Blog

Excellent piece in the newest issue of The United Church Observer about the current ideological battle over building more prisons in Canada.

This debate could not matter more directly to Aboriginal people. For one, they are disproportionately represented in Canadian jails — in 2006, Correctional Service Canada reported that, “while Aboriginal peoples comprise 2.7 percent of the adult Canadian population, approximately 18.5 percent of offenders now serving federal sentences are of First Nations, Métis and Inuit ancestry.” These percentages get even more distorted in western Canada, where most Aboriginal people reside.

Authored by Patricia Clarke, “Politics and prisons” cuts to the heart of the matter:

When public finances are in the red and other programs are being cut back, spending on prisons raises three questions: Is crime increasing? Will tough-on-crime policies, more jail time for more people, control it? And why are we willing to spend so much to put people in prison and so little to keep them out?

As Clarke methodically explores every side’s answer to the first two questions, I found it was the third question that perhaps has the most to say about today’s cynical, political climate. One fact cited by the article really struck me: how, “in every culture and every age … young men between 14 and 29 are largely responsible” for crime. Yet I cannot readily recall any anti-crime policy that targeted its approach to the specific needs and circumstances of this 16-year window of pre- and early-adulthood. As I’ve written before, I’m compelled by arguments that see crime as a last, less-than-lucrative, resort for most of the people who engage in it. To see energies expended so vigorously over the incarceration versus the education of these men probably tells me all I need to know about where the federal government’s priorities stand.

Thanks again to Ms. Clarke for her thought-provoking work.

Am I alone in my curiosity as to whether this new “Panel of Experts … to improve elementary and secondary education outcomes for First Nation children who live on-reserve” will actually come up with anything especially new?

Recently announced by Indian Affairs Canada along with the Assembly of First Nations, the panel “will travel across Canada to hear views and opinions on how best we can improve and reform the governance and accountability of the First Nation education system.” It will then deliver its findings sometime in the summer of 2011.

Forgive me, but didn’t the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples do that already, like, 14 years ago?

Indeed, the Commission itself noted how, after reviewing decades’ worth of studies on Aboriginal education (22 reports in all), a consensus of sorts has emerged on what is to be done to make things better, including:

• Aboriginal control of education

• School courses in Aboriginal studies, including history, language and culture

• Training and hiring of more Aboriginal teachers

• Inclusion of Aboriginal parents, elders and educators in the education of Aboriginal children

• Special support programs for Aboriginal students, for example, counselling, substance abuse education, remedial education and retention programs

• Aboriginal language instruction from pre-school to post-secondary education

• The resolution of federal, provincial and territorial jurisdictional conflicts over responsibilities, or recognition by the federal government of its funding responsibility for education

• Training Aboriginal adults for teaching, para-professional and administrative positions in education

• More emphasis on pre-school and kindergarten education

So, will this newest ‘Panel of Experts’ substantively help to move the prospects of First Nations children forward — or simply re-invent the wheel? Stay tuned.

In yesterday’s post, we told you about new research that takes a critical look at differences in news coverage of Aboriginal women and non-Aboriginal women who are missing/murdered.

Kristen Gilchrist examined six such cases falling between the years of 2003–2005. Three of the women were of Aboriginal descent, three were not. Her research reveals sharp contrasts in coverage between the two groups.

We asked Gilchrist to talk more about her methodology, her take on mainstream newsrooms, and what they should do to remedy this apparent gap in media attention.

How did you go about choosing your six cases and why?

A lot of the time, we hear, ‘The women in the Downtown Eastside were sex trade workers, prostitutes or drug addicts, so what do you expect?’

The media is not going to cover it the same. I wanted to select cases where we couldn’t fall back on the same stereotypes as the Aboriginal women being irresponsible, or they’re runaways, or they’re drug addicts. I really wanted to be able to call them ‘respectable.’ All these women were deeply tied to families, they all had jobs, they were in school, or had all of these qualities we would expect from the representation of the ‘good white woman.’

In your paper you talked about ‘newsmaking’ and ‘newsworthiness.’ What do you think needs to happen in mainstream newsrooms when it comes to handling stories about missing/murdered Aboriginal women?

I think we need to really start breaking down and looking at this denial that there is something going on. When we talk about news production or news readiness, a lot of it is based on the value judgments that are made by editors or journalists about what their readers want to know about. There is a political decision at play here.

The framework of mainstream media also needs to be considered as, most often, it is made up predominantly of the white, male, and middle-class, hanging onto this colonial myth that Canada is this equal place. Will mainstream media ever get to a point of critically thinking about the socio-historical or colonial contexts?

How do you think the media is going to react to your research?

I never considered what might be the media’s reaction to my research. I do suspect if any, it will be similar to racial profiling. Their position will be: ‘We are not a racist organization, we have women staffers, or we have an Aboriginal person on staff within this mainstream media organization’ — it is typical stuff I expect to see and, that is, to negate the weight of it.

Despite this, I recognize, since the time I submitted my research, I notice there has been a huge shift, a positive shift in the amount of coverage. We are seeing a more compassionate portrayal of Aboriginal women now.

In your research you question whether the lack of coverage creates inattention by police to the victimization of Aboriginal women. Do you believe this to be true?

It’s more an anecdotal statement, but I feel these things are interlinked. The police rely on the media for help in their cases. They will draw on the media as an investigative tool.

For instance, if the police are saying, ‘This is a case we really need to investigate,’ and the media is saying that, then the public certainly gets that message. I think that really plays into the mobilizing of public responses; the public are engaged in searches themselves. They are outraged and writing letters to the editors, talking amongst themselves, to their friends, about these issues. Yet when it comes to the Aboriginal women who have gone missing, the police are not taking these issues serious enough.

What’s next for you?

My research has shifted slightly. I am still looking at missing and murdered women but now exploring it in a more positive way. I am taking the approach of looking at the movement, the activism that is taking place within the communities, at the social and government levels. For instance, how far have we come since Sisters in Spirit started to the release of the Amnesty report.

Gilchrist expects to complete the research for her PhD by December 2011. For more information, she can be reached at gilchri@connect.carleton.ca.