Editor’s note: On Friday, a crowded Saskatchewan courtroom heard the verdict of the 12-person jury in the trial of 56-year-old Gerald Stanley, the white farmer charged in the 2016 shooting death of Red Pheasant First Nation member Colten Boushie. The decision to find Stanley ‘not guilty’ of the second-degree murder of 22-year-old Boushie set off a firestorm of reaction across social media, on both sides of the case. Here, Indigenous entrepreneur and commentator Robert Jago shares his perspective on the verdict. A version of this piece originally appeared on mediaINDIGENA.
There is a video from outside the courthouse in Battleford, Sask., last night. It shows a screen which is split in four and displaying the courtroom, the jury box, the judge, and the accused in the Gerald Stanley case.
As the verdict is announced, there are gasps and shouts; Colten Boushie’s mother cries out. Bailiffs grab Gerald Stanley and run out of the frame, and to a waiting truck under heavy RCMP protection.
In the jury box, a dark-haired woman in a short dress and long hooded sweater jumps up as Stanley passes, and runs off camera herself — getting away from the family and the assembled Indians in the courtroom.
I would like to think that she ran because she was ashamed of what she had just done. But the likelier answer is that she ran for the same reason that she and her fellow members of the all-white jury found Gerald Stanley not guilty of killing 22-year-old Colten Boushie. They were afraid of Indians, especially angry Indians.
And let’s dispense, for a moment, with those words “First Nations” and “Indigenous,” because those imply respect, and progress. Today, it is clear that we’re still “Indians.”
“Fights with Native kids were a too-common part of [my friend’s childhood] experience … It’s no overstatement to point out that such kids were, on average, rougher than the white kids, or that they were touchier . . .”
That is a quote from the best-selling non-fiction book in Canada this week, Jordan Peterson’s 12 Rules for Life. Natives are rougher, touchier. The Indians are restless — run.
Some people in this country are worried about schools engaging in social engineering to manipulate children into holding certain political views. They’re right to be worried. It is school that taught that woman when to run. It was newspapers, TV, films, it was books. It was every comment and joke that taught her to run; it was the Premier of her province urging “calm” after the verdict. It was what her boss told her at her part-time job — "Watch that Indian over there, I think he’s stealing." She was taught to run, and to think that Indians, especially young male Indians, are scary subconsciously, it sunk in, that they’re wild and dangerous animals.
If a fox is stealing chickens, it’s not enough to chase it away, you
need to put it down. Gerald Stanley put Colten Boushie down at
point-blank range, and because these jurors were raised to see us as
scary animals, to think of us as wild “wagon burners” — a slur you hear
on the Prairies — it was easy for them to see why he was justified. "It
could have been me and my family," they undoubtedly thought — and who
wouldn’t do anything to protect their families?
had a family, and one that looked like those of the all-white jury.
Colten Boushie didn’t have a family. Indians don’t have “families.” They
have braves and squaws, chiefs and papooses, bitches and thugs — but
not a mother and father like the Stanleys are.
When you hear the
mother of a deceased child wail in agony for the verdict you’ve brought
down, you hang your head, and quietly and respectfully leave. On the
other hand, when you get between a wild animal and its mother, you run.
That woman in the jury reacted like Colten Boushie’s mother was a
charging bear, not a grieving mother.
Don’t say that this is
about Saskatchewan, or the defence, or those racists over there. And
don’t say that Canada failed Indigenous people — Canada just failed. It
wasn’t a mob of racists that released a killer onto the streets — it was
12 regular Canadians.
These are Canadians who have lived their
entire lives hearing excuses for why they don’t need to care about
Indians. Why care about tainted drinking water on reserves? "Those
greedy chiefs are probably taking the money, those Indians need to sort
themselves out first." Why care about the crisis in Thunder Bay? "It's
Indians killing Indians, Indians drinking too much and falling in the
water, what are we supposed to do?" For every problem that Indians face
in this country, there is a ready excuse, a fig leaf, to shield Canada
The defence presented a case that centered around a
magic bullet. It is a hard story to believe, but you don’t have to
believe it. You don’t need a hard sell to get an addict to buy your
meth. And you don’t need a hard sell to push a fig leaf on people who
don’t know how to live without one.
If you don’t know how it is
that so many reserves live in poverty, or why the prisons are full of
our people, or why there are so many suicides, boil-water advisories,
why there are so many Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women, why any of
the dysfunction and failure and tragedy that is the "Indian Problem" in
this country exists, look for your answer in the Gerald Stanley verdict.
find Gerald Stanley guilty would be to find him responsible for his
actions — actions which resulted in the death of Colten Boushie, an
Indian. But we don’t do that in this country. White Canada is not to be
held responsible for what has happened to Indians.
that teaches you to run also teaches you that you’re the good guys in
this story, and that everything that has befallen our Indian race was
inevitable, it came on us like a force of nature. Who can blame you for a
flood or an ice storm? Who can blame you for tainted water, or blame
Gerald Stanley for just doing what any of you would do in the same
situation? The jury decided that blame, as always, belonged to the
Indian, for trespassing on this farm and putting himself in harm’s way.
The best of you will shake your head and pity him, the poor animal, for
not knowing better — but what can you do?
I feared that the jury
would come down with a manslaughter conviction instead of the murder
conviction that was due. No part of me thought they would let him go and
believe this story. I honestly thought it was hyperbole to think that
Stanley could get away with what he did, because as bad as some people
say it all is, people claim to have good intentions, and things are
better, aren’t they?
But they’re not. That’s what the verdict shows. That’s why she’s running.
Keep it free!
If you enjoy reading our online stories about ethical living, justice and faith, please make a donation to the Friends of The Observer Fund. Supporting our award-winning journalism will help you and others to continue to access ucobserver.org for free in the months to come.