mediaINDIGENA

Blog

  • Has Ontario court ruling made life safer or riskier for Aboriginal sex workers?

    A potentially divisive debate is underway among women’s advocates after a provincial court recently struck down some of the laws restricting prostitution in Canada. And as the Toronto Star‘s Antonia Zerbisias writes, “even Aboriginal women’s groups have clashed, not only with mainstream feminist activists but also with each other.”

    On Sept. 28, 2010, in the case of Bedford v. Canada, Justice Susan Himel of the Ontario Superior Court declared three sections of the Criminal Code unconstitutional (summarized here by Zerbisias):

    • Section 210, which prohibits maintaining, owning or being an “inmate” of a “common bawdy-house.” As a result, brothels will not be illegal.
    • Section 212(1)(j), which affects those living “wholly or in part on the avails of prostitution of another person.” With this struck down, prostitutes are able to support dependents.
    • Section 213(1)(c), best known as the “communicating law,” which prevents street prostitutes from screening clients before putting themselves at risk.

    In a joint statement released the day after the decision by the Aboriginal Women’s Action Network (AWAN) together with Asian Women Coalition Ending Prostitution and South Asian Women Against Male Violence, the authors asserted that the Ontario Court “abandons Aboriginal women and women of colour to pimps.”

    Jeannette Corbiere Lavell is the President of the Native Women’s Association of Canada. In a statement released by NWAC, she says

    “The decision itself acknowledges systemic injustice but nowhere mentions the overrepresentation of Aboriginal women in the sex industry. This decision glosses over the fact that Aboriginal women, women in low income situations, those suffering from mental health and addictions issues are working in prostitution because of systemic racism and classism, as well as a fundamental power imbalance and issues of inequality, which is at the root of prostitution.”

    But there have been Aboriginal voices raised in support of Justice Himel’s decision, most notably, the Native Youth Sexual Health Network. In a press release, the Network says that, while it agrees with NWAC that the Ontario judgment fails to address inequality and racism facing Aboriginal women, the ruling still “has the potential to actually mean less violence” for those women:

    If sex workers are able to live off of the money they earn, they may be able to afford shelter, better provide for their families, or be able to hire someone else, such as a driver, as protection. If they are able to openly communicate about sex work, they may be able to negotiate safer working conditions (such as condom use) with a client or report violence without fear of being arrested. If keeping a bawdy-house is no longer illegal, then sex workers may have access to indoor working conditions, decreasing the chances of street-based violence. If police are given less opportunity to arrest people on the basis of these laws, it means less Indigenous people that are incarcerated because of sex work.

    It seems pretty clear this is ultimately headed for the Supreme Court of Canada. But even they won’t necessarily end this debate, just as laws against prostitution have so far failed to end the practice.

    Former sex trade workers (itself a contentious term in some circles) have taken passionate and compelling stands for and against the Himel decision, complicating matters further. And, to be perfectly honest, I’m currently on the fence over this one, as I try to wade through the claims and counterclaims made in the name of Aboriginal women (and some men) on this issue.

    What about you? Have you made your mind up on this? In your opinion, has this Ontario court ruling made life safer or riskier for Aboriginal sex workers? I encourage you to share below.

  • First look at ‘LAST CALL INDIAN’

    The documentary Last Call Indian begins with a simple premise captured in its very first shot. The narrator’s voice begins as the camera pulls back from an empty bed fitted with railings in a small sunlit bedroom. It’s a sick room. The empty bed speaks volumes.

    Then a woman’s voice emerges, soft and clear: “I’ve never asked myself what binds me to my community, to my culture. I’ve never had to. It seemed obvious.” In that one shot, and in those few words, the story begins as all good stories do — with a question, an inference, because we know that nothing is obvious when it comes to culture or identity.

    Last Call Indian
    Opening scene from Last Call Indian

    For Sonia Bonspille Boileau, our host and storyteller, the “obvious” question becomes a tangled ball of string complicated by her own family’s history which has been warped by the Shingwauk Indian Residential School, by stereotypes and racism neatly bundled into Canada’s Indian Act, along with constant pressure to assimilate — sometimes even from her own kind.

    I’m not going to give away the journey taken with this young Mohawk woman, except to say that it’s worth the price of admission. If you ever wanted a glimpse into the havoc wreaked upon an entire peoples’ soul by the Indian Act and Canada’s on-going war to eradicate the “Indian in the Indian child,” then hop on board. There’s no way to really understand that havoc logically, intellectually, because Canada’s policies defy rational explanation. It must be felt to approach any sense of understanding of the pain and confusion it has and continue to inflict. This film takes the viewer on only one part of that emotional journey, but it does so with power and grace.

    The camera work, direction and visual storytelling are superb. Graphics are used sparingly and to wonderful effect; for example, to illustrate the stupidity of and confusion sown by Canada’s Indian Act which assigns nearly as many categories of race — Indianness — as South Africa’s former apartheid laws. If you find yourself laughing at this point in the film, don’t worry. I did too. The choice is to laugh or find an Indian Affairs official to swear at.

    From what I understand, this film is making waves at film festivals like the one coming up in San Francisco. Not too shabby for a little Mohawk girl with a big decision looming about identity and culture and whether it will be shaped by the very policies she obviously finds so bizarre, destructive and illogical. Good luck. Regardless which road you choose, you did good.

  • AUDIO: MI & STREETZ discuss Winnipeg mayor no-show, Sisters in Spirit vigils, Islamic & Indigenous, ‘Mohawk Girls’ TV

    Has it been a week already? MEDIA INDIGENA was back on STREETZ 104.7 FM — for its weekly Tuesday talk, heard first live on-air and on-line at noon central, 1 pm eastern — and this time, MI’s Rick Harp and THE WORD’s Lady V chatted about what they would have asked Winnipeg mayoral candidate Sam Katz had he not backed out hours before his scheduled in-studio sit-down, Canada-wide vigils in support of Sisters in Spirit, our story about Aboriginal people who’ve taken up Islam, and our mutual excitement about the new APTN show “Mohawk Girls.”

    MI on STREETZ (Oct. 5, 2010): [audio:https://mediaindigena.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/MI-StreetzFM-Oct5-10.mp3|titles=MI-StreetzFM-Oct5-10]

    [ Image via retrevo.com ]

  • SLIDESHOW: Sisters in Spirit vigil on Canada’s Parliament Hill

    As we told you in a previous post, vigils for hundreds of missing and murdered Aboriginal women were held in over 70 communities across Canada on Monday.

    Martha Troian (Lac Seul Anishinabe) was at the vigil held on the steps of Canada’s Parliament and produced this multimedia presentation for MEDIA INDIGENA.

    Sisters in Spirit 2010 from MEDIA INDIGENA on Vimeo.

  • The likely consequences of ‘Truth in Sentencing Act’ for Indigenous people

    There are apx. 20,000 First Nations, Métis and Inuit inmates housed within provincial jails at any given time in this country.

    And according to StatsCan, while Indigenous people represent 4% of the population, they make up 24% of the general prison population. Incredibly, Aboriginal women are 28 times more likely to go to jail than non-Indigenous women.

    One of the most significant statistics amid this disastrous data revolves around remand custody. That’s where people who can’t receive or afford bail are held in jail from the time of their initial arrest right up until their trial.

    Data from the Correctional Investigator of Canada Howard Sapers shows that from 2001 to 2007, the number of remanded Indigenous people increased by 23%. In fact, that research suggested that First Nations, Métis and Inuit people “in pre-sentence custody are more likely to be denied bail, more likely to be held in higher security conditions and serve longer periods of time in remand custody.”

    All of this would be exacerbated by the Conservative government’s new law and order legislation, the Truth in Sentencing Act. At least, that’s the implication of an internal Justice Canada report made public by the Canadian Press and the Globe and Mail last week.

    Also known as Bill C-25, the proposed Act would, if passed, restrict the ability of a sentencing judge in how they assign credit-for-time-served in remand to an offender. As a result, because Indigenous people have been shown to spend disproportionate amounts of time in pre-trial custody, they would easily be among the hardest hit by this new legislation, say critics quoted by the Globe. In effect, they’ll serve even more time in jail than they already do now.

    Critics believe Bill C-25 would also rapidly increase the prison population. So in addition to longer sentences, even more First Nations, Métis and Inuit men and women would find themselves incarcerated under this law.

    Considering the mountain of research dating back thirty years on the estrangement of Indigenous peoples from any semblance of justice in Canada, this legislation is all the more maddening. Between 1984 and the present, there have been dozens of reports, inquires, and studies on this over-representation: from the 1999 Supreme Court Gladue decision (which noted a “crushing failure” of the justice system) to Howard Sapers’ 2006 Report finding of “systematic discrimination.”

    Not only is it impossible for the current government to be ignorant of this consensus, but, the Globe article noted, it was aware of the Justice Canada report before introducing the legislation. In fact, they kept it secret!

    So considering all of this, it becomes clear that the ongoing reality for Indigenous people vis-a-vis the Canadian justice system continues to be one stubbornly characterized by injustice.