Over-representation
is not solely a correctional responsibility but the lack of programming
that impacts negatively on both release potential and recidivism are
clearly factors. Factors prevalent in the earlier stages of the criminal
justice system also contribute to the over-representation of Aboriginal
prisoners in the prairies.4 These factors include by way of example:
over-policing (Hamilton and Sinclair, 1991: 595-596) over-charging (102),
an insensitive and uninformed legal professional (102, 364-368), sentencing
(see the discussion in R. v Galdue) and structural
barriers in the courts (Hamilton and Sinclair, 1991: 349-387). Remembering
that over-representation is the result of systemic factors and not evidence
of intrinsic Aboriginal criminality, then the systemic factors which
lead to over-representation must be the source of our amelioration efforts.
Keeping Aboriginal women out of prisons, therefore, must be the first
priority.
Also essential to
establishing discussion5 is an understanding of who Aboriginal peoples
are. The term Aboriginal peoples, as defined in Canada’s constitution,
includes the Indian (registered and not), the Inuit and the Metis.6
None of these terms reflect the tribal identifies of Aboriginal people,
particularly the so-called Indians, who may be Mi’kmaq, Mohawk, Cree,
Saulteaux, Dene and so on. Feminist historian Sally Roesch Wagner noted:
To fill the voids
left by silence and misinformation, we begin with basic questions.
For example, where did the name Indian originate? What we find is
that Indian stands as a singular example of the arrogance
of someone who believed he had the right – by virtue of a presumed
cultural superiority – to name another group of people. One interpretation
is that Christopher Columbus, not altogether a first–rate navigator,
apparently thought he was in the Indies and deduced that the people
greeting him must be Indians. Another version holds that he acknowledged
the nearsacred state of the Native people he encountered with the
name in dios. Whatever the reasons for the name, Columbus believed
he had the right to name the people, as he believed he had the right
to claim their land. Did it ever occur to him to ask them what they
called themselves? Would he have had ears to hear their answer? Each
successive wave of European conquerors and settlers played the naming
game. They gave names of their choosing to Native nations (such as
Sioux and Iroquois) and Christian names to indigenous children forced
into their boarding schools in order to “Christianize and civilize”
them (2001: 21-22).7
4. |
This is to say that the problem of over-representation is greater than the mandate of the Correctional Services of Canada. |
5. |
The
goal of this paper is not to establish the documentary
basis on which a human rights complaint can be sustained. Rather,
it strives to establish an appropriate framework for the analysis
of that evidence as it pertains to Aboriginal women. |
6. |
Although
Canada’s constitution may not be the most culturally accurate
source for this definition, it is the legal one. For further concerns
about naming see: Karlene Faith, Unruly Women (Vancouver:
Press Gang Publishers), 186-189; and, Patricia Monture-Angus,
Thunder in My Soul (Halifax: Fernwood Publishing), 2-3. |
7. |
Dr.
Wagner continues on the same page:
Self-naming
is, of course, a critical part of the process of creating a diverse
culture. The cultural change in names may happen in stages, as
we work our way through levels of disrespect. Small animal and
fruit names for women are no longer acceptable. We have given
up saying “girl” in addressing a fifty-year-old woman and “boy”
for a fifty-year-old African American man. “Nigger” and later
“Negro” have both been dropped. The self-defined term “Black”
proudly reclaimed the very physical characteristic that Euro Americans
used as the basis for enslaving people. “African American” emerged
later as a more appropriate term for establishing a nation of
diversity.
Native American
served to replace the conquering name, Indian, by clarifying who
was here first. Some now prefer to use Native, indigenous, or
First Nation. Others suggest another term, American Indian, to
firmly hold the government to nation-to-nation treaties made with
American Indian nations (22). |
|