We need to use collective strength to improve our justice system

Multis e gentibus virus. From many peoples, strength. It does not feel that way in today’s Saskatchewan.

Today, this is a place weakened by anger, hate and, yes, even racism — or so a brief glance at the seedy social media world now suggests.

We’ve always been drawn together by our collective strength. Yet the provincial motto that arcs over our places of governance and justice seems to be in tatters after Friday’s jury decision finding Biggar-area farmer Gerald Stanley not guilty in the death of 23-year-old Red Pheasant resident Colten Boushie.

This needs to be fixed. Something must change. It simply can no longer be business as usual in Saskatchewan when so many now doubt the very institutions the motto represents.

At issue is whether the Stanley verdict prompts a loss of faith in our justice system because a visibly all-white jury was selected to preside over a racially charged murder trial.

“It’s supposed to be a system for everyone, including First Nations people, but, unfortunately, we don’t see that happening,” said Assembly of First Nations national Chief Perry Bellegarde. “We know — and everyone knows — changes have to be made.”

Is a call for a re-examination of either the Criminal Code or the entire justice system all that outlandish?

Consider last fall’s Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities (SARM) resolution calling for a relaxation of the Criminal Code so farmers can defend property against “hoodlums.”

Surely, those now angrily denouncing a public lobby for changes to the system after the Stanley jury verdict can recognize that some were lobbying for changes even before the trial started.

Let’s accept that Friday’s verdict simply cannot be dismissed over frivolous perceptions — like the jury must have been biased.

For starters, we have no way of knowing what went on during those deliberations — let alone what was in jurors’ hearts and minds. We would be remiss in not acknowledging that this outcome might simply be the product of Stanley’s defence offering the jury a path to arrive at its not-guilty verdict.

While Crown prosecutor Bill Burge accused Stanley of lying, it is abundantly clear that Crown witnesses in the car changed their stories about what they were doing prior to arriving in the Stanley farmyard and even what they saw when they were there. Witness credibility matters.

And while we will never know why the jury didn’t opt for a manslaughter verdict, we need to acknowledge the defence’s explanation that an older model handgun misfired, and the Crown’s failure to convince the jury of the unlikelihood of such an event.

But the problem right now in Saskatchewan — throughout Canada, really — is not a debate over evidence. It’s the resulting division — two sides lining up largely on liberal/conservative lines as if this were a sporting event.

As inappropriate as it may have been for federal Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould to tweet out “we must do better” in the wake of the jury decision, let us not lose sight of the clarion call. We must do better.

First Nations discussions with Premier Scott Moe and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Wilson-Raybould must begin with the jury selection process. Why aren’t more First Nations people available for the jury pool that’s often based on provincial health cards?

Why are the Crown and defence still allowed “peremptory challenges,” which were done away with in Britain 30 years ago? Is there anywhere else in today’s society where you can simply take a look at someone and — solely based on skin colour or gender — determine that he or she is not fit for the job?

Would we even be having this conversation today if there had been a single visibly identifiable Indigenous person on that jury?

Or do we believe racist internet nonsense that an Indigenous jury member would have produced an unfair verdict?

We need change to restore faith in the system for all peoples. Some will resist such change.

But from many peoples, strength. You’ve heard that before.