Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

Goto page Previous  1, 2  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 2
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message

Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 10337
Reputation: 328.5Reputation: 328.5
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Mon Feb 12, 2018 8:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cosmostein wrote:
Setting aside any partisan he said, she said;

Aside from political chest thumbing, is there even a mechanism in place which would allow for a re-trail? It was a not guilty verdict which I believe significantly limits the ability to go back to the well.

I am confused as to what the Government is looking to accomplish here aside from political capital.

Are we looking for changes to the Justice System or the Criminal Code and if so what would have needed to change here?

Or are we implying that there was some sort of issue with the Jury, Justice, or Evidence provided in the Court Room?

the case was complex and controversial form the start , everyone had there own opinion on it and was clear the verdict either way wouldn't of satisfied many

the big question is why would a PM and justice minister ever tell a jury they got it wrong ?

this jury sat thru the entire trial and when it came time to deliberate they did so and they reached a verdict , which was there job , they came back not guilty which was entirely within there legal rights to do so

for the PM and justice minister to say there was some sort of miscarriage of justice here is just not right on so many levels

Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 10337
Reputation: 328.5Reputation: 328.5
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Mon Feb 12, 2018 8:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Liberals review jury selection process after Boushie verdict uproar

Family members of young Cree man killed in 2016 say justice was not done

By Kathleen Harris, CBC News Posted: Feb 12, 2018 6:45 PM ET| Last Updated: Feb 12, 2018 8:03 PM ET

Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould says the government is reviewing the jury selection process to ensure Indigenous persons are not being shut out.

The Liberal government wants to move swiftly on reforms to ensure more Indigenous people are represented on juries as anger builds across the country over the acquittal of a Saskatchewan farmer in the death of a young Cree man.

Questions have been mounting about the composition of the jury that found Gerald Stanley not guilty of second-degree murder in the death of 22-year-old Colten Boushie on Friday. Some observers say the process was biased because several Indigenous persons were kicked out of the juror selection pool.

CBC News has not independently determined that was the case.

Under Canada's Criminal Code, defence lawyers and Crown prosecutors can exclude people from a jury without giving any reason through what are called "peremptory challenges." Critics say the long-standing procedure can lead to discrimination against potential jurors — and can deliver a jury that is biased or lacks understanding of Indigenous cultural and social customs.

Today, Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould said changes could be coming soon.

"We are looking at peremptory challenges. We are going to consider how we can utilize the expertise in this room and across the country, about how we can substantially improve the criminal justice system and the jury selection process," she said.

The Justice department already had started a study of peremptory challenges, but the Boushie case and the resulting heightened public scrutiny of the Indigenous experience in the justice system have put the issue on the front burner.

Not guilty verdict

Weekend protests were staged across the country after Stanley was found not guilty of second-degree murder in the 2016 death of Boushie, a resident of the Red Pheasant First Nation.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau — who has been facing criticism for weighing in on the jury's not guilty verdict by saying the criminal justice system must "do better" — said today the government will take steps to address "systemic issues."

He said it's not right that Indigenous people are over-represented in Canada's prisons and under-represented on jury panels.

"We have much we need to do together to fix the system in the spirit of reconciliation. That's exactly what we're going to be doing," he said.

Justice Canada's website points to over-representation of Indigenous people in the criminal justice system as both victims and offenders, noting that Indigenous adults represent 4.1 per cent of the of the total Canadian adult population — but 26 per cent of of adults in federal custody.

The reasons include social and economic factors, a lack of access to services and supports, intergenerational trauma and discrimination in the justice system itself, according to the department's website.

Deck stacked?

Before Friday's verdict, angry members of the Boushie family said that all the Indigenous-looking jury candidates were challenged and excluded by Stanley's defence team.

"The deck is stacked against us ... Where is the First Nations' say in this? We don't have a voice," said Boushie's uncle, Alvin Baptiste, of the juror selection process.

In trials where the accused could be sentenced to a term of more than five years, the prosecution and defence teams are each allowed twelve peremptory challenges. They are allowed up to 20 if it's a trial on charges of treason or first degree murder, but only four for offences that could lead to a sentence of less than five years.

Justice Canada, Statistics Canada and the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics do not have data on the number of Indigenous people who have served on juries relative to non-Indigenous Canadians.

Old-fashioned stereotypes

Niigaan Sinclair, a professor in the department of native studies at the University of Manitoba and son of Senator Murray Sinclair, who served as Commissioner of the Truth and Reconciliation Commissioner, said studies on Indigenous representation on juries have led to no concrete actions to eliminate racism and prejudice from the process.

"In this case, Indigenous jurors were removed without any stated cause or purpose, so all we can be left to assume is that the defence believed Indigenous jurors would be biased against the accused. And to assume that is good old-fashioned stereotypes," he said.

Colten Boushie rally
An attendee at a Calgary rally holds a sign in support of Colten Boushie's family. Demonstrations were staged across the country after Gerald Stanley was found not guilty of second-degree murder Friday. (Terri Trembath/CBC)

Sinclair said Indigenous people also face financial, family and social barriers to serving on a jury.

Indigenous Bar Association President Scott Robertson said Indigenous people are often ruled out of jury selection based on questions about home addresses and criminal records. He said more flexible eligibility requirements for people convicted of lesser offences could diversify the jury pool.

Deep distrust of system

But Robertson said that, barriers aside, many Indigenous people don't want to serve on a jury because they have a deep distrust of the justice system.

"The criminal justice system has not been too kind to Indigenous people," he said. "There's a systemic problem of people who are actually charged not showing up for court for their own appearances.

"So the idea that they're going to go and serve on a jury ... There's just no way. There's complete apathy toward the criminal justice system."

Robertson said the critical first step is to get more Indigenous people working as police officers, lawyers and judges, in order to build trust.

A February 2013 report from former Supreme Court justice Frank Iacobucci made 17 recommendations to address what he called a "crisis" for Indigenous Canadians in Ontario's justice and jury system — among them a call for an end to peremptory challenges.

His other recommendations included:
■Providing cultural training for officials who have contact with Indigenous people, including police, court workers, Crown prosecutors and prison guards.
■Using existing government databases and sources such as band residency information, transportation and health ministry information and other records to expand the database of potential Indigenous jurors.
■Allowing Indigenous people living on-reserve to volunteer for jury service.
■Simplifying the language on the questionnaire for prospective jurors and translating it into Indigenous languages.
■Amending the rules that automatically disqualify Indigenous people with criminal records for minor offences from jury service.
■Improving compensation for jury members.


Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6635
Reputation: 307.2Reputation: 307.2
votes: 8

PostPosted: Mon Feb 12, 2018 11:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is NOT a good case to use to illustrate to the public that we're all racists. It's like the Trayvon Martin case. It was publicized to make the point that whites can and do kill blacks with impunity. But the more we got to know about the case, the muddier the motives and actions became. The accused was Hispanic if anything, not German, but from as racially diverse background as you could think of. The victim was no angel and was unambiguously the attacker.

This case is the same, as illustrated by the CBC's reluctance to bring the Mad Max elements of the case forward. Six young men, seriously drunk -- I mean, drunk to the point that they are driving around on a flat tire after having broken the stock off a rifle trying to force the lock on a vehicle they were trying to steal.

It's a lousy case to use as a rallying point to resist the courts on racial grounds.

I think, from the behaviour of our oafish Prime Minister Justin the boy-toy, that we can expect an attack on the Courts along the lines of what women have already accomplished -- basically the right to put any white person in a heap of shit, including criminal convictions for inappropriate racial attitudes.

Do the Courts have enough starch to insist? Not that I've seen. The way they think, it's more important to make arrests than it is to get the right person, or even determine if an actual offence took place.

Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 8247
Reputation: 330.9Reputation: 330.9
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Tue Feb 13, 2018 10:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Toronto Centre wrote:
If the jury felt there was a threat that justified carrying a weapon and the weapon went off by accident (a point I believe no one on either side seems to be taking issue with) then its not unlawful act nor is it criminal negligence

If a person reasonably believes a potential threat is imminent they are able to legal protect themselves or their family

It is my understanding that if one can escape , he or she is to do so.

I have not really followed this case, however from the little I have read it may appear the jury instructions were wrong.

But it becomes complicated when you are on your property or within your dwelling because you have significantly more freedom to defend yourself, your family on your property under section 35 than if you were at a bar or in a public place.

However, since it was on property the section allows for discretion with the code as to if it was justified to have the weapon in hand based on the threat in front of him, it also likely factors in when he got the weapon and if he perceived that there was a potential for them to be armed, harm to come to his family that was occupying his home, etc

Its a wide net,

I cannot comment on the jury instruction as I have no idea.

Last edited by cosmostein on Tue Feb 13, 2018 5:50 pm; edited 4 times in total

Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6635
Reputation: 307.2Reputation: 307.2
votes: 8

PostPosted: Tue Feb 13, 2018 11:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Do you really think this case is an exemplar of white racism?

Could it be that the 'solidarity' the natives feel, the support they feel obligated to give, has a racial animus?

If race were taken out of the equation, would the jury verdict still be being denounced?

Back when we had the Common Law -- not that long ago -- we had a right to defend ourselves and our property that existed prior to the written law. What changed that? We have been given double-talk, that the Common Law was not at stake in the patriation of the Constitution. Obviously not true.

Let me put it clearly. The only reason this verdict is upsetting is if you are acting from racial sympathies -- ie being a racist.

Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 10337
Reputation: 328.5Reputation: 328.5
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Tue Feb 13, 2018 3:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

( the justice minister won't stop opening her mouth on this issue , she still feels she had a right to comment on the case and refers to it as a perceived injustice ? even though it was a legal process and trial that lead to the not guilty verdict )

Justice minister defends saying Canada 'must do better' in wake of Boushie verdict

Geordon Omand, The Canadian Press
Published Tuesday, February 13, 2018 9:28AM EST
Last Updated Tuesday, February 13, 2018 3:22PM EST

OTTAWA -- Jody Wilson-Raybould doubled down Tuesday on her controversial reaction to the Colten Boushie verdict, saying a federal justice minister should be responsive to Canadians who speak out and protest perceived injustices in the legal system.

Wilson-Raybould defended last week's comments on Twitter, which came after Saskatchewan farmer Gerald Stanley, 56, was acquitted of second-degree murder in the shooting death of Boushie, 22, a member of Red Pheasant First Nation.

"As a country, we can and must do better," Wilson-Raybould tweeted, prompting charges from opposition MPs and legal experts alike that she was straying too far into the independent territory of Canada's judicial system.

It would be "deeply concerning" to have an attorney general who does not acknowledge the Canadians speaking out about a perceived injustice, she said Tuesday.

"We have elevated this discussion to a place where it needs to be, because we can always improve the justice system."

Earlier in the day, Wilson-Raybould met with the Boushie family and discussed various areas of improvement for the justice system, including jury selection, an ombudsperson for victims of crime and the need for compassion and support for victims.

She has said the government is considering changes to the way juries are selected after concerns were raised about the apparent all-white makeup of the jury in Stanley's trial.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau sat down with the Boushie family in the afternoon for what he described as a very good, very emotional meeting.

"They are very much focused on making sure we have improvements to our system to make sure that no family has to go through the kinds of things they went through," he said after the meeting.

"There is very much a desire to work together on the path of reconciliation on improving the system that is failing far too many Canadians."

Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale, who also met with Boushie's relatives, said the civilian-led RCMP watchdog has launched an investigation after the family filed a complaint over the police's handling of the case.

"The family started the process, as well they should, and they've gone through the first part of it," Goodale said.

Boushie's family met Monday with the ministers of Indigenous relations and Indigenous services and said they are focused on building relationships.


Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 8247
Reputation: 330.9Reputation: 330.9
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Tue Feb 13, 2018 3:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:

If race were taken out of the equation, would the jury verdict still be being denounced?

I would imagine not,
Which is what makes this the worst kind of political pandering.

The Government for their disappointment doesn't appear to have a fix but seem to be very interested in expressing their disappointment in the verdict, now if there is evidence of misconduct that occurred during the trial its a different matter. If there isn't I am not exactly sure what they are proposing?

Either the Government wants to take discretion away from judges & juries and make the criminal code far more black and white, the issue is that the last government attempted to do this with sentencing and other aspects as part of their Ominibus crime bill which the current government is peeling back, so are they changing positions on this now?

Or they want to get into a very difficult discussion on jury selection and if an individual that is charged should be able to disqualify or qualify their "peers" based on a variety of factors including but limited to ethnicity, gender, or really anything definable.

The alternative is to look progressive today and do nothing on the issue as it moved off the front pages which again makes it the worst kind of pandering.
Toronto Centre

Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 1479
Reputation: 129.7
votes: 4
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Tue Feb 13, 2018 4:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Have to say, I would disagree with that assertion.

For one, a person is dead becuase someone mishandled a gun. End of story.

Criminal Code of Canada Section 34, is the self-defense provision in view:

34 (1) A person is not guilty of an offence if
(a) they believe on reasonable grounds that force is being used against them or another person or that a threat of force is being made against them or another person;
(b) the act that constitutes the offence is committed for the purpose of defending or protecting themselves or the other person from that use or threat of force; and
(c) the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances.

a) none. No force used by anyone toward Stanley.
b) Nope, no protection there either. He could have simply walked away.
c) Again, nope. No one should die for a car/truck unless mitigating circumstances come into play.


Section 34 (2) of the Criminal Code of Canada, which speaks to what a judge must consider when a person does use force to defend themselves.

34 (2) In determining whether the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances, the court shall consider the relevant circumstances of the person, the other parties and the act, including, but not limited to, the following factors:

(a) the nature of the force or threat;
(b) the extent to which the use of force was imminent and whether there were other means available to respond to the potential use of force;
(c) the person’s role in the incident;
(d) whether any party to the incident used or threatened to use a weapon;
(e) the size, age, gender and physical capabilities of the parties to the incident;
(f) the nature, duration and history of any relationship between the parties to the incident, including any prior use or threat of force and the nature of that force or threat;
(f.1) any history of interaction or communication between the parties to the incident;
(g) the nature and proportionality of the person’s response to the use or threat of force; and
(h) whether the act committed was in response to a use or threat of force that the person knew was lawful.

Let me go thru this.
a) There really wasnt a threat, otherwise who would walk up to the door of the vehicle?
b) Stanley had minimal worries apparently. (see a)
c) self explanatory
d) I am led to believe there wasnt any, at least in view
e) He couldnt tell their size. They were seated in a vehicle
f) unknown
g)dont know
h)None. no physical threat manifested itself.

The defendant walked up to the car , reached in for the keys, suggesting he had no fears apart from them leaving.
The gun goes off...by itself, something that the gun community laughs at. They pretty much never do.

My take.. Someone is dead over a vehicle/ATV . Plain old dumb. Thats what this is.

So many other options available.

Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 8247
Reputation: 330.9Reputation: 330.9
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Tue Feb 13, 2018 5:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Toronto Centre wrote:
Have to say, I would disagree with that assertion.

For one, a person is dead because someone mishandled a gun. End of story.

I hear what you are saying and I always welcome a spirited debate.

However all of these provision would be applicable if he intentionally fired the weapon and consciously shot him in self defense. Unless I have misunderstood I believe the general consensus is that the weapon was fired accidentally and this isn't a matter of him firing the weapon to defend himself and if it was you are correct in applying section 34.

With that said, if he had pointed and shot someone sitting in a pick up and was trying to argue self defense we would be likely far more on the same page in this discussion.

Even in the use of section 34 you have to watch out for the legal weasel words, 34 (1) A) stated "threat of force" in conjunction with "force being used" so even if we were discussing self defense under 34(1) the benchmark is not that force was used against the party in question but that there was a reasonable threat of force (the ambiguity of law on display)

What does that mean? Your guess is as good as mine.

What this appears to be a debate regarding (and again I am simply taking this from various summaries and articles) as to if having the gun on his person was justified.

This is where under section 35 (b) he is granted his right to confront those on his property, granted its a conflict of testimony between both parties but Stanley's defense team appears to be making an argument under subsection (ii)


The question then becomes given that there were five men on his property and by his testimony and his sons they were stealing an ATV was it reasonable to have a gun on hand when confronting them?

If the jury establishes "Yes" then it opens a whole can of other worms.

Because he is legally allowed to make a citizens arrest in a situation as long as after he has done so he calls the police so reaching into the car to pull the keys is in bounds (as ridiculous of a choice as that may be been).

However the broad strokes of the law allows for a fairly wide interpretation that is largely left to the legal system to apply.

Toronto Centre wrote:

My take.. Someone is dead over a vehicle/ATV . Plain old dumb. Thats what this is.

So many other options available.

Of course, this was senseless and tragic.
This was a terrible situation and that shouldn't be minimized.
No one should die over an ATV.

In hindsight if Stanley was aware that the intention was to steal the ATV and leave, you would have been better suited calling the police.

But at the same time, was he aware that was the intention when they came onto his property?

Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 10337
Reputation: 328.5Reputation: 328.5
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Tue Feb 13, 2018 8:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

( an article in the sun on the jury process , seems to indicate there were many potential aboriginal jury members but many opted out or were obviously too biased to be on the jury )

MALCOLM: Half of prospective Boushie jurors were Aboriginal, says member of jury pool

Candice Malcolm

February 13, 2018

February 13, 2018 7:40 PM EST

Filed Under:

Toronto SUN ›
News ›
Canada ›

Almost half of the prospective jurors in the Colten Boushie case were Aboriginal persons, according to one member of the jury pool.

However, the reason there were no Aboriginal Canadians on the jury in this controversial case is because so many deliberately opted out of the process. Other First Nations prospective jurors, meanwhile, were openly and outwardly biased during the selection process, according to one prospective juror who spoke to the Sun.

The witness, who the Sun is choosing not to identify, was present for jury selection in the Boushie case. The person described the scene as a “large gymnasium turned into a courtroom” in Battleford, Saskatchewan.

Media reports state that 700 people received jury duty notice for the case, and of that, only about 200 showed up that Monday morning.

“I sat at the back and got a better idea of who was all there,” said the prospective juror. “On one side of the room, it was primarily Caucasian people, with a few Filipinos, a couple black people, and peppered in was a handful of First Nations people,” the person recalls.

“On the other side of the room, it was maybe three-quarters First Nations people,” the person said, estimating that approximately 85-100 of the initial 200 prospective jurors were Aboriginal.

The person explained the process that day, as a judge asked if anyone in the room wanted to be excused or disqualified from sitting on a jury in this case. Individuals with a conflict – a relationship with either family or a scheduling conflict – could request to be recused from being selected for the trial.

According to the prospective juror, who did not go on to serve on the jury, a significant number of Aboriginal people in the room asked to be disqualified, either because they had a relationship with Colten Boushie’s family or because of other circumstances that made them unavailable.

The person estimates that more than half of the Aboriginal people were granted permission by the judge to be exempt from the trial and free to go home.

As the prospective jury describes, some of the remaining 45 or so were vocal in expressing their bias and signalling to everyone in the room they were unfit to serve on the jury.

“You could audibly hear some of them talking amongst themselves, discussing how they were going to hang Stanley, or they were going to make sure he gets hung, or that if they don’t get the results they want, that they were going to handle it themselves,” the person said of the Aboriginal people who remained. This account comes from one individual who spoke with the Sun, and has not yet been corroborated by other witnesses.

“The thing that was the most shocking to me was the fact that they were so audible from where I was sitting (across the room) and there were police scattered throughout the room. No one stopped them.”

The jury’s acquittal elicited a variety of strong reactions from Canadians online. Over the weekend, lawyers and other experts criticized Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould for issuing social media posts that appeared to criticize the jury’s decision.

On Monday, Wilson-Raybould said changes to jury selection were coming soon. “We are looking at peremptory challenges,” she said, also noting that those changes would aim to “substantially improve the criminal system and the jury selection process.”

But according to the prospective juror, the selection process was random and seemed fair. Of the remaining potential jurors, “everyone was assigned a number and they literally pulled numbers from a bucket. It was totally random,” the person said, whose own number was not selected.

Some media outlets have reported that every prospective juror who appeared to be Aboriginal was challenged and essentially vetoed by the defense council.

The prospective juror also dismissed that idea, suggesting the defence council challenged individuals who had made openly biased comments. Besides, the person added, “they were challenging white people too.”


Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 10337
Reputation: 328.5Reputation: 328.5
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 9:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

the sun article would seem to indicate there were many possible aboriginal jurors but many didn't want the job , knew the victims family personally or were obviously biased and couldn't sit as a neutral jury member .

its not clear how changing jury selection rules would of solved this problem ? rules that have been in place for years and other countries like US also allow for challenges or possible jury members

so its not clear what affect changing the rules would have on other future trials by jury and I don't think its something the liberals have put much though into either .

I also don't believe changing jury selection rules or eliminating lawyers rights to challenge possible jurors was ever in the 2015 liberal platform , its something that has come out of nowhere .

there isn't anything wrong with a justice minister discussing changes to the legal system but this minister should of never commented on a specific verdict and said there had been an injustice . when the jury had followed the rules and had the legal right to reach a not guilty verdict

Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6635
Reputation: 307.2Reputation: 307.2
votes: 8

PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 10:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Why is everybody thinking that the natives themselves are free of all traces of anti-white prejudice?

Because that would be wrong.

Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6635
Reputation: 307.2Reputation: 307.2
votes: 8

PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2018 11:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

From Halls of Macademia ... http://hallsofmacadamia.blogspot.ca/

Gerald Stanley Trial...
...an addendum...

The last 5 chiefs of Red Pheasant have been Larry Wuttunee, Stewart Baptiste, Charles Meechance, Sheldon Wuttunee, Clint Wuttunee.

Oh and if you google each chief's name, it seems armed robbery and assault are a familial occupation.

And another...
"If a person is to be tried for a crime, he is to have some opportunity not to be tried by 12 sociology professors, or by 12 adherents of the ruling political party, or by 12 cousins of the richest man in town."

RELATED: Justin's Scoobydoo Justice System

Forget the rule of law says Shiny Pony...
There is not a potential juror in Saskatchewan who does not now know that the Prime Minister, the Justice Minister, and the Minister responsible for Indigenous Services, believe that Colten Boushie’s family did not get justice, and that Gerald Stanley should be sitting in a jail cell today to await his sentencing hearing.

Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 10337
Reputation: 328.5Reputation: 328.5
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Wed Feb 28, 2018 9:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

( a poll on the Stanley verdict , Canadians divided , although the results from Saskatchewan , the province where the incident took place and had the most media coverage , those people overwhelming said the verdict was fair )

Canadians divided on Gerald Stanley verdict: poll

While Canadians split, Angus Reid poll suggests most Sask. respondents think verdict was 'good and fair'

CBC News · Posted: Feb 27, 2018 1:44 PM CT | Last Updated: February 27

Colten Boushie, left, was fatally shot in August 2016. Gerald Stanley, right, was acquitted of second-degree murder in the death of Boushie. (Facebook/Liam Richards/Canadian Press)

A new poll by the Angus Reid Institute suggests that overall, Canadians are divided regarding the verdict in the trial of Gerald Stanley, the white Saskatchewan farmer acquitted earlier this month in the 2016 death of Cree man Colten Boushie.

The results of the poll, conducted earlier this month, were released Monday. Respondents were asked if they thought the jury's verdict in the trial was "good and fair" or "flawed and wrong."

The poll suggests that 30 per cent of Canadians surveyed thought the jury's verdict was "good and fair" while 32 per cent thought the outcome was flawed and wrong. Thirty-eight per cent weren't sure, according to the poll.

The results were different among Saskatchewanians, however.

According to the poll, 63 per cent of respondents from Saskatchewan said the opinion the verdict was good and fair, compared to 17 per cent who said it was flawed and wrong.

A graph showing the nation-wide breakdown of opinion on the the verdict in the Gerald Stanley trial, according to the Angus Reid poll conducted the week after he was acquitted of second-degree murder in Colten Boushie's death. (Angus Reid Institute)

Stanley, a 56-year-old farmer from Biggar, Sask., was charged with second-degree murder in the shooting death of Colten Boushie, a 22-year-old man from the Red Pheasant Cree Nation.

He was acquitted of the charge by a jury in Battleford Court of Queen's Bench on Feb. 9.

Most would welcome jury reform: poll

There were no visibly Indigenous members of the jury in the Stanley trial.

"The Boushie family was angered by the fact that Stanley's lawyers rejected several Indigenous-looking potential jurors during jury selection," the Angus Reid Institute said in its breakdown of the poll results.

"These objections were legal, and part of a privilege enjoyed by lawyers on both sides during the selection process known as 'peremptory challenge.' Each legal team is allowed to exclude any would-be juror from consideration and is not required to provide a reason for the objection."

Based on that, the poll also asked respondents whether they thought "juries generally deliver good verdicts regardless of their composition," or if they believed rules around jury selection should be reformed to "ensure juries reflect the whole community better."

Fifty-nine per cent of Canadians said they would welcome jury reform, while 41 per cent said answered in agreement with the statement "This is the way it works, and juries generally deliver good verdicts regardless of their composition."

Rallies were held across Canada following the verdict, and the federal government promised "concrete changes" to the justice system following a meeting with members of Boushie's family.


This poll was self-commissioned by the Angus Reid Institute. It was an online survey conducted from February 15-19, and 2,501 Canadians who are members of the Angus Reid Forum were polled.

A probability sample of this size would have a margin of error of +/- 2.5 percentage points 19 times out of 20.

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 2

Goto page Previous  1, 2  

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum

PM chastized Saskachewan court for wrong verdict

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB