. There was a squat at a furniture store where people were using heroin. Ann and her kids went to clean it up for the people there so the place was a little more comfortable. Bud Osborne arrived around the same time. There were others showing up in the DTES who were ready to break the rules.

VANDU started in 1997. They had already started a safe injection site before then on the 300 block of Powell—the Back Alley. VANDU was the first drug users union in North America. At the time there was little acknowledgement that IV drug users deserved compassion and justice. There was nowhere where people could keep a place if they had an addiction. People were kicked out of residences if they had an overdose. Liz insisted that people could stay at the hotel under these conditions.

The first VANDU meeting was in Oppenheimer Park. It drew more people than expected. The first meeting was in a park because no one would give them a space. They were not welcome anywhere. That is a problem that people still face today in Surrey, for example, where drug users have to fight for space. VANDU and Portland were the first time people had been welcomed because of who they were. Camaraderie, membership, belonging—this is what people lacked and what VANDU offered.

They received a government community grant designed to see if community groups could provide services better, less costly, than hospitals. They could. The approach w as grounded in the idea of what makes people healthy (rather than how to “treat” illness). People are colleagues not patients.

The presentation made clear that direct action was key. They did not ask for permission. They took it. There were actions in city council chambers. They tried to show how many people were dying as a result of government policies.

Liz and Mark eventually decided, after some coaxing, that they could have an injection site. They did it in guerilla style at a hair salon. It was the same space, the same room, in which InSite would open and operate.  They confronted Mayor Larry Campbell with it—pushing for a formally supported site. But the initial site was, again, taken, not given. The presentation stressed that they were rule breakers who forced politicians to act (even against their own inclinations, prejudices, and political wishes).

The real problem, then as now, was government policy that kept people from getting what they needed—not drug using itself. People did not have access to clean needles, for example. Clean needles went for $5 on the streets. Dirty ones went for $1.   

Today

The presenters point out that there was a large heroin scene in Vancouver in the 1940s. It is an ongoing part of the city and should be recognized as such.

In the 1990s crisis, 400 people were dying each year of overdoses. In 2018 the city is on pace for 1800 deaths.

The overdose prevention site (OPS) today was started by peers as well, including Ann Livingston and Sarah Blyth. And the government is still taking too long and delaying supports. The founders had already been outside in tents with the street market so that was how they started. There are people working at the OPS site in the alley who  are sleeping in the alley.

Today’s crisis is a matter of economics and white collar crime, what Edwin Sutherland called chiselling. As Ann Livingston pointed out, heroin production used to require acres of poppies to produce a table sized amount. Now, with fentanyl, much more can be produced with much less. And with fentanyl it is used more times a day, more frequently. It was suggested that this may be six or more times a day rather than two or three.

Ann Livingston suggested that the obstacle then is the same as the obstacle now. If people have no welfare support and no health care they are at risk. She insists that people not use alone. Eighty percent who die are men—alone in their rooms. SROs, public and private, have the same rules—No guests. That puts people at risk.

The current opioid crisis is driven by growing economic inequality. It has been part of economic crisis in a neoliberal context since the crisis of 2008. And it is tougher for people to get welfare now and welfare provides much less than even a generation ago. In British Columbia it explicitly says in welfare law that addiction is not a disability. It is recognized in Ontario after a court case there was won. In Ann Livingston’s view the welfare legislation in British Columbia is illegal.

When welfare is cut one’s MSP (medicals services premium) gets cut off. People cannot get methadone because they are cut off MSP.

Policing Kills: For Lives Not Laws

The presentation made very clear—a key point that was stressed—that police are still a massive problem and play an active part in people dying needlessly. They are still a major threat.

Now governments are proposing manslaughter charges for people who sell fentanyl. This is a disastrous policy based only on revenge. It will lead to more people dying. People will not call for help because they do not want to be charged. Most of those arrested and charged will be low level and peer dealers—not major dealers anyway. This is all merely a way for police to increase their already boated budgets and resources at a time when crime rates are dropping consistently.

The presenters pointed out that the OPS tents are illegal and violate federal drug laws. No one knew how far they could push it before they got in legal trouble. Stealing electricity from a building next door, for example.

Finally the government let them move indoors. Then-Health Minister Terry Lake visited the OPS and told Lupick that he woke up at 4 AM thinking about Ann and Sarah. Fifteen sites were opened in British Columbia a week later. It is the fastest any government in Canada has moved on the issue.

Bureaucrats always think what they cannot do. Drug users think what they can do. VANDU started by trying to find out what people wanted to do and what they needed. Ann Livingston says basic organizing is to go to people and ask what their concerns are. What do they need? What do they want to do?

Many who use drugs believe what is said about them. They internalize stigma. Criminalization and policing only plays into that and increases that. It tells the public drug users are deviant, bad, undeserving.

Heroin needs to be available in prescriptions. Ann Livingston says, half jokingly, that we need to grow lots of poppies.

The government could make it easier for people to get methadone than it is to get fentanyl at the corner. They could start up some of the vending machines to get things to people.

An Activated Community

The DTES is what some urbanists call an activated community. There is street life, a bustle. Ann Livingston says we need clean alleys. We need parkettes. We can make the alleys nice. There could be activities. There could be yoga. The OPS site does things to make the alley nice.

What helps to build community? For Ann Livingston, as for many of us, the answer is that, still, we need a space! A place where people can meet each other, do things together, figure out what we can do together. Spaces is the main thing people need. Travis Lupick concludes by saying that the book leaves out a struggle for a community center—a long, drawn out struggle. They  were going to occupy a space for one.

I have long argued that this must be a priority for Surrey and for a social justice center that would be a real social justice center. Places are needed—more and more places.

At Least 65 Deaths Connected with Police Encounters in Canada in 2017

By Jeff Shantz

In Canada, there is no formal, systematic process for documenting and recording the deaths of civilians through encounters with police. And there is no systematic reporting publicly of civilian deaths through police encounters. The main source tracking, documenting, and analysing police killings of civilians in Canada is the critical criminology project Killer Cops Canada. A baseline or minimum number of people who died through police encounters can be arrived at by review of oversight agency reports, coroners inquest reports, and close following of media articles. Based on this, we can say that there were at least 65 deaths of people in Canada through encounters with police officers. Of these, the majority, 29, were shot and killed by police. Here is some of the very limited information of what we know. We need to know much more.

1.       Amleset Haile. Female. 60. January 2. Toronto, Ontario. Toronto Police Service. Self-inflicted. (Black woman).

2.       Jimmy Cloutier. Male. 38. January 6. Montreal, Quebec. Montreal Police. Shot.

3.       Ralph Stevens. Male. 27. January 7. Stoney Nakoda First Nation, Alberta. RCMP. Shot. (Indigenous man).

4.       Nadia Racine. Female. 34. January 25. Gatineau, Quebec. Gatineau Police. In-custody.

5.       Unnamed. Male. 20. February 11. Goodfare, Alberta. RCMP. In-custody.

6.       Unnamed. Male. No Age Given. February 12. Winnipeg, Manitoba. Winnipeg Police Service. In-custody.

7.       Moses Amik Beaver. Male. 56. February 13. Thunder Bay, Ontario. Thunder Bay Police. In-custody. (Indigenous Man).

8.       Unnamed. Female. 20. March 6. Burlington, Ontario. Halton Regional Police Service.

9.       Unnamed. Male. 28. March 6. Montreal, Quebec. Montreal Police. Heart attack.

10.   Vitaly Savin. Male. 55. March 9. Edmonton, Alberta. Edmonton Police Service. Shot.

11.   Unnamed. Male. 20. March 18. Pond Inlet. Nunavut. RCMP. Shot.

12.   Unnamed. Male. March 24. 61. Chateauguay, Quebec. Sûreté du Québec.

13.   Unnamed. Male. 40. April 1. Kelowna, British Columbia. RCMP. In-custody.

14.   Unnamed. Male. 24. April 28. Puvirnituq, Quebec. Kativik Regional Police Force. In-custody.

15.   Unnamed. Male. 39. May 2. Hall Beach. Nunavut. RCMP. Shot.

16.   Unnamed. Male. 32. May 13. Fort McMurray, Alberta. RCMP. In-custody.

17.   Unnamed. Male. 41. May 15. Beauceville, Quebec. Sûreté du Québec. Shot.

18.   Unnamed. Male. 26. May 22. Cambridge, Ontario.

19.   Unnamed. Female. No Age Given. May 27. Oak Bay, British Columbia. Victoria Police.

20.   Unnamed. Male. 43. June 3. Smith Falls, Ontario. Ontario Provincial Police. Self-inflicted.

21.   Unnamed. Male. 31. June 3. Ottawa, Ontario. Ottawa Police Service. Shot.

22.   Unnamed. Male. No Age Given. June 18. Port Coquitlam, British Columbia. RCMP. Shot

23.   Austin Eaglechief. Male. 22. June 19. Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. Saskatoon Police. Shot.

24.   Pierre Coriolan. Male. 58. June 27. Montreal, Quebec. Montreal Police. Shot. (Black man).

25.   Unnamed. Male. No Age Given. July 3. Edmonton, Alberta. Edmonton Police Service. Vehicle chase.

26.   Unnamed. Male. No Age Given. July 5. Blaine Lake, Saskatchewan. RCMP. Self-inflicted.

27.   Unnamed. Male. No Age Given. July 9. Quebec City, Quebec. Quebec City Police. Shot.

28.   Dale Culvner. Male. 35. July 18. Prince George, British Columbia. RCMP. In-custody.

29.   Marlon “Roland” Jerry McKay. Male. 50. July 19. Thunder Bay, Ontario. Thunder Bay Police. In-custody. (Indigenous man).

30.   Shawn Davis. Male. 52. July 26. Chatham, Ontario. Chatham Police. “Sudden Death.”

31.   Unnamed. Male. 66. July 30. Pointe-Calumet, Quebec. Vehicle chase.

32.   Unnamed. Male. 25. August 10. Saint-Georges-de-Beauce, Quebec. Sûreté du Québec. Shot.

33.   Unnamed. Female. 55. August 7. Edmonton, Alberta. Edmonton Police Service. In-custody.

34.   Unnamed. Male. 23. August 20. La Sarre, Quebec. Sûreté du Québec. Shot.

35.   Unnamed. Male. No Age Given. August 13. Winnipeg, Manitoba. In-custody.

36.   Ozama Shaw. Male. 15. July 27. Mississauga, Ontario. Peel Region Police. Shot. (Black youth).

37.   Unnamed. Male. 48. September 4. Sudbury, Ontario. Sudbury Police. In-custody.

38.   Unnamed. Female. 26. September 4. Windsor, Ontario. Windsor Police Service. In-custody.

39.   Unnamed Male. 26. September 6. Whitefish Lake First Nation, Alberta. RCMP. Shot.

40.   Unnamed. Female. 46. September 9. Indian Head, Saskatchewan. RCMP. In-custody.

41.   Unnamed. Male. 29. September 9. Edmonton, Alberta. Edmonton Police Service. Shot.

42.   Adrian Lacquette. 23. September 13. Winnipeg, Manitoba. Winnipeg Police Service. Shot.

43.   Unnamed. Male. 34. September 15. Windsor, Ontario. Windsor Police Service. In-custody.

44.   Unnamed. Male. 33. September 23. Winnipeg, Manitoba. Winnipeg Police Service. Shot.

45.   Sheila Walsh. Female. 65. September 25. Arnprior, Ontario. Ontario Provincial Police. Vehicle chase.

46.   Unnamed. Female. No Age Given. October 2. Quesnel, British Columbia. RCMP. In-custody.

47.   Nathan Wehlre. Male. 15. October 6. Highway 6, Ontario. Waterloo Regional Police. Vehicle chase.

48.   Taryn Hewitt. Female. 16. October 6. Highway 6, Ontario. Waterloo Regional Police. Vehicle chase.

49.   Cody Severight. Male. 23. October 10. Winnipeg, Manitoba. Winnipeg Police Service. Hit and run, officer DUI.

50.   Unnamed. Male. 35. October 12. Qualicum Beach, British Columbia. RCMP. Shot.

51.   Cavin Poucette. Male. 26. October 19. Gleichen, Alberta. RCMP. Shot. (Indigenous man).

52.   Brydon Bryce Whitstone. Male. 22. October 22. North Battleford, Saskatchewan. (Indigenous man).

53.   Tom Ryan. Male. 70. October 27. Cobourg, Ontario. Cobourg Police Service. Shot.

54.   Unnamed. Male. 44. October 31. Brampton, Ontario. Peel Regional Police. During arrest.

55.   Unnamed. Male. 23. November 8. Montreal, Quebec. Montreal Police. In-custody.

56.   Bill Saunders. Male. 18. November 15. Lake Manitoba First Nation, Manitoba. Shot.

57.   Unnamed. Male. 57. November 26. Toronto, Ontario. Toronto Police Service. In-custody.

58.   David Tshitoya Kalubi. Male. 23. November 24. Montreal, Quebec. Montreal Police. In-custody. (Black youth).

59.   Unnamed. Male. 52. December 6. Douglas, Ontario. Ontario Provincial Police. Shot.

60.   Unnamed. Male. 25. December 13. Maple, Ontario. Toronto Police Service. Shot.

61.   Babak Saidi. Male. 43. December 23. Morrisburg, Ontario. Ontario Provincial Police. Shot.

62.   Unnamed. Male. December 24. Edmonton, Alberta. Edmonton Police Service. In-custody.

63.   Unnamed. Male. 22. December 28. Umiujaq, Quebec. Shot.

64.   Unnamed. Male. 36. December 28. Danford Lake, Quebec. Sûreté du Québec. Shot

65.   Unnamed. Male. No Age Given. December 30. Mississauga, Ontario. Peel Regional Police. Shot.

Invisibles & Disposables: International Migrants' Day - Dec. 17, 2017

By Mike Ma

We, Kathy Dunster, Davina Bhandar and I, attended a wonderful solidarity event organized by Migrante and Migrant Workers' Dignity Association today. It was held on a rainy Sunday afternoon --in honour of International Migrants' Day-- in a program room at the Kensington Branch Library of the VPL. The room was packed with people eager to discuss and learn more about the plight of migrant workers. A few films/videos were shown that chronicles the struggles of Migrants in Canada. This was followed by ample discussion and friendly conversation. There was copious amounts of tasty food and snacks for everyone to nibble on while we watched and discussed. The delicious food was prepared by volunteers and donated by Discovery Organics and Kensington Branch, VPL.

Migrant Workers' Dignity Association is a small but mighty organization and we hope to support and organize with them in the future!

https://dignidadmigrante.ca

https://www.facebook.com/mwdabc/

http://www.migrantebc.com

Trails of Broken Promises: A Settler Government Resurrects Site C

by John Price

In his recent book The Reconciliation Manifesto, the late Indigenous leader Art Manuel spells out how the Liberal government burned its fingers in the handling of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP).

Adopted by the United Nations in 2007, UNDRIP asserts unequivocally that Indigenous peoples “have the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired,” and that governments were bound to obtain “their free, prior, and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them.”

Canada first voted against UNDRIP, along with other settler states—the US, New Zealand and Australia in 2007. Later, after Obama’s administration agreed to its principles, Canada under Harper reluctantly followed suit in 2010.

And so it was no surprise that the Trudeau government when it came to power supported UNDRIP.

However, when Indigenous Affairs minister Carolyn Bennett declared before the UN that Canada would fully embrace codifying UNDRIP into law, many people were ecstatic, thinking she might add some real teeth to UNDRIP in Canada.

Welcome poles at BC Hydro: Credit: J. Price

Not long after, the Liberals hedged their bets, backing off Bennett’s statement to the point where Justice Minister Judy Wilson-Reybould declared “Simplistic approaches such as adopting the United Nations declaration as being Canadian law are unworkable and, respectfully, a political distraction to undertaking the hard work actually required to implement it back home in communities.”

Fast forward to May 30, 2017. The NDP and Green Party signed a 10 page, power-sharing accord (signed by every MLA) that declared: “A foundational piece of this relationship is that both caucuses support the adoption of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission calls-to-action and the Tsilhqot’in Supreme Court decision. We will ensure the new government reviews policies, programs and legislation to determine how to bring the principles of the Declaration into action in BC.”

Six months later, on what some referred to as black Monday (but which might be more appropriately be dubbed ‘Settler Monday’) the NDP government in BC, supported by the Green Party, refused to terminate BC Hydro’s Site C dam on the Peace River despite a scathing BC Utilities Commission report criticizing the project and clear objections from the First Nations most affected.

As it took the decision, the NDP seemed almost hyper-aware of the harm this brings to Indigenous peoples. Thus Horgan’s fumbled attempt at honesty – "I am not the first person to stand before you and disappoint Indigenous people."

Nope.

Source: Wikipedia

But he may be the first person to make a written promise to pledge to abide by three treaties/conventions and then bury them all under a single $10 billion megaproject.

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (TRC) in its reiterates the importance of UNDRIP at least twenty times in its “Calls to Action”. And the Tsilquot’in court decision recognizes Aboriginal title including the right to decide how the land should be used.

Fearful of electoral retribution from business and from BC’s settler society for saddling them with a $2 billion dollar debt with nothing to show for it, the NDP elected instead to saddle First Nations again with continuing cultural and economic dispossession.

As a descendant of a settler family who has been on these Indigenous lands for four generations, I am mortified. I cannot help but recall Bev Sellars’ remonstration to the descendants of early settlers: “I know you are not personally responsible for these laws and policies, but now that you are aware, you have a responsibility to help change the situation. You cannot turn a blind eye to this because, if you do, you will be doing the same thing as your ancestors.” John Horgan should have listened to his family.

As an aspiring environmentalist I am deeply disappointed by this decision. No doubt the federal government will rejoice and use the NDP decision on Site C as justification for its own backing of Kinder Morgan. Even the Green Party is complicit in its failure to make Site C a confidence issue.

And as an historian, I can’t help feel that the past is repeating itself.

Translator Simon Pierre with Cowichan Chief Tsulpi’multw with Chiefs Joe Capilano and Basil David (left to right) in London to deliver the Cowichan Petition, 1906. Credit: British Library Board

Over a hundred years ago Cowichan Chief Charlie Tsulpi’multw, together with Squamish Chief Joe Capilano and Shuswap Chief Basil David, travelled to London to lay before King Edward VII a petition protesting the seizure of their lands and the lack of voting rights. They received platitudes only.

A few years later, Chief Basil David recalled how another BC premier, Richard McBride, “greeted them with a smile, shook them by the hand, and said they were good brothers, and treated them very kindly to their faces, then his actions were like a kick in the back.”

The televised announcement of this decision, with the downcast faces of the cabinet, suggests that there was an intense debate and intense disappointment with the decision, even in the NDP.

But in explaining its decision, the NDP raised the specter that canceling Site C would ‘punish British Columbians’ and put at risk their ability to deliver housing, child care, schools and hospitals for families across BC.”

Does this assertion differ much from Richard McBride’s when he told over 1000 people in Victoria in 1913 that “to look seriously upon the claims of the Indians would mean a revolution in our economic conditions that would be very disastrous indeed.”

Yet can we imagine reconciliation without some sacrifice on the part of those of us who have benefited from the land that rightfully belong to First Nations?

Some in the NDP seem to believe that their good intentions outweigh the long-ignored and trampled rights of Indigenous peoples. They seem to willfully erase the historical debts this province has incurred.

A province like no other, it dispossessed First Nations of their lands, refused to sign treaties, supported cultural genocide, excluded First Nations and Asian Canadians from voting, and attempted to ethnically cleanse Japanese Canadians from the province. Today, First Nations continue to bear the brunt of that legacy.

The debt is long overdue but the NDP seems to think it can avoid it with promises to do better next time. Been there, done that.

Divide and Rule

According to the government statement on Site C, Horgan acknowledged that Site “did not have the support of all Treaty 8 First Nations. “We know this decision is not what some First Nations wanted.”

The sub-text to such assertions is that First Nations are divided and some wanted Site C. Some might conclude that the lack of consensus among First Nations gives a green light for settler society to make the decision for them. Really?

Bill Bennett, former Minister of Energy and Mines revealed how to rig the game: “If it’s all negative impact to them, I don’t think I’d be supporting the project either. All we’re trying to do is put them in a position where because they’re going to be impacted, they’ll have an opportunity to derive benefits from project.”

BC Hydro has two huge welcome poles in the lobby of its headquarters on Dunsmuir Street in downtown Vancouver. Does this mean it supports First Nations?

The fact the government or crown agencies can use their big purses to influence outcomes is, in this instance, adding salt to the wound.

The NDP has done much in the past to support First Nations, just as they did with Japanese Canadians when they supported their right to vote in the 1930s. Yet.

Seventy-five years ago Harold Winch, the leader of the NDP’s predecessor the CCF (Co-operative Commonwealth Federation) went to Victoria to meet with then Premier John Hart. He and the premier then phoned federal Cabinet Minister Ian Mackenzie to demand that something be done about Japanese Canadians on the Coast. The next day the federal government issued Order In Council 1486, beginning the uprooting, dispossession and exile of Japanese Canadians.

Good intentions, sadly, are not enough.

John Price teaches history at the University of Victoria.

Drug User Groups and Community Resilience - Dec. 6, 2017

By Mike Ma

Yesterday I attended a powerful event in Abbotsford organized around the issue of drug user empowerment, the challenge of stigma, and stigma causing practices. The event was titled “Drug User Groups and Community Resilience”.

It was an event organized by Ann Livingston and Erika Thomson and supported by a wide variety of organizations that included:

Contributing Organizations:

·  BC/Yukon Associations of Drug War Survivors (BCYADWS)

·  Vancouver Area Network of Drug Users (VANDU)

·  Rural Empowered Drug User Network (REDUN)

·  BC Association of People on Methadone (BCAPOM)

·  Society of Living Illicit Drug Users (SOLID)

·  Western Aboriginal Harm Reduction Society (WAHRS)

·  SALOME NAOME Association of Patients (SNAP)

·  Canadian Association of People who Use Drugs (CAPUD)

·  Valley Youth Partnership for Engagement and Respect (VYPER)

Supporting Organizations:

·  Fraser Health Authority

·  BC Centre for Disease Control - Peer Engagement and Evaluation Project (PEEP)

·  BC Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General - Opioid Dialogues Fund

·  Overdose Prevention and Education Network (OPEN) - Community Action Initiative

·  Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction (CCSUA)

·  University of the Fraser Valley - Criminology Department

·  Centre for Addiction Research of BC (CARBC)

·  Moms Stop the Harm (MSTH)

Coordinating Organizations:

·  SARA for Women

·  Abbotsford Community Services

·  IMPACT: Youth & Family Substance Use Services

The event was very well attended with over a 150+ participants. Dr. Alexix Crabtree and Ann Livingston facilitated the first half of the day long event with discussions around stigma and substance use. The room was filled with current and past substance users, different service providers, supporting organizations, and some academics.

The event started off-balance as it was moved at the last minute from its original location –at University of Fraser Valley—to the Abbotsford Banquet & Conference Centre. The University’s Security Office had safety concerns with the invitation of so many drug user groups and they mandated the last minute hiring of extra security and ambulance services that the organizers could not afford. This last minute eviction became a point of discussion during the day’s event and was a strong example of the ongoing problem of stigma that people who use drugs face in Abbotsford and surrounding areas.

I had engaging discussions with a variety of participants. Alex S. (ANKORS) talked at length about police services anxious concern with being contaminated by Fentanyl if/when it touches the skin of an officer. Barbara Saunders and Alexandra Unger talked about the death of their loved one – Merlin Saunders—who was killed by Fentanyl on December 27, 2016. Kat Wahamaa spoke eloquently about the loss of her son to Fentanyl and the power of the arts to give voice to those who are voiceless. Garth Mullins, The BC Association of People on Methadone (BCAPOM), was a powerful speaker about the recent poor changes in ORT treatment that has seen methadone replaced by the inferior “methadose” because the College of Pharmacists has a new pharma provider. Jordon Westfall, Canadian Association of People who use Drugs (CAPUD), was in attendance and gave a presentation about the human rights of people who use drugs and the necessity of respecting and listening to users during this Fentanyl crisis. Dr. Jane Buxton, Centre for Disease Control, gave an informative talk about the myths of drug use and Fentanyl and helped unpack some of the anxiety that some police have regarding Fentanyl contamination of officers. She also unpacked the Good Samaritan Drug Overdose Act, and I learned that "volunteers" need never worry about liability issues and should never fear prosecution!

At the conclusion of the morning session, the BC/Yukon Drug War Survivors presented Harm Reduction Hero Awards to Ann Livingston, Erika Thomson, and Jane Buxton.

It was great attending this event in Abbotsford. It is not something I would naturally associate with this community. It gave hope that attitudes and services really can change and improve. Small steps.

"Confidential Informant" unpacked - Charges dropped vs. Jamie Bacon

By Carroll Boydell

On December 1st, 2017, charges of first degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder of Corey Lal were stayed against Jaime Bacon. Lal was among six people killed just over 10 years ago in the Balmoral Tower in Surrey, BC, referred to in the media as the Surrey Six killings. One issue cited in the abbreviated BC Supreme Court judgment was the handling of a confidential informant by RCMP who is relevant to that case.

A confidential informant is a person who provides information to law enforcement officials and whose identify is protected. Not all informants receive the privilege of confidentiality. In order to be a confidential informant, the person must request that privilege and receive some sort of assurance by police that it will be conferred upon them.

On the one hand, the police and the Crown must handle and manage confidential informants carefully. They must protect the identity and safety of those who provide critical information about crime to police and to preserve the importance of the public’s civic duty to inform about crime. Once informer privilege is established to exist, this cannot be breached by the police or by Crown. Therefore, steps must be taken by police to notify Crown of witnesses who have privilege of confidentiality so that during court proceedings, the identity of informants will not be revealed. Obviously, informer privilege can affect what information can be divulged at trial and thus affect the progression of court proceedings.

On the other hand, though informants can provide critical information to the legal adjudicative process, some informants (specifically, in-custody or jailhouse informants) have been described by Commission Peter Cory as “the most deceitful and deceptive group of witnesses known to frequent the courts”. Given the potential for some informants to provide false or misleading information, as well as the secrecy surrounding the use of confidential informants, the level of care taken in their management is critical the functioning of a fair and just legal system.

As many of the documents in this case are sealed, the specific issue that arose in the handling of the informant is not known publicly. Bacon remains incarcerated awaiting trial set to begin in April 2018 for counselling the murder of an individual in a separate case.

Restorative Justice Week

By Alana Abramson

This month we organized the first restorative justice week event at KPU (Nov. 24, 2017). Restorative Justice Week is a week in November --across Canada—where the work of restorative justice is celebrated and shared. One of the goals of the event is public education, helping provide information, and allowing people to know that restorative justice practices ARE real options.

I loved the diversity of the audience and this was one of the things that made it a great event. I would say that about half of the group were made up of students and the other half were community members and/or victims of serious crime.  There were also people who work in the criminal justice system (e.g. corrections, probation) who attended and participated. The diversity of the group is what I had hoped for because I believe KPU should be a hub of discourse where this kind of important cross dialogue and diversity of perspective can co-exist and thrive.

That was a real highlight for me: that people chose to spend their Friday night listening to these powerful stories.

I also attended the National Restorative Justice conference in Ottawa. It was the largest restorative justice conference that Canada has seen with 380 people in attendance and many others on a wait list. I presented my doctoral research as well as a project I've been working on for 2.5 years to develop victim sensitive standards for restorative justice practice in BC. Currently, there are no standards of practice –so it is a bit of a free for all-- so I've been working to develop standards of ethical practice that make sure the needs of victims are taken care of.

And that ties in with our local event because the Friday event discussed the needs of victims and the Ottawa event focused on restorative justice as one of the ways such needs can be satisfied.

World AIDS Day 2017

The Social Justice Centre at KPU fully supports the Canadian Coalition to Reform HIV Criminalization’s (CCRHC) Community Consensus Statement

On World AIDS Day 2016, federal Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould acknowledged that the “over-criminalization of HIV non-disclosure” contributes to stigma and undermines public health, and that the criminal justice system has not caught up to the existing science. Yet people living with HIV in Canada are singled out for criminal prosecutions, convictions, and imprisonment for allegedly not disclosing their HIV status to sexual partners—even when there is little or no possibility of transmission.

Today, on World AIDS Day 2017 we encourage you to learn more about the criminalization of HIV non-disclosure in Canada and to take action.

The Canadian Coalition to Reform HIV Criminalization’s (CCRHC) Community Consensus Statement

The Statement has been signed by over 150 HIV and human rights organizations across Canada.

You can find a full copy of the Community Consensus Statement and FAQs here: http://www.hivcriminalization.ca/community-consensus-statement/

What does the Community Consensus Statement call for?

The statement declares that, in accordance with international guidance, criminal prosecutions should be limited to cases of actual, intentional transmission of HIV. To this end, the endorsers of the statement across the country call for the following:

• federal and provincial Attorneys-General should develop sound prosecutorial guidelines to preclude unjust HIV prosecutions;

• the federal government should reform the Criminal Code to limit the unjust use of the criminal law against people living with HIV, including removing HIV non-disclosure from the reach of sexual assault laws; and

• federal, provincial and territorial governments should support resources and training to address misinformation, fear and stigma related to HIV, for all actors in the criminal justice system, including police, Crown prosecutors and judges.

Take action!

Send an email to federal Justice Minister and the provincial and territorial Attorneys General using this link http://www.hivcriminalization.ca/take-action/

Send a tweet with a link to the Community Consensus Statement to provincial and territorial justice ministers. Each minister’s Twitter handle is listed below.

• British Columbia: Hon. David Eby, @Dave_Eby
• Alberta: Hon. Kathleen Ganley, @KathleenGanley
• Saskatchewan: Hon. Don Morgan, Q.C., @SaskMLA
• Manitoba: Hon. Heather Stefanson, @Min_Stefanson
• Ontario: Hon. Yasir Naqvi, @Yasir_Naqvi
• Quebec: Stéphanie Vallée, @ValeeStephanie
• New Brunswick: Hon. Denis Landry, @Gov_NB  
• Nova Scotia: Hon. Mark Furey, @MarkFurey1
• Prince Edward Island: Hon. Wade MacLauchlan @WadeMacLauchlan,
• Newfoundland & Labrador: Hon. Andrew Parsons, @andrew_parsons1
• Yukon: Hon. Tracy-Anne McPhee, @YukonGov
• Northwest Territories: Louis Sebert, @AssemblyNWT
• Nunavut: Hon. Jeannie Ehaloak, @GOVofNUNAVUT

We Demand an Apology Network - Press Release

For Immediate Release – Nov. 27, 2017. For contact information see the back of this page

The We Demand an Apology Network (WDAN)

Welcoming the Apology and the agreement on redress as first steps

The Canadian Government’s apology represents a historic event for the LGBTQ2S+ community. However, it is only the first step in addressing the needs of Canadian LGBTQ2S+ people. It has been a long time coming, resulting in many who needed this apology to no longer be with us. WDAN, which consists of people who were directly affected by the national security Purge campaigns, supporters and researchers, has pushed for a formal apology since 2015. WDAN is united in its support for a comprehensive and broad ranging official state apology and redress process and for the expunging of convictions for those convicted of consensual homosexual offences before and after 1969.

As of November 25, an agreement in principle on the redress process was announced and will be elaborated as the terms of settlement are developed. If the apology is not linked to the necessary redress measures, it will be only symbolic in character. In order not to appear symbolic, the redress must be inclusive of all people affected by the Purge. Thus far, no clarity exists on what offences and what time period the legislation to be introduced on Nov. 28th regarding the expungement of criminal code convictions for homosexual acts will cover. 

We are asking that the apology be:

·         a clear, official, comprehensive public state apology acknowledging that the Purge campaign affected thousands of people in multiple ways and was sanctioned at the highest levels of the Canadian state.

·         broad and comprehensive, covering all of those affected by the Purge in the public service, RCMP, CSIS, and the military; including all who were discharged or forced to resign, blocked in their career advancement or whose positions disappeared; denied security clearances; interrogated and pressured to inform about others; assaulted, whether sexually or otherwise; all women who experienced interrogations about their sexual activities by male military officers; all those from whom the RCMP or Military police tried to obtain information about who was gay or lesbian; all partners, friends, and families of those directly affected; and all those who took their own lives as a result of this Purge campaign. The government must acknowledge that all LGBTQ2S+ people in these institutions lived in fear of sanctions, and may still do to this day.

·         a recognition of the huge cost to people’s health and careers.

·         a recognition of how this Purge campaign intersected with gender and racist forms of harassment and discrimination in the military and public service. 

·         an acknowledgement of the ‘fruit machine’ that involved the Security Panel, Health and Welfare, the RCMP and National Defence in the 1960s, which was designed to ‘detect’ homosexuals so they could be denied employment or purged.

·         an acknowledgement of the surveillance against movement and community organizations for challenging state national security policies. The RCMP surveillance campaign in the 1970s and early 1980s included many gay and lesbian organizations, and even lesbian and gay community dances. This was related to and often part of a broader surveillance campaign directed against the feminist and other progressive social movements and communities.

·         a recognition that all its security institutions (e.g., RCMP, CSIS, military police) amassed confidential information on thousands of Canadians relating to the Purge campaign. The government must make sure that these files are never used against those named in them. The people named in these documents must have the option of viewing these records, for closure. They should be the only people who will decide what will happen to these files.

·         accompanied by a commitment that all documents relating to the organization of this national security Purge campaign be publicly released. However, this will NOT include the names or personal files of any person who were purged, investigated, suspected, or directly and indirectly affected.

WDAN Media contacts for Tuesday, Nov. 28th following the apology announcement are:

Lynne Gouliquer (705) 477-5609 / Gary Kinsman, (647) 385-4221 / Frank Létourneau (902) 225-8198

Diane Pitre (613)-355-6201 / Carmen Poulin (506) 440-2858 / Martine Roy  (514) 246-8411 /

Simon Thwaites  (902) 324 2530/ 

"Under Colonial Occupation" - A Talk by Lawrence Paul Yuxweluptun

Hosted by the SFU Institute for the Humanities

Report by Jeff Shantz, Social Justice Centre, KPU

On Friday, November 10, 6:00PM–8:00PM, at SFU Harbour Centre, I attended a forceful and challenging presentation by Salish and Okanagan artist Lawrence Paul Yuxweluptun. He wasted no time in engaging his audience, which seemed largely composed of settler art students.

Yuxweluptun by stating that Guantanamo Bay already exists in Canada—in reserves. He continued that that is how Indigenous people view them—as colonial confrontation camps.

He also stated that he does not know what freedom means and he cannot go back far enough in his community history to ask an ancestor who knows what freedom means.

On the eve of Remembrance Day Yuxweluptun noted that more children aged 4-19 were killed in residential schools than Indigenous fighters in both world wars. He suggested that for Indigenous people their veterans include children who survived a war being waged against them

He asked his grandma what the worst thing about residential schools was. Her answer was dentist day. Then, when they ran out of anaesthetic they tied children to the chair and drilled their teeth anyway.

He said that his father was not legally allowed to go past grade 12. His dad got scurvy at residential school. They tied him to a chair, put his head in a brace and pulled all his teeth out. Every move at the school was regimented and regulated. He went from residential school to public school and it was going from one segregation to another.

Later in his talk Yuxweluptun would focus on the Indian Act which he identifies as the ongoing problem today. This is explicitly white supremacist legislation. He noted that as a person he is a ward of the Crown. In striking terms he noted that Indigenous people are under house arrest forever. Indigenous people are exiled on their own lands. They are “at home” but do not feel like being at home.

This makes Indigenous people and setters enemies. He then asked: “Are we still at war?” Then asked if he was a threat to settlers and their agenda.

He stated that Indigenous youth are being marched to prison. Yet most do not finish grade 12. He then suggested that the government will have to build more prisons if that is their continued practice around schooling.

In his words it is a system of fascism. Settlers do not see him as a human being. Indigenous people are left to suffer what he calls colonizational stress disorder.

It is a usufructory relationship. Usufruct—they take it, use it, and benefit from it. The province and corporations have made billions of dollars from unceded Indigenous lands. They could give one million dollars to every Indigenous person right now. The question is when are they going to give it back. If Canada does not want Indigenous people, it can let them leave—settlers can have the cities and Indigenous communities will take it from there he suggested tongue in cheek.

Every tree cut down in Indigenous territory is subsidized. It has been stolen. It has never been paid for. Every company in British Columbia has been given a free ride. Forestry has massively damaged the salmon populations. There is very little old growth forest left. Kill the salmon, starve the Indian. Yuxweluptun asked his audience to consider that if it only took 500 years to 500 million salmon, how long will it take to kill off the last one million left? The salmon are health care. People protecting the salmon and the waters are protecting their health care.

Yuxweluptun argued that we do not need the Kinder Morgan pipeline. And we do not need dams in British Columbia anymore. When damage occurs, shareholders sell off.

He identified ongoing problems with forestry management. He noted that many settlers resent Indigenous hunters hunting year round. So British Columbia settlers were given hunting licenses without regard.

In identifying the need for direct action and a new economy Yuxweluptun reflected that there could be a shutting down of highways and infrastructure until there is a redistribution and a move to a sharing economy. If not—roadblock it all. In his view we need to teach people to take care of a 100 mile radius of themselves. And he called on the audience to “take care of a 100 mile radius of yourself.”

Yuxweluptun identified ongoing white supremacy through the RCMP, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, forest management, and park rangers. In his opinion the Salish design on Vancouver Police Department cars is racial profiling given how police target his people.

Yuxweluptun continued that not all Indigenous people want to settle land claims. Why would they sell it to settlers? Under comprehensive land claims they would extinguish their rights. They do not want to and why should they trust settlers? He notes that they cannot even get a moratorium on logging trucks in British Columbia. There is, he said, a movement among Natives to not settle land claims but did not discuss debates and viewpoints.

People do not want to settle land claims when they are still waiting for back rent over hundreds of years. Yuxweluptun joked that if forced to settle land claims he will bring in the biggest grizzly bear he can find and say—“make him sign it.” He will only sign it after the bear does. He continued that there is not enough money to settle land claims.

Reserves are being contaminated. They are being outgrown in population size. Reserves are too contained. There is not enough land for the population. Indigenous communities are the fastest growing groups in the Canadian state context. If government is not willing to end the reserve system then, he suggested, blockade all the roads.

Yuxweluptun noted that because he is not part of the formal “Native” organizations he does not have to shut up. As an artist his role is to be free. He stressed that while he is Salish and Okanagan, he is only able to register under one under the Indian Act.

Wrapping in up Yuxweluptun referenced renaming campaigns to remove area and street names away from corrupt industrial leaders and land controllers. He ended again with a call for the elimination of the Indian Act.