In this Season 4 opener, Myrna McCallum shares a keynote talk delivered to Canadian judges on how to become not just trauma-informed, but also culturally responsive, humane, and grounded in integrity. She challenges the idea that being trauma-informed is enough — calling it the bare minimum — and invites leaders in law, education, and justice to level up. This episode explores how centering humanity, humility, and self-awareness in our practices is essential to prevent harm and build systems that truly serve people. Listeners will walk away with: A deeper understanding of what trauma-informed and culturally responsive practices look like in judicial and legal contexts. Real-world examples of how emotional intelligence and self-reflection can shift courtroom and workplace culture. A renewed sense of responsibility to lead with integrity, compassion, and courage. This episode is a call to every justice professional: we can no longer claim to serve justice while perpetuating harm. The work begins within. Connect with Myrna: website: www.myrnamccallum.co IG @thetraumainformedlawyer TT: traumainformedlawyer LI: thetraumainformedlawyer
Season 4 of The Trauma-Informed Lawyer Podcast launches with an invitation — and a challenge — to everyone working in law and leadership. In this episode, Myrna shares insights from her talk to judges on how trauma, culture, and integrity intersect in the pursuit of justice.
She reframes the trauma-informed movement as just the starting point. True transformation happens when we move beyond awareness to embodiment — when we center humanity, integrity, and relational accountability in every interaction and decision.
Themes explored:
Why trauma-informed practice is the bare minimum standard in today’s justice systems
How cultural responsiveness deepens empathy and understanding in judicial decision-making
What it means to embody integrity in leadership roles
Practical strategies for judges and legal professionals to bring humanity into their work
The importance of self-awareness and wellness as justice tools
Mentioned in this episode:
Myrna’s training and speaking work with the judiciary
Trauma-informed principles in judicial reasoning
The call for systems change rooted in relational accountability
Connect with Myrna:
website: www.myrnamccallum.co IG @thetraumainformedlawyer TT: traumainformedlawyer LI: thetraumainformedlawyer
🎵 AUDIO/MUSIC CUE🎵
>>Myrna McCallum: Hi, folks. Can you believe that we are at season four of the Trauma Informed Lawyer podcast? I certainly cannot believe it and I appreciate all of you for sticking with me through all of it and the delays and dropping episodes. I promise this season I'm going to be giving you a lot of content and on a more regular, predictable basis. I want to say that since I started this podcast, I don't know how long ago now, years ago, my evolution and my education has certainly, like, increased least. And I believe that becoming trauma informed in any respect is just the baseline, the bare minimum that we can do. The work for us is to become trauma responsive, culturally responsive, to become just and equitable, and to center humanity and integrity in all of the work that we do. In the spirit of that, the episodes, the conversations that are coming forward are intended to reflect that. And as I have come to learn, and probably you, the listener on understand, this conversation isn't just for lawyers and judges and law enforcement, like I, my initial intended audience. It has, like, spanned the globe, from lawyers to leaders to advocates, activists, practitioners, physicians, politicians. So many people listen to this content. Why? Because we are all dealing with human beings and all human beings are experiencing some degree of suffering, including ourselves. And so the work for us is to recognize that in each other, adapt and adjust accordingly so we do no further harm.
🎵 AUDIO/MUSIC CUE🎵
>> Myrna McCallum : So with that, we're going to go into today's first episode and it's a talk I gave to, a room full of judges recently, and I thought you might appreciate this one because, yep, it's for you judges, but it's also for anybody who is holding space or holding court, so to speak, for people who are bringing a lot of their pain your way. Okay, let's get into it. Hope you enjoy it. If you like my episode, and you love this podcast, please give me five stars on Apple Podcasts as well as Spotify.
>> Myrna McCallum : So Trauma Informed Practices for Judges. That's what we're going to talk about. Because it's been a while since I was in a room with you. I'm going to do just a little bit of, a recap of some really key principles I left you with last time we were chatting. trauma isn't what happened to you, it's what happened inside you because of what happened to you. This is what Dr. Gabor Mate says. This is what a lot of other, like, experts say. And why is this important for us to understand, for any of us who are thinking about and really trying to figure out how we accommodate trauma, how we recognize it when it shows up in our workplaces and our courtrooms and all of those things. It's really important to understand that trauma, is not the event, right? That is what is traumatic. The event is traumatic. And the event isn't always, like, the thing that happened. It's sometimes the thing that didn't, but should have. and if. Let me try to explain a little bit about what I mean by that. So, traumatic events, I think we know them when we see them. Especially everyone in this room knows them when they see them, right? It's the divorces, it's the motor vehicle accidents, it's the deaths, it's the, diagnoses. It's all of those things, the events, the traumatic events that, didn't happen, but should have happened. Like, the thing that you were denied is really, like, it shows up in all kinds of places all the time. It's when somebody comes forward to their supervisor to complain of, somebody being racist toward them or. Or somebody being, sexually harassing them. And the supervisor just says, oh, that's just Joe. He doesn't mean anything by it. You know, kind of just dismisses you, sends you on your way. That could be traumatic because you are asking for safety, you're asking for accountability, you're asking for action, and you're dismissed. There's this guy named Thomas Hubel who wrote this great book called Healing Collective Trauma. And he says, when we dismiss, deny, minimize, or willfully forget what somebody is showing us, this is when we do harm. This is when we uphold institutions of inequality, inhumanity, injustice. So if ever you're wondering, okay, did I do harm? Have I done harm in this space, look to see whether you engaged in that kind of practice. Did you dismiss someone? Did you deny what they were saying? Did you minimize their experience? Did you willfully forget? We've all done it at various points in time, whether it's with our kids, our spouses, our friends, our parents in our workplaces. So the traumatic event is sometimes the thing that didn't happen, but should have, right? You're asking for action, you're asking for accountability, and it doesn't come. And so what happens when traumatic events enter our lives? Right? They create a wound. Trauma is a wound. That's where the word trauma comes from, the Greek word for wound. Lots of us have all kinds of wounds. We have maybe one wound. We have one huge gaping wound. We have tiny wounds. We have many, many, many, many wounds. We have intergenerational wounds. And that isn't just specific to Indigenous people. I know that we hear that especially, in the context of truth and reconciliation, residential schools, those kinds of things, but it's not specific to Indigenous people. We all have carried some pain from our parents, their parents, their parents, on and on and on. So trauma is a wound, and not all wounds heal close up in the same time. So one of the ways in which I think we do harm is when we treat people like they should be over it by now. Oh, it's been 60 years, you should be over it by now. It's been six months. It's been six years. You should be over it by now. The reality is we can't tell someone when they should be over something. Like we can't tell somebody what harms them. And we certainly can't tell someone how long or how short it's going to take them to heal, just like no one could do that for us. Right.
So trauma isn't what happened to you, it's what happened inside you because of what happened to you. Trauma is a wound. Now what do we need to understand about wounding and how does it show up? one of the first places it shows up is in the brain. This is what neuroscientists talk about. They often mention fight, flight, freeze, fawn are trauma responses. Others will call them stress responses. And what I would like you all to understand about that is when we have somebody who maybe hasn't experienced wounding, in their lives, the non traumatized brain. What you tend to get is somebody who's pretty balanced in terms of like, their brain function, their prefrontal cortex, their ability to regulate, manage their emotions, stay calm, stay rational, communicate well. Even in times of conflict, adversity, confrontation, difficulty, emotional upheaval, they're pretty, pretty balanced, right? So the regulation is like, you know, is really good. Their hippocampus is also pretty balanced. So their, their ability to learn, to remember, to communicate, their memories, pretty good. And their fight, flight, fawn, freeze response, their stress response, trauma response, that is also pretty balanced. Now when you have somebody who's been wounded and who's been like carrying those wounds forward, has yet to find a way to heal those wounds, what you tend to have is somebody whose amygdala has expanded, their prefrontal cortex or hippocampus has diminished over time. Yes, it can shrink over time. What that means is that you've got somebody whose, fight, flight, freeze, fawn response begins to look like their personality. It's like where they operate from. Most of the time they're either always coming from a place of conflict or shutdown, or they're racing, running, working all the time, whatever it might be. Or they're always saying, yes, they're people pleasers. That's how they present. When you've got somebody who is in the state of chronic dysregulation, where they are operating from their amygdala, which is like, really the thing driving the bus, you've also got. At the same time, your prefrontal cortex is, shrinking, your hippocampus is shrinking, meaning that your ability to recall memory, communicate, learn that becomes compromised.
There's a lot of challenges for you, your ability to manage your emotions when you get dysregulated. Like I was this morning when I learned, like, no, you don't have an hour. You have five minutes to get into this room. And I was like, oh, my God, right? So, like, maybe about 15 years ago, I would stay in that state of, like, frantic. But because I've been doing work, and I'm not all the way there yet, but because I've been doing work, I could come back into a state of self regulation pretty quick. For people who have been traumatized for, you know, carrying their wounds for a long time, their ability to come back is, like, impeded by all kinds of. Because their amygdala m just keeps firing, keeps firing. They have a hard time coming back into a state of self regulation where they can communicate, where they can learn, where they can listen, where they can make good decisions, where they can make any decisions at all. So this is something that we have to understand about how the wounds of our lives impact our brain function and understanding that the brain is built for survival, right? It's just there to help you survive. So the things you learned early on to help you survive situations where you were powerless or you were helpless, the work for us when we become adults is to always, like, check in with the brain, to let the brain know that, like, we're okay now, we can take care of it now, we're safe now, we're not in that situation situation. Because the thing that neuroscientists have also taught us is that the brain cannot distinguish between what is an actual threat and what is a perceived threat. And I think that is incredibly important for us to understand, because although in your mind you'd be thinking there's no threat here, that might not be the experience of the person coming to you. And the threat can show up in different ways. For some people who've been harmful, harmed, say, by men when they were Children, anytime they see a man, they feel under threat, right? Or something happened with say a police officer. Anytime they see a police officer in uniform, they feel under threat even though they are not under threat. So the work for us is to always like check in with the brain, to let the brain know, hey, hey, actually like we are safe. This person is no threat to me. Like we're okay here because the brain cannot decide. So it's for us to be telling the brain like what's what now. So fight. Flight. Freeze. Fawn. What does that look like? It's going to show up in different ways depending on where you are. But I can tell you as a former prosecutor, I certainly saw all of these in the courtroom every day, every matter. And it wasn't just the witnesses, it wasn't just the like the the victims, the accused. It showed up in council, it showed up in the judge, it showed up in court staff, it showed up everywhere. And so the work for us is to be able to ID where we are operating from. Like when we get dysregulated, where do we tend to go to? Where is our default? And how do we recognize that in others? Once we can recognize it in ourself, the work is then to recognize it in other people so that we can figure out how to meet them, where they're at and maybe how to help them regulate their emotions through something called co regulation. So the more self regulated I am, the more likely I am going to be able to help regulate you. Who's feeling in a state of like heightened panic or feeling shut down or really angry. The more like level headed I am, calm, rational, my tone stays steady.
The more likely I could bring someone to meet me here. And this is because we all have mirror neurons in our heads so that can help us like help others mirror what we are presenting. This is why it's really important to master emotional self regulation. Because if you lose your, if you lose it, others are going to lose it around you, right? Just the same thing, you're calm. You know, think about when your kids were little or your grandchildren. Somebody gets an owie, they come to you and they're like oh my God, oh my God, right? How do you do you meet them with like an equal. Oh my God, oh my God, you're bleeding like you cut your knee. No, we're like, it's okay, you're gonna be okay. I have a band aid, it's okay, right? And then all of a sudden this child is like, stops crying, stops panicking and Is like, oh yeah, it's okay, I'm okay, right? Yes, you're okay. So I'm not saying we need to baby people when they're disabled, regulate and talk to them in that kind of way. But it's the same kind of technique. People are going to show up in these states of like heightened emotion. So the more self regulated you are, the more likely you're going to be effective at helping people come down to where you are. So what does Fight Flight, Freeze Fawn look like? That work is for you to like id you got to be able to learn how to clock that stuff in you and in others. But I mean I think fight we see all the time, we know it when we see it. It's hard to miss. It's the all caps, emails, it's the yelling, it's all the slamming doors, right? Throwing pins, all of those things. flight people often think it's like escaping, running away, doing all like just taking off. But that isn't necessarily flight. Like flight is also working all the time. Going, going, going, never stopping, always rushing, always like sighing like, oh my God, I gotta go. Oh my God, I gotta go. It's like needing to pee at 10am but not actually going to the bathroom till 1 o', clock, right? It's like knowing that you need to eat something at 12 but not actually eating until about 6 o' clock or maybe about 10 o' clock at night, right? It's like denying your own basic human needs because you get into a state of like, I have to get this done. It can also look like perfectionism, micromanaging, those kinds of things. Freeze is really shut down, right? Not wanting to, engage. Also not being able to make decisions. Struggling to make basic decisions, including like, what do you want for dinner? Like have you ever had a moment where you're like, oh my God, you decide what we're having for dinner Because I cannot make one more decision today. I mean, if I was a judge, I'd be a tyrant like that. because I would be like, I can't make any more decisions. So it could look be, look like that, right? Collapse, immobilization. You're stuck. You don't know. Fawn is just saying yes when you want to say no. Yeah, I'll take more. Yeah, I'll do more. Yes, I'll go there. Oh, you need that? Okay, yeah, I can do it. It means really abandoning yourself. Prioritizing the needs of others over your own to the extent that eventually one day you don't even know who you are, but you resent everyone around you for demanding so much from you, which is a little unfair because maybe you never told anybody. No, they just think, oh, Sally is so helpful. She just keeps giving and giving, and you can count on her and she'll do it all. Meanwhile, Sally is like, I can burn this place down. Right? Okay, So I said, when we're dysregulated, we, kind of go into a state of hyper arousal or hypoarousal, right? That's fight, flight, freeze, fawn. Dr. Dan Siegel is a psychiatrist. He calls this like, the window of tolerance. He says we all have a window of tolerance. The objective for us is to expand our window as much as we can. Because within the window is the place where we stay pretty self regulated. We're dialed in, we can communicate really well, we can make really good decisions. Because the reality is, psychologists have studied this and they have said when we are in states of dysregulation, like when we're losing our minds, or when we're so disconnected, just shut down, we do not make good decisions. And what some have said is that in court context, when people are in these states, we should stop asking them questions and stop asking them to make decisions, because they cannot make good decisions. And whatever decision they make may not be a reliable one. So the work for us is to figure out how do we expand our window of tolerance? Like how? Like what does it take to throw you out of your window? Is it a little thing? Is it a big thing? Is it many things? Is it a single thing? That's the work you have to figure out. And then how do you meet those things? Because you're gonna meet them. Because human beings keep doing what human beings do, which is like, piss you off and all the things. So when that happens, what are you gonna do? Instead of like becoming dysregulated, which could be incorporated incredibly exhausting and really hard on your cardiovascular system, what are you gonna do to like, ground yourself? So the work for us is to figure out grounding practices, mindfulness practices, all kinds of, like, self regulating practices. And I'm sharing this with you because all of this can be applied in court. And we're gonna talk a little bit about that. Okay? The courtroom is a trigger. Now we, need to figure out what triggers us, right? What is the thing that sends us out of our window? We need to be honest about that. If you don't know what sets you off, ask somebody who loves you. They will tell you in a hot second what Sets you off, someone who's worked with you a long time, they'll be like, I know, right? We have to figure out what it is so that when that presents, what are we going to do about it so we don't default into this loop of like, dysregulation that maybe we've established. So the courtroom is a trigger for many people. Just that structure alone, which we can't do anything about because that is the building, that is the layout, that is the design that maybe we didn't create, but we inherited it. And it's what we got to work with. It is a trigger for many, especially for like Black and brown people and especially for Indigenous people specifically. I can say both as an Indigenous woman, both as a, former defence lawyer and a crown prosecutor, I could say that when Indigenous people have come historically into courtrooms, there is a sense of fear and anxiety because what have courts represented for Indigenous people historically? Loss of family, loss of culture, loss of identity, loss of, of home, loss of children, sometimes loss of life when they interact with the justice system. Right. So it already sends people into a heightened state. And what I have seen in the courtroom, and I invite you to think about what you've seen in the courtroom, particularly when you have worked with or had an Indigenous person in front of you, is like the, it's either they're really angry or they're really shut down, or they begin to placate. They agree to everything. Yeah, guilty. Agree, huh? yeah. And you haven't even gotten through the, all the charges or the details. Right. And they're already a pleading, so the work is to like inquire. And I know you have an obligation to do so, but not all judges have really done so in a meaningful way to go. Hold on a second. Like, why are you saying that you're guilty of this when you haven't heard everything? The reality is a number of these people just want to get through that process as quickly as they can just to get out of there because they're terrified. And also there is like a belief that there's no justice in that space, so they might as well just plead out because they'll get out and get released long before, you know, maybe they'd be held in remand way longer than any sentence they'd be given for that particular thing. So for them saying, yes, I agree, M. Yes, your honor, it's an effort at self preservation and a, ah, bid for safety. I'm just going to agree with you. Yeah, I'm guilty. I' bad. I totally did not get. I go now, even if where you're sending me now is jail. Right. So what can we do about that? We're going to talk about what we can do about that because there's a number of things that you can do, but we need to first and foremost recognize the courtroom as a trigger. And so what can you do at the outset when people come in?
I mean, I think we could just simply acknowledge. I get that this is a colonial structure. This is a colonial structure. Space. To borrow the words of, Justice Langston, you're in a system that's imposed upon you. You, as Indigenous people, did not create this system that I'm a part of. Just being m. Just acknowledging fact can immediately bring a sense of, like, regulation to someone, because that individual is going to go holy to. This person sees me. They see me in all my indigeneity and all the history that I bring. And not just, you know, the Indigenous offender or the Indigenous victim or what they see my history. They're aware. So it could be that simple, just acknowledging. But I also recognize simply acknowledging the roots of the system that you are a part of. That I'm of a part. Part of takes tremendous courage. It doesn't have to take a long time, though, to do it. It could be one minute and then you move forward. So it's baby steps. Okay, so the four Rs of a trauma informed approach. This comes from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration in the United States. they did some work to come up with, with, a trauma informed approach to courts and give guidance on what that could look like. And what they have said is that, the work for judges is really, to realize the prevalence of trauma and potential pathways for recovery. Because so many people that interact with the legal system have addiction issues. Right? They don't necessarily need prison. They need recovery. And if you look deep, deeper, Gabor Mate talks about this like the. The addiction is the coping mechanism, but the real culprit is the trauma. So how do you heal people? And I know that that is like, what the hell is Myrna talking about? How do I heal people? We are not healers. We are judges. Well, there are judges historically who have said, you know, that judges were once healers. They were healers of conflict. They were healers of community. People come to the courts because they've been harmed. And sometimes what they need is healing. And I get that there's limitations, but what can you do to maybe create some sense of healing or at Least an acknowledgment of what is needed or maybe even an acknowledgment of the limitations of the process that you're a part of. Because the process you're a part of tends to be a lot more about punishment. So there's some acknowledging that needs to happen. But again, that takes a tremendous amount of courage. I understand. And also becoming comfortable being uncomfortable. Like you're gonna do a thing and say a thing maybe you've never done before. And you're like, I don't know how this is gonna go, but I'm gonna wing it and just say it, right? Yes.
Okay. So recognizing signs and symptoms of trauma in the people who come through the courtroom. So we talked a little bit about what that could look like in Fight Flight Freeze Fawn. Responding by integrating knowledge of trauma into practice. There's a number of ways in which we can do that. And I'm gonna go through some slides to help you with that. And actively resisting re traumatization with empathy, improving fairness and the overall experience of proceedings. I'm also going to give you an example of that. So North Carolina district court judges, they did a study on how to create trauma informed courtrooms. And also, what are some of the limitations or the barriers to having a trauma informed court? What I was finding was that, ah, across the world there are more and more jurisdictions that are looking at how we create trauma informed, informed courtrooms. And I think that that is really helpful because the system that we're a part of desperately needs this kind of transformation for all kinds of reasons. So these are the words of the different judges, in North Carolina that they had interviewed and what they had said. So component one was consider the judge's demeanor and behavior. So it goes deeper than respect when you're talking about trauma. We don't know what circumstances have brought the individual into the courtroom and why they're standing before me. So I have to try to be mindful in the way I talk to people, the language I use, the tone I use, because I have a furrowed brow and I could look mean and tough just naturally, without intending to. Who identifies with that. Some people are like, over here. But not really. I mean, I identify with that and I'm like, I'm working on being the most approachable version of myself I've ever been. But I have a very Cree phase, meaning that once I cross my arms and I stop smiling, I look like, go away, don't approach me. And that is not what I'm feeling at all. Judges Same thing. I remember being in a court one time with, my friend Earl Kalinith. He was a judge in Saskatchewan. And I remember looking over at him going, are you awake, you, Honor? Because he just kind of looked like he was checked out of the conversation, but he was like, he was listening really intently to what I was saying. And we had a little laugh about it. But the way in which we present can really inform how the day is going to, to go. Right? Like, it's definitely, it's about tone, it's about body language, it's the way you talk to people. But like, there's somebody out there, I can't remember his name, but there was a study done on empathy. And this guy said, the language of empathy shows up in body language. Like, we subconsciously can clock who is empathetic by just immediately looking at their face and their body language. So if we, we immediately like, look at someone go, oh, nope, then we're, we're gonna default into survival response, right? Because the question whether we're conscious of it or not is like, am I safe here? And if the brain says, nope, we're not safe here, then the question becomes, okay, then how do I survive this place? If I'm not safe here, how do I survive? And then that's when we default to fight flight. Freeze, Fawn. That's just the brain doing what it does. So what can you do? Maybe just practice a little self awareness. Like, how do I show up? I have a tendency to want to cross my arms, but I also understand that that gives off a message of like, don't approach me. I'm not open, I'm not welcoming. So I have to be very intentional to drop my arms. And it's really uncomfortable. I hate it. But I do it because I know that that is what somebody is going to need. I need to be non threatening. People are already vulnerable. There's already a power imbalance operating here. There's a lot of fear. So what can I do? I could present as non threatening as possible. I can unclench my jaw, I can drop my arms. I could maybe put a smile on my face and say, good morning, good afternoon, welcome. It's good to see you. Glad you made it. I know the weather's terrible. Like, whatever it is, it probably took you a long time to get here. I know that. You know, you're like, people struggle for rides from your commute. Like, just, just an acknowledgement of like the trek it takes for people to show up. Right? That can help a, bunch and so that's the work. Prioritize treatment. Now, I know there are limitations to this, but what another judge said was, it's almost like I preside over a treatment court. The person obviously still needs to be held accountable, but maybe we're not so punitive. Maybe we're more treatment oriented and realizing that if there is a traumatic condition that's causing this criminal behavior, if we don't treat that or get to the bottom of that, this person is going to continually be involved in the criminal justice system. Right? We know this science, research, studies, all of it knows, like, the root of addictive behavior and more often, offending behavior comes back to trauma. And Dr. Gabor Mate believes, like, all that trauma really, begins in childhood. So not to say that you need to be the therapist, but, the question I would invite you to ask yourself is, is there anything that you could say or anything you could do to acknowledge either the limitations of the process that you're a part of or maybe the needs of that particular individual who is appearing before you? Component three Slow down. Right? Too often the prosecutors, everyone in the courtroom wants to hurry up. They want to get it done, they want to move on. They don't want to spend time with this person or this child. So I'm trying to slow things down. I know that that is a difficult one when you've got a, massive docket and everyone's like, go, go, go. But do you see how when we operate in a system that is like pressing you constantly for time, you, not you personally, but like, the system becomes like a reflection of flight mode. Like, it's just panic, panic, panic. I could tell you when I was a prosecutor, I could tell you I had at least two colleagues in my office who would vomit before they went into court. Like they were so amped m up with anxiety and that like, panic feeling that they would vomit before court, before trial, before a sentencing hearing, before a bail hearing. And I was like, your body is telling you something. Maybe this job is not it for you or the way you approach this job is not it for you. Dan Jones was on my podcast. He was a long time Edmonton police officer. He talked about how towards the end of his career, every day driving to work, he. He would pull over and vomit. Like, hopefully not on your street if you live in Edmonton. But he was doing that before he got to work. And like, his body was telling him, like, this is not okay. You clearly don't feel safe where you're about to go. And you go there every day, every Day, every day. And so, I mean, my friend, Amar Dahl, who's on my podcast, we talked about emotional intelligence and the art of living. He says, when it's a battle between the body and in the brain, the body always wins, meaning your body is always speaking to you. So, like, if you don't feel safe when somebody shows up in the room, your body, like, it clocks that right away. Like, you will take a step back, and you don't even. You're not even aware that you do it, or your arms come up or you turn away, right? Your body's always telling you, or you're about to go do a thing or go to a workplace, and, like, your stomach is turning, that headache is back, that. That knot in your, like, chest or your throat or whatever is returning again and again and again. The body is telling you, pay attention. Like, you don't feel safe here. And if you want to continue to do the work you do and continue going into the space you go, then you have to figure out how to address that. Not saying you have to leave, but one of the reasons why. Why we, I think, push and race and go is because we just don't even want to be in the space that we work, doing the thing that we do. Because, like, I haven't even begun to talk to you about moral injury. Like, how many people in this room, and you don't have to raise your hand, have made a decision that left you feeling gutted. Like, you knew that's not what was needed, but your hands were tied because of the rules. Moral injury, right? It can create a wound as well. And if you do that enough, you wound yourself enough by making decisions that are not in alignment with your core values, you can begin to suppress your own stuff to do your job. And so what happens is the more we suppress our own stuff and, like, ignore it. Like, no, I don't feel bad. No, I don't want to feel bad. No, I don't want to feel this. I need to show up and do my job. That's a practice of dehumanizing yourself. And if you dehumanize yourself long enough, you're going to dehumanize others. And really, the key, the antidote to this is, and I've come to learn, is that in order to see the human being in the people that we work with, we have to be willing to feel like the humanity in ourselves. And that means feeling. Feeling all the emotions, which I know is terrifying, but it needs to be done. Okay, so component four, reimagine the court environment, right. This judge says, I think the courtroom environment could be a little softer. I guess we have to maintain a certain amount of decorum and it'd still be a courtroom, but I think there's a way of making it a little less formal, less daunting. Now, I'm hoping this is my tea because I'm going to drink from this cup. Okay. Now I know some people in this room are like, myrna, I can't paint the walls. I can't change the furniture. The government of Alberta designed this. I can do nothing. Okay, but like, let's take a moment of being like, solution focused. There will always be barriers to the things, but what can we do with what we have? I mean, if you look at any, I know there's an Indigenous court right, in Calgary. I haven't been yet. One day I'm going to visit. but if I go and look at Indigenous courts or like I think I talked about last time, I'm a huge fan of what they've done up in Treaty 3 at Kenora justice center. What I've seen be really different is how the judge comes, comes off of the Diaz. The Diaz comes down, right. Sits with the people, often sits in a circle. Right. This looks like a more community based model, but really the science behind that is one science data. People who research this stuff have determined that roundtables not only promote connection and so therefore a sense of safety and security, but it also diminishes the appearance of hierarchy. And where there is hierarchy, there is a clear power imbalance, there is a clear sense of powerlessness and who is powerful. And it's terrifying. So this is why it's effective. But Indigenous people have known this for forever. Anyway, science recently caught on. So that is one of the reasons why I think it is really helpful. But like, why are we only doing this in Indigenous courts? Everybody, everybody needs it. That is why I love Kenora justice center, because that courtroom is for everybody. It borrows a lot from, the culture, the first nations culture in that area. But it's for everyone. And it's the coolest place if you've never been. Go visit.
Okay. And involve everyone. That's probably okay. So I'm going to pitch them one more time because one of the cool things is the second level of their building. They've got a whole bunch of cubicles. And I had asked like, what are all these cubicles for? And they said, oh, like, depending on who we have coming into the court, we know that offending behavior isn't like, because you're a bad person. There's a root to this usually. Yep. Trauma. But also there's some, like, other aggravating factors. This person has no housing. This person is out of school. This person has no money. This person. Right. So what, I was told was that those cubicles are often on any given day, occupied by, the principal or, some kind of school liaison or a healthcare liaison or, m. Somebody who does addiction treatment. So it's occupied by all kinds of people who then kind of collaborate on how to help people move through the system so that maybe they get the tools they need so they're never coming back into that system. So creating community, becoming collaborative, relying on connection, and seeing the value of connection involving people, that could be empowering. Empowering for all. But also recognizing that, the way in which you experience the system could be very different from how someone else experiences it, including your court staff, including, you know, anybody who's sitting in that space. And so what might we do differently if we thought about them? Not just us, but. But all of them, and maybe all of us as a collective? Like, I've never heard judges talk about themselves as community as a collective. It's so individualistic because I get it. Like, you're always. It's you alone in court all the time. But that's gotta be such a lonely place. I mean, I was an adjudicator for a number of years, and I felt that. I felt the isolation. I felt the lonely. Sure, there was 99 other adjudicators across the country doing what I was doing, but I was doing it alone. So if you haven't thought about this yet, I would hope that you would think about the power there is in community and connection. You are a community. How do you care for each other? How do you help each other? How do you support each other? How do you include others and what it is that you're going to do or how you're going to do it, instead of just kind of debriefing one on one about, like, okay, I'm in a pickle. What do you think about this? But, like, there's a lot of people who never say anything and who are encountering challenges all the time. So how do we invite people in? There's this, I'm going to just quickly mention. So when I do some trainings, particularly in workplaces, I will talk about psychological safety. There's four components to psychological safety, particularly as it shows up in the workplace. One is inclusion and belonging. Right. It's the first one. How do we include people? How do we create a sense of belonging? You belong here. I wish more judges would do that, particularly for Indigenous people and not just in Indigenous courts. Like, this could be yours. We're going to work on how to make it reflect you to your culture, your values. I know that there are individual judges who have tried and are trying, you know, using an eagle feather, bringing in an elder, maybe coming down and then sitting in circle with people. But the invitation or the acknowledgement, you are welcome. This space is for you, right? It's not just a space I occupy. So inclusion and belonging. Second, learner safety. Right? So inclusion, safety, learner safety. Making it okay for people to ask questions. Like, you might be a master in Canadian law and evidence, but not everyone in that room is. And I'm not just talking about some lawyers. I'm talking about, like, the public who's sitting there, the accused, the big rape. Lots of people making it okay for people to ask questions. I get that this might be, you know, a really, like, stressful space for you to be in, or it might be terrifying. If there's anything you want to know, ask your lawyer. And if your lawyer's not answering and there's something about the procedure, then you can ask me, and I might send you back to your lawyer. But you invite the opportunity to ask questions. Learner safety. The third is, collaborator safety. So making somebody part of the solution, finding the wayfinding that you are, you have a role to play here. You are not just a problem I now have to solve. You are part of this. Right? You are important. You are an important piece to all of this.
So how do we do that? How do we acknowledge people as a collaborator? Someone who has value. You have value in this space. How do we. How do we create that? How do we communicate that? And then probably the biggest one, which is really tough for some people, is challenge your safety. It's okay for you to disagree with me, and nothing bad's gonna happen to you. I will not punish you for disagreeing with me. I mean, the courts sometimes don't have all the information, right? We don't. We're like, telling someone, you have to go stay at this house. Meanwhile, they're like, oh, my God, that house burned down three years ago. But I'm not going to tell the court anything because, like, they're right and I'm wrong. Right? If you know, you know, right? So making it okay, hey, we. We don't always have all the information. We get it wrong sometimes. So, like, you get to. You get to correct me, or you get to tell me if I'm missing something, something that's okay. Nothing bad's gonna happen here. If we look, this is. This is like a whole level deeper. But if we look at the history of, like, white supremacy and patriarchy, there are some dynamics occurring in the courtroom where you are less likely, if you are a white man, less likely to have a Indigenous person or a Black person challenge you, even if you're wrong. So just being aware of that, I think, is going to advance and help you in so many ways. Now, trauma informed plus principal. So when you look at Western models of what they say trauma, being trauma informed is, you get safety, choice, collaboration, trust, and empowerment. I would say a lot of what we just talked about. Talked about, or what I presented to you is really like, in that vein of safety, choice, collaboration, trust, and empowerment. Now, when I looked at that Western model and after my experience in Treaty 3 territory, I was like, this doesn't go far enough. It doesn't really acknowledge the historical and racial and intergenerational and cultural wounds m that have occurred, particularly in this country, between, you know, colonial systems and Indigenous people. But not just Indigenous people, also Black people. But I can only speak from an Indigenous perspective. So how do we take it a little further? I'm of the view that you can't be fully trauma informed unless you are culturally responsive. And what does it mean to be culturally responsive? It means asking the questions and integrating things like cultural representation, ceremony, community, connection and language, and people who are establishing, Indigenous courts. You already know this because you're doing it right. But why. Why do Indigenous people only have that privilege of having that particular experience in those spaces? Could they not have it every time they go into any courtroom anywhere? That is the question. So there's things that you could do, to bring all of this, like, into reality. But it takes a plan, and it takes community, and it takes collective action, and it takes a commitment, and it certainly won't happen overnight. Okay, so, I'm going to share with you just a few cases that I find really inspirational. And I. I would say, like, serves as a really good guide for any judge who is thinking about, well, how. How do I do this? How can we do this? Justice Band, Pat Band. who I. I made a friend of mine because I was such a fan of this particular decision that I had to stalk him. Not in a criminal way, not in a criminal way, and then find him and Then we became friends and he was on my podcast. And like I said to you last time, if you haven't listened to that episode where we talked about small doses, high frequency, and you know, you're thinking about your own mental health and your longevity in terms of like, how you're going to survive the work you do, like, that's an episode to listen to, to. But Justice Band, used a sentencing decision to advocate for trauma inform courtrooms. He cautioned against unnecessary exposure to disturbing evidence, recognizing its impact on judges, lawyers and staff. He pushed for procedural alternatives, including using verbal summaries instead of graphic content and sealing harmful exhibits. He also outlined institutional recommendations like advanced flagging of disturbing cases, trauma sensitive staffing, and post trial debriefing. His decision models trauma informed care not only for victims, but also for system professionals, reframing it as a matter of systemic, sustainability and ethics. So, you know, like, what Pat talked about, was like, from where he was sitting, like he's a judge in Toronto and I've only seen him in his new courtroom, but not the old, old one, I guess, in the old courthouse in Toronto. Their Diaz is like way up in the heavens, like, and he says you can't actually see like your court staff from over there. And in this particular child pornography case, he didn't see that his court clerk was crying. And so that, I don't think it was the first thing, but it was one reason really, pivotal moment for him to begin to think about like, what can he do to prevent causing further harm to people who are just trying to do their job, but become a witness to other people's like, trauma? What can we do? Right. And we had conversations about this like, like, can, can you give your court staff a heads up so they can mentally and emotionally prepare themselves for what they're about to hear or see? Can you give them the option of opting out and switching up maybe with somebody else who maybe doesn't have a close relationship to the subject matter? That's the other thing that I think we don't think about is, some of us have real lived experience with some of these things and we encounter it and then it, it feels like a, ah, re. Traumatization. Right. So whether we have a history with like child abuse or domestic partner violence or whatever it is, every time it comes up in the courtroom, it's always going to be a reminder of the thing that you survived. And so what can we do about that? Without requiring disclosure, of course, just recognizing, I don't know, Your lived experience. But what can I do? Maybe can I give you an option to opt out of being in court today? Today, Right. We don't know unless we ask. the other thing, that Justice Band talks about is how it's not always the heavy cases. It's not always the murders and like the crazy violent stuff. It's just the constant stream of pain and suffering that keeps coming into the courtroom. It's unrelenting and it can wear you down. And so what do you do about that? And it can wear everyone down in that space. So what do you do about it? What can you do about it? Are there, are there things that we could do? And he really had like, not a lot of answers, but he asked the really important question, like, what can we as judges do to create trauma informed courts? And he's like, Canada is like, is like trailing.
There are other jurisdictions doing a lot more, but like, we need to catch up. And I would say that's, that's happening because I take hope from Justice Zakbarelli and I think I talked about her the last time I was with you. So in the Ukraine, airlines case. Justice Sakbarelli set a precedent by formally integrating trauma informed trial guidelines in a complex civil litigation. She recognized the risks of re traumatization and vicarious trauma from, for participants and observers and proposed and implemented trauma informed guidelines to protect victims, families and other participants from the emotional distress of the trial process. The trial was noted for its emphasis on healing and closure for the families and the victims of Flight PS752. In addition to pursuing justice. So what were some of the things that occurred? key features included advance notice of traumatic home content. So just giving people a heads up to prepare yourself for what's about to happen here, what you're about to see or hear, optional courtroom exits and letting people know where the exits are. Because when we're in a state of like, fight flight, we're immediately clocking the exits, like, can I stand next to the door? And like, how, how easily can I leave the room? Right. Trauma support in multiple languages and a modified witness procedure including advance notice. So participants received advance notice of potentially traumatic evidence allowing them to leave the courtroom if they wish. For those who could, self care resources. So information was provided to help recognize and cope with trauma not just during, but also after. Because it's not always just while it's going on, it's after. It's all like, been unearthed. trauma specialists were available for support throughout and after the proceedings. And Limited testimony. The duration of family members oral testimony was limited to prevent unnecessary distress. So what can you do? What can. What can you do? Like, she couldn't have done what she did so effectively without the buy in of counsel. And so I had a conversation about this with one of those counsel, Jordan Asaraf. And he's one of my more recent, recent episodes where we talked exactly about this. And he's a lawyer who does like, mass, civil, tort class action litigation. And he had had some training in emotional intelligence, but this was the first time he had really been introduced to trauma and what trauma informed legal guidelines were and what that could look like. And then he collaborated with a social worker to come up with some guidelines, and they were appended to this particular decision.
Finally, Justice Langston, my Stan, I always go back to him. One day he'll talk to me on my podcast. I hope if you're friends with him, make it happen, please. in R.V. holmes, right, he says, this is an Aboriginal offender. She's in a system which is imposed upon Aboriginal people, and I use that word deliberately. Our history in relation to Aboriginal people is one of deliberate destruction. We have systematically destroyed their culture, their way of living. We've done everything we can to take from them their sense of spirituality and identity. I'm not saying anything new. You can look in the volumes of reports and studies that have been collecting dust right, in libraries and parliament buildings. Aboriginal people are entitled to a sense of dignity when they come into our courts. They are entitled to a recognition of their history and their culture. And you can't really talk about that without acknowledging their spirituality. He goes on to say that there is a fundamental disconnect. The community would talk in terms of healing, reconciliation, taking responsibility for what you've done and moving on in a good way with help and guidance from the community. Those are values that we all accept and we all agree to. But he says, in my world, our world, we talk in terms of deterrence and denunciation and making examples of. Now, as I've said before, I've never heard a judge speak like that to an Indigenous person ever before. And, I got goosebumps. And like, I teared up a little bit because I was like, whoa. He spoke to dignity, which is something, I hadn't heard judges talk about in respect of Indigenous people and an acknowledgement of the history, the history of, the system that he was a part of and the history and the impact it had on the Indigenous people that appear in that courtroom and particularly in this case with Ms. Holmes. So not only is this decision or his oral judgment, his messaging to Ms. Holmes and the elder that was in the room and everyone who has read this, it's not just an acknowledgement m the colonial history or the violent colonial history. It's an acknowledgement of how the root of the Canadian legal system is rooted in white supremacy. And if we acknowledge that, there's going to be an adverse and oppressive impact on Indigenous people until we change, until we change the system, until we do better. And he went on to talk about how there had to be a better way. And then he dropped his mic and he retired tired. So I guess he left the work for everyone else. Okay, so recap. Improve outcomes to trauma informed practices. How can you do it? Judges often underestimate the power of their tone, body language, and reaction. Judges must consider their exposure to traumatic material and whether its impact is vicarious trauma or direct traumatization. Judges can improve public trust and achieve judicial excellence by centering humanity and humility in the courtroom. So plain language. Repeat and inquire for understanding. Right? If somebody's hippocampus is, like, impaired, they're not going to hear everything you say. Like, you could subject somebody to a whole crapload of conditions like you often do. And I can tell you right now, they only heard, keep the peace, be of good behavior. Right. So you want to go back again? That was a laundry list that I just gave you. What did you hear? I, got to be good. Okay. What else? That I gotta be good. Let's do it again, and then let's do it again. And let's do it again. But again, that takes time. I get it. But we put time into things that matter, do we not? So when it matters, you'll put the time in. So repeat and inquire. Allow for the opportunity to pause and breathe like I'm not doing right now, before responding. Offer, water and breaks. Explain the layout of the court and the exits. Acknowledge emotion without judgment. Acknowledge the traumatic nature of the matter. Invite counsel to collaborate. Check in with court staff. Prepare for folks for what they may hear or see. Acknowledge. Because, like, the reality is, and this is kind of a toxic trait of the system that we're a part of, is some of us think, like, I could hear it all. I've seen it all. I could do it, you know. Oh, that's not. What about the case, you know, the matter. I presided, like we. It's like, like a, ah, weird trauma bonding exercise about, like, just how much graphic exposure have I encountered and can I out traumatize you? Right. We do that sometimes and we have to clock that. So acknowledge the impact that law enforcement has and their presence. acknowledge limitations of the Canadian legal system as a punishment model and not a healing tool. Engage in grounding or contemplative practices before, during and after court. This is more of a mental health exercise because why? There's a collective unwellness that is occurring in the judiciary but also in the legal profession. Proximity. Those with lived experience face increased risk of harm. There are symptoms not just for vicarious trauma, but for direct traumatization, empathic strain, burnout, toxic stress, all of those things. We have to get familiar with what that is and what it looks like. Looks like and how we support each other and how we change our systems so we maybe begin to track just how much exposure we are experiencing and then how we deal with that and how we care for ourselves, how we care for each other. So continue learning. What is the work for you? Emotional intelligence. Cultivate it. Empathy, self awareness. Manage your own reactions so that you can self regulate when dysregulation comes your way. Anti racism work. We all have to do it. Particularly when we work in and uphold colonial systems. Identify and address systemic biases.
Trauma informed courtrooms. How do we do it? There's a number of examples in the slide deck for you, but it's just to start wellness practices. Mindfulness, stress management, tracking trauma exposure. We can't change what we don't know. So becoming aware of the thing is like step one, systemic change. Right? It's all good if you become like master your self care. Master trauma informed practice in the courtroom. But what about your neighbor? What about your colleague? What about everyone else, right? We're only as healthy as the people we work with. Cultivate humility. Right? Stay curious. Commit to lifelong learning. Establish a community of practice. So I'm on my way home right now from South Africa. that's where I flew into. I went to this anti racism conference down there and this guy, Resmaa Manakam, who wrote this fantastic book called My Grandmother's Hands was presenting and he says trauma decontextualized in a person unattended to and unexamined across time can look like personality. So fight, Flight. Freeze. Fun. Oh my. I'm a people pleaser. Oh no, I'm just an asshole. That's just me, right? That's your trauma response. Trauma decontextualized in a family unattended to and unexamined across time can look like a family trait. Same for culture, right? It can look like culture when it is decontextualized in a people. And trauma decontextualized in a culture unattended to and unexamined across time can look intrinsic and natural. And I would say the legal system that you are a part of looks like this. Like, there is trauma that is decontextualized, that is untended to and unexamined, and it is looking like culture. Because how many people. People go into court and think, oh, this is going to be a wonderful experience. People are terrified, and then they come out more wounded. And so what is your responsibility to maybe help repair that? It means looking at how your. Your own system has reproduced trauma not just for others, but also for yourself. Because I think when we wound people, we wound ourselves. Trauma, informed law. Hopefully your librarian out there or your book seller has this book. There's like, we interviewed a bunch of judges. They have a lot of stories in this book that might help you. And then I'm running a conference, as I do every spring. If any of you are interested, come to Vancouver. It'll be an awesome learning experience. Okay. I kept you, like, one minute over. I'm really sorry. I was, like, trying to, like, clock it so I could leave time for Q&A. But thank you for listening to me.