I am writing in response to Jennifer Isaac’s “Canada’s Racism Problem” Op Ed in the Feb. 15, 2018 Cochrane Eagle to say that there are two sides to every story. Jennifer Isaac speaks of growing up among “rampant” racism in Saskatchewan. She noted name-calling, which yes, may have existed when she grew up and, may still exist today. While I certainly don’t want to assume Jennifer’s age, I am curious to know if the name-callers were older or younger people or a mixture of both and how long ago did she experience this? Additional context would be helpful; such behaviours decrease with each generation and generation-over-generation, this behaviour becomes less prevalent. In this light, Jennifer never acknowledged how far Canada has come and she never backed up her accusation of “Canada’s Racism Problem” with facts. Instead, she broadly cited the past, weakly correlated it to a current example lacking supporting details, and by her tone, she chose to shame hard-working Canadians into thinking we are racist and that Canada has a “huge” racism problem. Jennifer insulted the integrity of the jurors in the Colten Boushie trial, seemingly without presenting the information behind the verdict. The most disappointing statement Jennifer made was “racism is a huge issue in Canada,” yet she provided no facts to backup this “huge” issue. As a mother myself, I want to acknowledge the pain and heartbreak experienced by Colten Boushie's family. Nobody should have to endure such grief and my thoughts and prayers are with all involved. However, I ask several questions of Jennifer: Did she spend each day in that courtroom hearing firsthand what happened? Was she one of the jurors? Did she read the courtroom transcripts? Did she interview the jurors? Lastly, did she try to put herself in Gerald Stanley’s shoes, beyond the 11 years she lived on a small Alberta acreage? While I am not defending Gerald Stanley – I don’t have all the facts – I would like to think the jurors conducted themselves with utmost integrity. It seems that Jennifer doesn’t find the Canadian Justice system to be colour-blind. Instead, she is rushing to judgment by correlating an all-white jury to the not-guilty verdict. By this, Jennifer insulted the integrity of the jurors just because they were all white. Because I seek to understand both sides of the story, I ask: Do you know any of the facts behind the jury-selection process? Are you accusing the Canadian Justice system of purposely selecting an all-white jury so that the Gerald Stanley could be acquitted? Are you such an expert in this trial that you can correlate racism because of jury composition? Why should a defendant of any colour/religion/creed be entitled to a jury with a similar colour/religion/creed? Is Jennifer suggesting we strive for jury colour/religion/creed-parity? Instead, we should strive to be colour-blind. I find Jennifer’s broad statement about Canada’s huge racism problem dangerous. If we were all simply “Canadians” instead of being separated into identity groups like black, white, indigenous, women, men, maybe this perceived racism problem wouldn’t be so “huge.” Jennifer should provide facts – from both sides – before accusing this wonderful, diverse and welcoming Canadian nation of having a “huge racism problem.”
Tracy MacPherson
