Amber Prince and I debrief our experience at the BC Human Rights Tribunal in the Campbell v. Vancouver Police Board hearing as advocates for Deborah Campbell who called on us to prioritize her safety, culture and spirituality during the hearing.
This episode explores what advocacy looks like from the perspective of lawyers who understand and practice cultural humility from a trauma-informed lens
Summary
Amber Prince and I debrief our experience at the BC Human Rights Tribunal in the Campbell v. Vancouver Police Board hearing as advocates for Deborah Campbell who called on us to prioritize her safety, culture and spirituality during the hearing.
This episode explores what advocacy looks like from the perspective of lawyers who understand and practice cultural humility from a trauma-informed lens.
Myrna: I’m Myrna McCallum, Métis-Cree lawyer and passionate promoter of trauma-informed lawyering. Welcome to my new podcast, “The Trauma-Informed Lawyer,” brought to you in partnership with the Canadian Bar Association.
I believe that law schools and bar courses are missing a critical competency requirement in their curriculum: trauma-informed lawyering. Becoming a trauma-informed lawyer will, among other things, challenge you to critically reflect on your personal behaviors, beliefs, and biases; call on you to positively transform the way you approach advocacy; guide your practice to avoid doing further harm to others; and ask that you commit remaining open to learn new and old knowledge you didn't know you needed before beginning your career. Your education starts right here, right now. This podcast comes to you from the traditional, unceded territories of the Sḵwx̱wú7mesh [Squamish], səl̓ilwətaɁɬ [Tsleil-Waututh], and xʷməθkʷəy̓əm [Musqueam] people.
Welcome back to the trauma-informed lawyer podcast. Before we get started on today's episode, I want to give a shout-out to Pfefferle law office. Pfefferle law is a small Saskatoon criminal law firm dedicated exclusively to criminal defence representation. They do not dabble in any other area of law, just criminal laws. So, when you're in real trouble, and you need a defence, give Pfefferle law a call at 306-653-5656 or 306-290-5688.
Today's episode is less of a [sic] interview and more of a conversation. I invited my friend and colleague, Amber Prince, to come and debrief with me about an experience that we had last year at the BC Human Rights Tribunal. Amber and I were representing Deborah Campbell, who was claiming discrimination against some members of the Vancouver Police Department and that matter ended up going to a four-day hearing at the Tribunal. The result was very positive for our client. It was, . . . we would say, a landmark decision by the Tribunal and, for those of you who are practicing human rights law, or are otherwise interested in this particular case, I invite you to check it out at Campbell v Vancouver Police Board (No. 4), 2019 BCHRT 275. I mean I've been talking about debriefing as a self-care strategy on this podcast, so why not demonstrate it for you all? I hope you enjoy today's episode.
Amber Prince is a member of Sucker Creek First Nation in Alberta. She has built her legal practice around the needs of marginalized, traumatized, and disadvantaged women and children on the Downtown Eastside. She has worked for several years as legal advocate at Atira Women’s [Resource] Society.
I'm so glad that you made time for you and I to have this conversation, which is really the debrief session that we never really had about the Campbell case.
Amber: Yeah, thanks so much for having me. It's an honor to be here with you and also it feels, yeah, it feels necessary to have a debrief since we didn't really have one after, you know, four days of a pretty grueling process and then, of course, all the lead up to Deborah Campbell's case.
Myrna: This is a human rights matter that went to the BC Human Rights Tribunal in September of 2019. We were there for four days. Can you briefly just introduce what the matter was involving and who Deborah Campbell was up against.
Amber: Mhm! So, this was Deborah Campbell against the VPD. Deborah Campbell is a very small Indigenous person; small but mighty is how I would describe her. And, so, the case really revolved around how the police treated her and her 19 year-old Indigenous son in an interaction that happened in the summer of, oh, I think it was 2016—that's how long it sort of took for this case to come to the fore.
Myrna: It was quite the experience that she had and the process that we went through at the hearing was also quite remarkable for several reasons. But, maybe before we talk about and debrief our experience at the Tribunal, which is what the focus is, can you give us a little bit of a background?
Amber: Yeah, so I guess I should start out by saying I never intended to be her counsel for this hearing. I didn't come into being involved in her case with any particular expertise in human rights law it was an area that I did provide some support and assistance to women, but I had never been to a hearing, and, of course, . . . you know, high stakes in this case, and a respondent with a lot of resources, experienced counsel on the other side of this file. So, you know, I think the both of us felt, you know, this was a bit of a David and Goliath situation and I had originally referred her to more experienced Human Rights Council. But, at the end of the day, . . . So, first of all, . . . at that time, no one was assisting anyone with the actual drafting with human rights complaints. So, that's something that fell to me. You know, and I recall that we were scrambling to get her complaint in on time in the context of, like, an emergency drop-in legal clinic that we were offering women at the time. So, you know we had to really kind of quickly put this together and it's so challenging because, of course, it's, as you as you well appreciate, traumatic for people to relive how they were treated and how that treatment made them feel and to also then be required to put that in a very particular format; to translate that experience into, you know, a form. And, I think, particularly, at that time, too, was that form meeting the needs of Indigenous people? I mean, since this whole complaint has gone through the Human Rights Tribunal process we’ve had Ardith Walkem’s Human Rights Tribunal-commissioned report which talks about all the needs of Indigenous people and the Tribunal being more responsive to that. But, at the time, you know, it was a struggle just to get her complaint in. And, then, it turned out it was a couple of days late just because of the time frame of when we thought this incident had happened and when it actually happened. I think, at that time, too, we were still operating under the six-month limitation period. So, it's good to see that the tribunal has extended that because six months is a really short amount of time to try and bring a complaint, find the legal resources to put that complaint together in the time needed. But, yeah, I recalled we really, really pushed to get that complaint in and then we were met with a response from the Tribunal that we . . . they needed more information, that they didn't quite see the discrimination that we were alleging from how we set out the facts. So, then, I had to respond to these concerns that the tribunal had about, you know, is this really discrimination, which, to me, and I'm sure to Deborah, were obvious. Like, I think any Indigenous person reviewing that complaint would go “aha, I get it . . . I get . . . I get what that experience is.” And, so, I recall that both of us were . . . I don't even know what the right word is to use of how we felt about the tribunal coming back and saying, “well we don't see this, we don't see what happened to you is discrimination.” But, after that, I recall very clearly that I had spent international Women's Day working on this complaint. And I recall that it was International Women's Day 'cause my employer takes that as a recognized holiday. So, I was coming in to work on that holiday and it was helpful because . . . because I was supposed to be off . . . I had the whole day to work on the . . . on how I was going to convince the tribunal that yes, actually this was discrimination. And, I spent the whole day. I spent at least 8 hours working on that and going back to the one main case that existed in BC at the time, um, the Radek case [Radek v Henderson Development (Canada) and Securiguard Services (No. 3), 2005 BCHRT 302 (CanLII)], Gladys Radek complaint that she brought against security guards of Tinseltown mall that was really the only case in BC that really addressed the type of discrimination that Indigenous people face. So, I put that to the tribunal. I put some of the police’s own, the Vancouver police’s own, publications about how, you know, they were non-discriminatory and, you know, how they were meeting the needs of Indigenous people, in particular, and that that was one of their stated goals and kind of putting that to them of, well, based on these facts, how . . . how can that be? And, based on what we know of how Indigenous people face racism in this country on a daily basis, how can you not say this is discrimination?
So, ultimately, the tribunal did accept the complaint and then I was trying to find Deborah alternate counsel. Again, more specialized, like council who's more veteran, who, you know, could take this on. And, so, I realized that the difficulty with this . . . um . . . . So, first of all, other . . . other places wanted retainer agreements that were fairly long and complex, and this is something that Deborah resisted, and I think that's understandable. And, then, there was also a difficulty of other non-Indigenous lawyers also not seeing the discrimination. Like, a lot of people, for years, told me that this case had no merit.
Myrna: Were these lawyers who have extensive experience in human rights saying this case has no merit?
Amber: Yeah, some of them, absolutely. Yeah.
Myrna: But they're all non-Indigenous lawyers that are saying this?
Amber: Yes. They also weren't seen the discrimination. And, I think, also, some folks felt like without any independent witness that, you know, this case would be very difficult to bring. And, I mean, there's some element, I think, of truth to that because, of course, as we know, you know, Deborah Campbell was up against at least four different officers, I think, ultimately ended up being 5, all supporting each other's version of events, which was of course different from what . . . what Deborah had to say. So, initially, people were-weren't really getting it. Also, Deborah didn't know them. You know, Deborah and I had a relationship. This is why she came to me—because we're like the neighborhood women's legal clinic that she was aware of. She had worked with not just our legal clinic but with me, in particular. And, there was a level of trust and rapport there. So, referring her to non-Indigenous council who she didn't know who was asking her to sign, like, a 15-page retainer agreement with a lot of legalese and who . . . who were kind of skeptical about her case and saying “Ah . . . I don't really see it.” At some point, I think Deborah and I both realized “I think we're better off doing this together because we get it. We see where this discrimination is in this case and so let's just go ahead.” I was, of course, anxious to find co-counsel just because I thought that it would be helpful to have some extra resources just because it's a lot. As you know, it's like a big undertaking. So, eventually, our organization received some funding to have a part-time lawyer to augment my services, Kate Feeney. As you know, Kate couldn't stay on the case, but Kate did excellent work on the case as well. She really helped prepare the case up until the hearing and I was fortunate that Kate was willing to . . . to take this ride with me 'cause I think . . . I think it was a case for her that was a bit unique in terms of the very particular challenges we face, and I think those challenges were very much related to . . . Deborah being Indigenous up against a system that is not Indigenous an is not built for Indigenous people.
Myrna: I like how you characterized it at the start . . . in saying this is kind of like a David and Goliath situation: Deborah Campbell, this like tiny little Indigenous woman, calling out the behavior of these members of the Vancouver Police Department and their treatment of her and her son. I know, when I came, on I thought, whoa, OK, this is guna be a challenge. Like, particularly when I met Deborah but maybe I'll start with the day . . . the day I met you. I think at the time I . . . I said something like I've been working for many years behind closed doors as an Indian Residential School adjudicator and I needed to rebuild my . . . my reputation in the legal community here in British Columbia. And, I don't know if I told you on that day but I was like, yeah, a year from now, I want people to know who I am, see that I'm part of this community, and, you know, . . . and I just didn't come out of nowhere, I've been practicing but just, you know, from . . . away from the public eye. And, so, yeah, so, when you told me about this case I was like “yeah, I'm all in let's do it” 'cause I wanted a pro bono human rights case, I wanted to build some expertise in this area, and I wanted to serve Indigenous people because that is, of course, you know that is my passion.
Right, so, yeah, so, I think, at the time, as well, I had no idea what I was getting into when I made you that offer and you're like “oh I have the case for . . . for you” because I remember meeting not long after that meeting, Deborah. And, I could see just how this experience with the Vancouver police just set off triggers and set off traumas, created new traumas and I could see her still really sitting in that traumatic experience by the way she communicated, the way she had focused and maybe somewhat fixated on colonialism and all the harm that colonialism has brought to all Indigenous people and to her family because it was all one in the same. Like, the conduct of these officers were [sic] a reminder that she's in a system that is imposed upon her. So, yeah, it was . . . I found it to be quite . . . quite remarkable to see how she was still hell-bent to see this through. And, I thought that was, like, overly courageous and really remarkable, given all the fear and the anxiety, and the harm, and trauma, and the pain, and suffering that this was creating for her, and all the vulnerability that comes with that.
Amber: Well, and . . . and having to subject herself to a . . . a colonial system and then also to do, in spite of all those things you just mentioned, persevering in her resistance to the very system she, you know, had no choice but to subject herself to and to call upon the Human Rights Tribunal to better meet her needs and to recognize the authority of Indigenous peoples here. I mean, I guess we can get into the hearing process and some of the things she did and some of the things she insisted on and we assisted her with. But, yeah, just going back to you coming to my office. I mean, what a what a fortunate day that was. I remember you . . . you came in and . . . you know, I felt like you were just really on the cusp of a transition. It wasn't clear to me and I . . . I'm not sure if it was clear to you like where that transition was going to take you. And, you just came in just really open and just saying, “Listen, I'm here to offer my time on a pro bono basis” and . . . and when you sort of told me about your background I was thinking “Wow. What is this person doing in my little tiny office in the downtown Eastside offering to volunteer with this much expertise?” So, I say it was a very fortunate day, I think, for me and Deborah, that you walked into my office. I recall you saying, like, “Oh yeah I . . . I can do that . . . I can . . . I can get on that human rights case.” And, I was like, oh so relieved and thankful. I was feeling pretty overwhelmed with the prospect of taking this case on my own just knowing what the stakes were. And, knowing also, what, you know, Deborah needed from me. So, it was just such a relief when you came on the case with your wealth of expertise, including your expertise as an Indigenous person with so much experience, including lived experience. And, I noticed that, immediately, Deborah had a comfort with you that I had not seen her have with other non-Indigenous legal service providers. She knew that you got it. She knew that you knew what she was talking about when she was talking about colonialism, about discrimination, about the ways that systems are oppressive to Indigenous people—the connection between the history that it has . . . has been for Indigenous people and the traumas and how that was connected to her case—you got it. And . . . and, also, you . . . you know, you really walk the talk on the trauma-informed practice because, you know, you gave her the space and time when we met to talk about what was important for her and you really just sat back and listened. And, then, we were able to work together after . . . from that meeting of building her case in a way that I think, you know, articulated what she was talking about in the best way that we could.
Myrna: Yeah, I think you hit on something really important here that folks who are listening to our debrief session might need to think about. The importance of having legal representation who shares your lived experience, who comes from your cultural background, or who at least has an awareness because of lived experience, or, you know, cultural connection to the content your client is bringing forward but also, more importantly, their lived experience. So, I know that, for Deborah, it was so important to have two female lawyers who were Indigenous representing her because I just remember, and I know we'll talk about the hearing, but I remember, like, thinking “this is so profound.” Like, we’re on one side of the hearing room. Deborah, little tiny Deborah, was holding her huge eagle feather in her hands. You were sitting next to her and you have these beautiful beaded earrings, uh . . . and I'll . . . I’ll never forget those earrings. And then I'm sitting there with my . . . like very Cree, stoic courtroom look. And . . . and just what that was like, probably quite empowering for her and maybe other things that I'll never know. But I remember having a moment going, “Oh my God, like, this is historic right here, here right now, this moment.” And, not just because all three of us being who we are and where we come from but also going up against the Vancouver police, who, maybe, I would expect are not very accustomed to have to respond to Indigenous women are holding them to . . . to account for their bullshit. You know, cross examining these cops, who just didn't want to even answer my questions, I'm looking at their counsel to say, “Do I have to answer that?” and then our tribunal member going, “Yes you do.” [Laughter] Like, that was so awesome. That was such a highlight for me, among other things [Laughter].
Amber: Yeah, having you cross-examine VPD officers and holding them . . . to account and requiring them to answer your questions was something . . . like you said, clearly something they were not accustomed to, which is why, I think, they kept asking whether they had to answer your questions and also questioning the relevance of your questions as though they were the ones in charge of this process. Which, I thought, was very telling how the power dynamics normally are and how it did feel very historical in that hearing to . . . to have the power dynamic at least equalized.
Myrna: Well, yeah, and then remember the one cop who was trying to give me an education in criminal law?
Amber: Yeah that's right . . . that's right he was . . . he was telling you, like, you know, very senior Crown counsel, an adjudicator, someone who's, yeah, been involved in law for very, very long time, yeah, that he needed to explain to you, I think, that . . . maybe how the Criminal Code worked? Or?
Myrna: [Laughter] Yes. [Laughter]. And, I think that was . . . that’s such an indication of like how entitled and empowered they feel. . .. I think it was . . . it was just such a display of superiority. I can't think of another word to describe it right now, but total ego and superiority: “I'm going to educate you, Indigenous woman, on what the laws are in the Criminal Code.”
Amber: Well in . . . what . . . what does it say, right, that he felt you, in your position, with your experiences, needed to be educated? And, that he felt comfortable doing that in the context of a human rights process where the VPD officers are being accused of discrimination against Indigenous people. Where is that attitude and impetus, and belief, that you require educating by a white male officer. Where is that coming from?
Myrna: Yeah, but I want to say, you were very fearless in how you brought forward her interests and her, like, what was important to her in terms of being able to show up at the hearing day, after day, after day. You know, you made sure that you raised those things with the tribunal. Like, it was important to her to have Elders open . . . open the hearing. It was important to her to have an area to smudge. Like, these are the things that lawyers need to think about when they're serving Indigenous people about how do we create a safe space for people? What is safety for them? Safety is not the same thing for everybody. Safety isn't just having a deputy in the room who’s got a gun in his holster. That's not safety. For some people, that's an immediate threat. For . . . so we have to, as lawyers representing Indigenous people, whether it's in the human rights context or the criminal law context, or family law, whatever it may be, you have to ask the question, or at least explore in your own way, “How can I make this process safe for you?” And, I know that you did that because you just went above and beyond and we did not hesitate to ask for these things that maybe the Tribunal had never had to contemplate before.
Amber: Yeah, and that was inspired by . . . by Deborah any . . . any fearlessness on my part was inspired by Deborah because, I thought, if this, you know, tiny Indigenous woman on her own with . . . with no resources is . . . is willing to stand up and face down multiple . . . uh . . . VPD officers, and you were there, I mean, we're talking about, mostly, like quite large white male officers, that she was prepared to see this process through and face them. I could support her, you know. I have a lot of privilege, you know, in relation to Deborah. I'm a white passing Indigenous person, you know, I don't . . . I don't face the same types of discrimination out on the street that she faces. As a lawyer, you know the privilege that comes with being a lawyer. You know, I had the resources and the backing of my entire workplace. Um . . . I could draw on, you know, other . . . other pro bono assistance. You know, that . . . I had a lot more resources at my disposal and, you know, here was someone who’s very marginalized in our society, somebody who's very oppressed and I had the resources to fight with her when she asked me to. If that's not what we're doing, I don't know what else there is we ought to be doing besides that. I mean, that's the essence of justice.
Myrna: Absolutely. So, tell me, what did that mean for you to be in that room, to be part of this . . . like . . . fierce, I would say, you know, that we were a fierce team, all three of us, showing up in that hearing room with all of our Indigenous ancestors, I'm sure, also showing up and holding folks to account that maybe are not used to being held accountable. I mean, I think it's quite remarkable some of the ways in which they responded to some of my questions, and shocking, as well, in terms of how little they knew or what they thought about Indigenous people: Who they thought we were. But, before we get into some of their responses that I found shocking, tell me, what was that experience like for you, Amber, to be in this position . . . to be in this room, showing up in the way that you did.
Amber: I mean, it was extraordinary kind of a one set of lifetime experience, I think. Coming into that room and having the elders open that room and talk about, like, situating us in where we are that we are on unceded Indigenous territory, that the tribunal exists on unceded Coast Salish territory. It shifted the dynamic, I think, in the room from one of, like, a traditional courtroom, you know. We have our decision-maker at the head of a table, and they dictate to us what's happening, and it's very legalistic in the . . . in the . . . in a Western Canadian colonial sense of what legalistic means and, so, yeah, to have the elders open that hearing, I think, really disrupted that colonial dynamic that we're so accustomed to. And, then, for us, like you said, for us all to be sitting in a row on one side of the table and, I remember, I . . . I had, in addition, to Deborah having her eagle feathers, I had my beaded earrings from my kookum. You were there just, you know, you have a very powerful presence in my point of view. For us all to be in a row, and then I also had, like, stacks of documents on top of that. Of, like, you know, here's the others . . . you know, we are we are bringing . . . like, we're bringing the Indigenous perspective and all the evidence, all the documentation, everything that we've been doing to show what happened here. I haven't been in another situation like that. I mean, I have not been in another situation where there's three Indigenous women facing down, especially an entity like the police. I mean, the police are so enmeshed in . . . in a colonial agenda, since the inception of police. Which, of course, is something we talked about in the hearing and really tried to connect those dots. Really obvious to me the importance of Indigenous experiences, perspectives, and knowledge being actually very important to the entire Hearing process because, I think, we were able to challenge the VPD in ways that . . . that would have been harder for non-Indigenous folks to do. Like, there was just some specialized knowledge and experience, I think, that we were able to bring forward. And, I mean, your cross-examination was just badass, right? And, you brought those things, right? And, you really challenged the training, you know. And . . . and an Indigenous person might . . . might not have had the same experiences and knowledge to draw on to go “Well, I call you out on what you say is . . . is reasonable training” and “Why are you just learning about residential schools.” Like, we were able to really challenge them and, particularly you and your cross examination, about what . . . what does residential schools have to do with how you police on a daily basis. And, no one could really answer that question, as you know, which is, really, that's the heart of what we're talking about. We’re talking about how do police treat Indigenous people on the street, on a daily basis, like, right now. And they could not connect their 15 hours of training that they might have done 4 years ago, that residential schools had anything to do with them and how they police.
Myrna: Well, and, I think, even that is generous, Amber, 'cause, like, if I recall, I think, over the years of their training, that they were able to produce . . . a lot of their training was focused on really how you disarm people and how you restrain them. And, I think, there was a half-day session where somebody had come in to do a blanket exercise and when I was like “So, what was your takeaway, what . . . what did you learn about Indigenous people?” One person was like, “You give respect, you get respect.” What kind of bullshit response is that? And, then, another person saying, “Well, that, you know that Indigenous people are victims . . . they’re just victims.” Right, and, then, when I started to further delve into what their exposure is to Indigenous people, patrolling largely Indigenous neighborhoods for many, many years, it was quite alarming to hear that their characterization, based on their exposure, was that we have disorganized family structures because we live with our aunties and not our parents sometimes. Or, that we rely on the government for rental subsidies, like, . . . we have addiction issues. It was just so stereotypical and so . . . myth-based ideas about who we were that I really loved that, at least, one officer was honest when I said, “Would you agree, if you are constantly subjected to these experiences and . . . and you build this characterization of who a people are based on these very specific, maybe, confrontational or adversarial experiences a specific group of people that you . . . that might inform certain biases that you carry forward into your work,” or whatever, and the guy actually said “Yeah.” In knowing that, you know, he could admit to being biased based on his experiences that were largely negative, I thought that that was quite pivotal in the cross-examination process. As well as, you know, you were so brilliant in finding this document so . . . that Building Bridges report that outlines our commitments in our efforts to build bridges and have these positive forward-looking relationships with Indigenous peoples, uh . . . and when I put it to every officer, including their own Indigenous liaison officer, not one of them had ever seen it before. They’d never read it. They couldn't even say what their chief says to the public, Adam . . . Adam Palmer. They couldn't even when I said, “What is his messaging to the media and to the public about his relationship and the VPD's relationship to the . . . Indigenous people?” They had no idea. Like, so the . . . so they . . . the disconnects were so shocking.
Amber: It was. It was, like, on one hand, I felt like we were like, oh we're really succeeding in this case. But . . . but the success was, at the same time, so sad. Like, it was so sad to know that that is the state of policing and the . . . the state of the commitment to Indigenous people. Either . . . either just willfully unwilling or just not getting it . . . . You know, some of those answers that we received at the tribunal from those officers where were just gut-wrenching. It was just like the worst of what we suspect being true. Which, of course, was helpful for Deborah to prove her claim of discrimination but I . . . but also just . . . yeah kind of a kick in the gut.
Myrna: In light of the Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women’s Inquiry, the work of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and all of the Calls to Action and . . . and even the Opal Inquiry that predated all of that, that they would have some understanding and . . . of the Indigenous experience in Canada, particularly the relationship with the police and why that relationship ought to be a priority. And, these people had no idea. Like, some of them were vaguely . . . I think . . . I think you had asked me to put to them how they define reconciliation, I think, or what they knew about reconciliation, or what that meant to them, and they had . . . really had no answers. And, I'm with you, like, in uncovering all of that ignorance and disconnect, it really was heartbreaking 'cause I know, when I walked away, I thought, “Oh my God.” How badly I felt for our people, who are on the streets, who are marginalized, vulnerable, homeless having to interact with these people, who have so much power and authority over them, like, “God, help them.” That was what I thought.
Amber: Yeah, so, if you combine that ignorance with also the idea of power and authority and, then, stereotypical views about Indigenous people, I mean, no wonder we see all these horrific statistics that we see about police interactions with Indigenous people. And the solutions are also, I think, fairly obvious.
Myrna: Yeah, and some of which I think we put forward for our tribunal member to really think about. And, I would say, she really delivered in spades in her decision in terms of the training that she ordered that they had to do in cultural humility, which is a concept I constantly promote. And, their ideas of how they, like, how they envision us or imagine us really needs to change because we are not victims of colonization. Like, there's so much more to us and there’s so much healing we've done and there are ways in which we are revitalizing our cultures and our languages and . . . and there's so many ways in which we are overcoming and healing ourselves in our communities in our nations. And, I wish that they had reflected even just a little bit of that or even acknowledged . . . how . . . been able to recognize how Deborah’s efforts to call them out on their discriminatory bullshit was also . . . um . . . a way of . . . reclaim- . . . like, it was a form of reclamation. She’s reclaiming her power, saying, “No. I am not going to take this.” Like, it was quite . . . it was quite . . . it was a powerful experience.
Amber: Yes, and . . . on one hand, I think, I was so disappointed with the VPD's decision to just base their whole response on deny, deny, deny “she's an angry Indigenous woman, she deserved what she got” and deny, deny, deny “we did nothing wrong.” And, I agree with you that, you know, the tribunal member really did try, despite being non-Indigenous, really did try to grapple with what we were raising and, I think, she really turned her mind to, you know, the social context that we talked about, that our intervenor talked about, that our expert talked about, and connecting the facts in this case to social context and really listening and trying to understand what we're talking about when we’re talking about the particular type of discrimination that Indigenous people face, particularly related to policing. And, then, I do think, so, her remedies are helpful for the police to reflect on and at least they didn't appeal this decision. I'm hopeful, then, that they are feeling some level of acceptance, finally, of the decision and implementation. But, at the same time, I worry because I continue to hear accounts of Indigenous women having quite alarming interactions with police.
Myrna: That's probably no surprise, given what we learned about the mindset of the Vancouver police and non-existent training, really, of Indigenous people. And, no efforts put into promoting positive relationships between the police and Indigenous people, so it's no surprise. I want to quickly say one thing about Devyn Cousineau, who was our adjudicator. I really commend her for not just putting together a really . . . a well thought out ruling . . . but for her . . . her commitment to, I would say, trauma-informed adjudication practice. She allowed there to be space for us to have Elders present, to have, like, an opening . . . opening comments and this opening prayer and she was patient with Deborah. And, she just allowed for the space for Deborah to show up how she needed to show up to feel safe and empowered in that space and she inquired regularly on, you know, how she could be more accommodating of that. Not all adjudicators do that, so she didn't have to do it, but she did it. And I'm sharing this right now with all of our listeners because, if you are a judge or in adjudicator, I invite you to think about how you can create space and practice a little bit of patience and sensitive . . . sensitivity when people are appearing before you in terms of allowing them to show up in your process in a way that allows them to maintain some sense of safety as they go through their process. It's so important.
Amber: Yeah, thanks for raising that Myrna because, but for Member Cousineau and her . . . her willingness to accommodate these requests, which are probably, to some extent, unprecedented. I know that, when we were pushing for some of these requests, it was difficult to find any precedent to rely on to bring them forward. So, she was willing to consider these requests and to accommodate them. And, but for her, you know, this . . . this hearing might not have gone ahead. I mean, you know, there's, you know, we already have talked about all the barriers that Indigenous people face in trying to access a process like this, so those type of accommodations, and understanding, and patience, and compassion do go a long way to make sure that cases that are really important, like this one, actually get heard at the end of the day. And, as we know, this case has already generated a fair amount of interest. It’s being cited by other decision-makers here in BC and, also, in other places across Canada. So, we have to think about, you know, how these cases actually get to that point. And, they get to that point by, you know, a lot of the trauma-informed practices that you talk about in your podcast and elsewhere
Myrna: So, what was your takeaway? How did you feel when walking away from those four days?
Amber: Yeah, I'm glad you made space for this debrief because that's the thing . . . I mean, the decision is very powerful and important but it's also hard to translate, I think, what our actual experiences were on, you know, on the written word in a decision. I had a giant wheel-able bag that I was using and the wheels, like, buckled on that bag [Laughter]. And, I can't remember if that happened on the last day of the hearing or the second day before the hearing but it just felt, it was just such a symbol of the weight, I think, that we carried in that hearing and it's the weight of colonization, really. It's the weight of injustice towards . . . perpetrated towards Indigenous people. And, I put blood, sweat, and tears into this case. But, at the end of the day, I think we did something very profound an important. Yeah, so I'm proud of us and I'm particularly proud of Deborah for . . . for what she did. She also inspired me to, you know, to do better: to use the law in a better way . . . to . . . that there is a better way forward for justice.
Myrna: I'm with you there. My hands go up to Deborah. I don't know how else to say it. And, to you, for all the hard and heavy work that you brought. And, you did. And, you were so committed. And, I just really feel, like, privileged to contribute. I felt . . . I feel like I was the closer. I was just brought in for the fight with the cops to do the cross-examination and to pull the curtains back and show them for who they were. And, I feel like I did that. And, I did walk away thinking about how important and valuable it is to, one, bring a trauma-informed approach anytime anyone is dealing with someone who a client who has experienced significant traumas in their lives, absolutely every time, for sure, when you are dealing with an Indigenous client. You need to be educated and you need to be committed to practicing trauma- . . . um . . . informed advocacy and you need to think outside the box, too. What you didn't learn in law school is so critical to being effective in these ways of doing no further harm to people who already have had significant harm done to them. So, there was that piece. And, the other piece being how incredibly profound it is for an Indigenous person, an Indigenous client, to have Indigenous council. Like, I can't even articulate what that meant to her but also what it meant to us to be able to show up for her as Indigenous women who totally get what it is . . . there were things she didn't even need to say 'cause we knew and . . . and our job as lawyers was to figure out how to translate that into a way that the Member could understand and that the police could understand, but we just knew. And, there’s so much of value in that, which is why we need our own people to become adjudicators, and lawyers, and judges, and Supreme Court judges. By entering into these spaces and places and being visible and practicing, this is how we change systems to reflect our lived experiences as opposed to continuing to have to fit into the colonial system that we don't even relate to.
Amber: Absolutely. That was a profound experience.
Myrna: So, thank you, Amber, for having this conversation and . . . and this debrief that was way overdue.
Amber: Yeah, thank you so much for making space for us to have this conversation and, of course, everything you contributed to that case you were meant to be on that case, Myrna, and it ended up being so critical that you were a part of that case. So, I raise my hands up to you for your pro bono work on that case. For many, many hours. And, um . . . not just time and expertise, but the emotional toll that that case took on all of us.
Myrna: I would do it again. Knowing what I know now, and how much, like, how much work that was because, I mean, it triggered stuff for me, too, about how many times my brother has been beaten up by the police. And, you know, he’s been a homeless man for many years, and on the Downtown Eastside. And, so, you know, I think every time folks like you and I speak up, particularly in healing rooms or courtrooms, we’re really speaking up for a lot of people who would never dare bring their any of their complaints forward because they've just accepted that this is the way it is and they have no confidence and no faith in a system that doesn't represent them, that doesn't look like them, that doesn't reflect their values or their culture. So, they just don't come forward. I invite those of you who practice human rights law, criminal law, who are Indigenous, who are non-white or racialized, to just keep going and keep contributing your lived experiences and bringing your cultural practices into these spaces because they need to change from what they are to start to look like the people who make up the public. It needs start looking like us instead of looking like one homogeneous group that we are not a part of.
Amber: Absolutely.
Myrna: Thank you so much for your time and we will talk again.
Amber: Of course. Awe. Thank you, Myrna.
Myrna: That’s this week’s episode, everyone. I hope you enjoyed my debrief session with Amber Prince. If you have any questions, comments, or ideas, you can always find me on Twitter, @LegalTrauma. You can also find me on LinkedIn, of course, and Instagram @thetraumainformedlawyer. Thanks for tuning in. And, if you haven't already, please rate and review this podcast. If you hear squealing in the background, that's my 6-month-old granddaughter Hazel. She’s just happy to be visiting her kookum. Take care, everyone. Until next time.