Sterilizations point to genocidal intent By: Editorial Posted: 7:00 PM CST Friday, Nov. 23, 2018

Opinion

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 22/11/2018 (2239 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

For decades, the government of Canada has resisted the term “genocide” when describing its treatment of Indigenous Peoples. Recently, debates have occurred around its usage at the Canadian Museum for Human Rights when describing Canadian policies and practices surrounding residential schools.

Canada’s resistance to the term resulted in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission employing the term “cultural genocide” when describing the schools — even while experts and advocates use “genocide.” The issue surrounds two criteria that define genocide: a physical act alongside a mental intent to exterminate a group.

At the United Nations this week, international human rights organizations decried recent reports of a significant number of forced sterilizations of Indigenous women in Canadian hospitals, and called on Canada to legally end the practice.

Most referred to the act as genocide. Article 2 (d) of Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, adopted by the UN in 1948, states that genocide is defined by “imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group.”

The first criteria of genocide, the physical act, appears to be present.

Earlier this year, at least 60 Indigenous women filed a class-action lawsuit against the government of Saskatchewan, the Saskatoon Health Authority, the federal government and medical professionals over coerced sterilizations that took place as recently as 2017.

The women claim they were forced to endure tubal ligations while giving birth or seeking medical assistance. Some even allege they had to agree to the procedure before they were allowed to see their newborns.

The women seek $7 million each in damages, as well as legislative changes to end forced sterilization, including making the practice a crime.

Currently, forced sterilization is primarily a civil matter, and is recognized by some courts as sexual battery.

A 2017 report by researchers Yvonne Boyer and Judith Bartlett documents the history of Indigenous sterilization in Saskatchewan, as well as Canada’s history with the practice. The study states that “large numbers of Aboriginal women and men were sterilized for being ‘mentally unfit,’” that sterilization laws in British Columbia and Alberta impacted “high numbers of Aboriginal women” and that “Inuit women were also sterilized in record numbers in the 1970s. In fact, 26 per cent of all Inuit women in Igloolik between the ages of 30 and 50 were sterilized.”

On Thursday, Sen. Murray Sinclair stated that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission also heard regularly about the practice from residential school survivors. Now, the law firm representing the 60 Indigenous women in Saskatchewan is hearing from others across Canada. At least two are from Manitoba, one of whom states she was forcibly sterilized in 2009.

Ms. Boyer, now a senator, says a national study is needed. “If it’s happened in Saskatoon, it has happened in Regina, it’s happened in Winnipeg, it’s happened where there’s a high population of Indigenous women,” she told The Canadian Press.

The questions now before the court are whether Canadian doctors, health institutions and governments knew about this and, if so, who knew, what did they know and how culpable are they in the forced sterilization of Indigenous women.

In other words, was there mental intent to impose measures intended to prevent births within Indigenous communities?

Indigenous Services Minister Jane Philpott called the practice “horrifying.”

The questions now before the court are whether Canadian doctors, health institutions and governments knew about this and, if so, who knew, what did they know and how culpable are they in the forced sterilization of Indigenous women.

“The issue of forced sterilization of vulnerable people, including Indigenous women, is a very serious violation of human rights,” she said.

If that is the case, Canada’s denial of the term “genocide” might no longer be possible.