Racial tensions still high year later
Editor’s note: In Saturday’s Starphoenix, we will look back one year later on the Gerald Stanley verdict in a special report from Andrea Hill, lead investigative reporter for the Starphoenix. She covered the trial in its entirety one year ago. The Starphoenix spoke with community leaders, academics and key players in the trial about how they remember the verdict and what — if anything — they think has changed.
A year ago, I was sitting in the courtroom in Battleford. It was getting late and I had to file my column. The consensus among the media was that there would be no verdict that night.
What followed was a verdict that would rock the province and drive a wedge deeper between Indigenous people and the rest of the population.
After the shock of the acquittal the thing that stood out was the sense of panic in the courtroom. The mother, relatives and supporters of Colten Boushie, reacted with shock and surprise. Their sense had been that Gerald Stanley would be found guilty of manslaughter. The court emptied out quickly. The jury members sprang to their feet and left the courtroom. Stanley was rapidly ushered out a side door to a waiting vehicle. Their fear was obvious, and it illustrated the chasm that exists between the two solitudes that make up the Indigenous people and the settlers.
Outside, small groups of Indigenous people and their supporters gathered in shock and gave support to each other.
Meanwhile, supporters of Stanley circled the courthouse in their pickup trucks in celebration.
A friend of mine was sitting in a bar in Saskatoon when someone announced the verdict and the whole bar cheered, except the Indigenous people, who got up and left. February 9, 2018, was Saskatchewan at its ugliest. The display of wide-open racism was frightening.
Defence lawyers have the responsibility to use every legal tool at their disposal to defend their clients. In this case, Indigenous members of the jury pool were challenged by the defence, leaving an all-white jury, and the defence continued to paint a picture of out-of-control Indian kids that instilled fear in people. Stanley’s defence posed the theory of a hang fire, which gave the jury members the thread they could use to deliver a not-guilty verdict.
It was obvious sitting in the media room that the jury members were sympathetic to Stanley and could identify with him. On the other hand, they didn’t identify with the young people from Red Pheasant; they feared them. How can such a jury arrive at a just verdict? How can this be prevented in the future, or are we destined to continue bumbling forward?
The intervening year has seen the racial tension deepen, and fear continues to divide us. Our people avoid rural roads and stick to the main highways, and we continue to live in two solitudes.