By Samuel Miller
Impunity Watch Reporter, North America and Oceania

OTTAWA, Canada — On Tuesday, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau laid out his plan to reset Canada’s relationship with its indigenous people during his address to a group of First Nations leaders. In an appeal to First Nations chiefs, Trudeau has promised an inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous women.

The public inquiry will be “top priority” of the Liberal government, the newly elected leader said.

In a statement given this morning, Prime Minister Trudeau said, “It is time for a renewed, nation-to-nation relationship with First Nations peoples, one that understands that the constitutionally guaranteed rights of First Nations in Canada are not an inconvenience but rather a sacred obligation.”

“History has shown that that taking an adversarial approach is not only ineffective, but it can be profoundly damaging. Nowhere is this more obvious than in the government’s relationship with First Nations.”

Trudeau’s speech, delivered to a special assembly of chiefs from the Assembly of First Nations, is part of a broader promise to reset the fractured relationship between Ottawa and Canada’s Aboriginal Peoples. “What’s needed is nothing less than a total renewal of the relationship between Canada and First Nations peoples,” he said.

Also announced Tuesday, the Liberal government has launched the consultation phase of its national inquiry into Canada’s missing and murdered indigenous women. The party is pledging to meet with victims’ families across the country to ensure the probe is relevant to those who have been affected most by the tragedies.

Calls for an inquiry have grown since a review found 1,181 indigenous women had been murdered or gone missing since 1980.

“We have made this inquiry a priority for our government because those touched by this national tragedy have waited long enough. The victims deserve justice; their families deserve an opportunity to heal and to be heard.”

Trudeau said another government priority will be to make “significant investments” in First Nations education. First Nations have long complained that their school system is under-funded when compared to other public school systems.

The Canadian government forced more than 150,000 First Nation children to attend these state-funded church schools from the 19th Century until the mid-1990s. The schools sought to integrate the children into mainstream Canadian society, but in doing so rid them of their native culture.

Quebec Grand Chief Matthew Coon Come is hopeful about the new government’s approach.

“The previous government certainly showed no respect, limited consultations, continued to push policies without the consent and involvement of the First Nations of this country. Here, we now have a new prime minister who is stepping forward, actually coming to our assembly. I think that in itself is a great message.”

For more information, please see:

BBC News — Justin Trudeau makes appeal to First Nations chiefs – 8 December 2015

CBC News — Trudeau lays out plan for new relationship with indigenous people – 8 December 2015

CTV News — ‘We have much work to do’: Trudeau touts new relationship with First Nations – 8 December 2015

National Post — Trudeau says Canada will forge ahead with a ‘total renewal’ of relationship with First Nations – 8 December 2015

The Globe and Mail — Liberals reveal first details of inquiry into missing and murdered – 8 December 2015

The Star — Trudeau commits to ‘nation-to-nation relationship’ with First Nations – 8 December 2015

By Samuel Miller
Impunity Watch Desk Reporter, North America and Oceania

WASHINGTON, D.C., United States of America — A growing number of U.S. Governors are refusing to admit Syrian refugees, citing security concerns highlighted by the terrorist attacks in Paris. Leading Republican presidential candidates called on President Barack Obama to suspend the plan to accept 10,000 Syrian refugees in the coming year.

The governors are responding to heightened concerns that terrorists might use the refugees as cover to sneak across borders.

As of Monday, the governors of the following states have either expressed hesitation or outright refusal to accept Syrian refugees within their borders: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Maine, Massachusetts, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas and Wisconsin.

For example, Louisiana Governor and 2016 Republican Presidential Candidate Bobby Jindal declared over Twitter, “I just signed an Executive Order instructing state agencies to take all available steps to stop the relocation of Syrian refugees to LA.”

Chief among the concerns shared by these governors, and indeed many of those involved, including members of the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security, have revolved around the difficulty, if not the impossibility, of properly screening and vetting the Syrian refugees. Indeed, because of the Syrian conflict, many of these refugees have little or no documentation records.

Lavinia Limon, president and CEO of the U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigration, has said under the Refugee Act of 1980, governors cannot legally block refugees from settling in their communities.

Several governors acknowledged that they do not have the ability to stop the federal government from accepting and financing the resettlement of refugees to the United States. They too have sought reassurances that the process used to screen refugees is adequate and thorough.

As the list of states blocking refugees grows, the state of Delaware announced that it plans to accept refugees.

Governor Jack Markell said in a statement, “It is unfortunate that anyone would use the tragic events in Paris to send a message that we do not understand the plight of these refugees, ignoring the fact that the people we are talking about are fleeing the perpetrators of terror.”

Along with Delaware, governors from the following states have stated they will accept Syrian Refugees: Colorado, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Washington.

According to the Obama administration, which has stated that it hopes to resettle at least 10,000 Syrian refugees, more than 180 cities and towns have expressed willingness to accept refugees. The U.S. has resettled about 1,800 refugees from Syria so far in 2015, according to statistics compiled by the State Department.

Millions of Syrians have fled to neighboring Middle Eastern countries and Europe, and President Obama’s administration has pledged to accept about 10,000 Syrian refugees in the next 12 months. The U.S. State Department said the refugees would be spread across the country.

For more information, please see:

ABC News — Wary Governors Halt, Question Plan to Accept Syrian Refugees – 16 November 2015

CNN — Syrian refugees not welcome here, governors of 16 states say – 16 November 2015

Reuters — U.S. Republicans seek to shut door on Syrian refugees after Paris – 16 November 2015

Time — Governors Vow to Block Syrian Refugees After Paris Attacks – 16 November 2015

USA Today — After attacks in Paris, governors refuse to accept Syrian refugees – 16 November 2015

Washington Post — Governors rush to slam door on Syrian refugees – 16 November 2015

By Samuel Miller
Impunity Watch Desk Reporter, North America and Oceania

WASHINGTON, D.C., United States of America — The United States Supreme Court is determining whether racism played a role when an all-white jury put a black teenager on death row for killing a white woman. The Supreme Court appeared troubled Monday by the actions of a Georgia prosecutor in disqualifying all the black prospective jurors from the death penalty trial of a black teenager who was accused of killing an elderly white woman.

At issue: the conviction of a 19 year old African American man, sentenced to death in Georgia, by an all-white jury.

Jury selection boils down to how prosecution and defense lawyers use peremptory strikes. These are the set number of prospective jurors who can be eliminated by each side without any stated reason.

In 1986, in Batson v. Kentucky, the Supreme Court made an exception to the centuries-old rule that peremptory challenges are completely discretionary. It ruled that race discrimination in jury selection was unconstitutional and required lawyers accused of it to provide a nondiscriminatory explanation.

But Monday’s case, Foster v. Chatman, appears poised to be an exception.

The original jury pool for Timothy Foster’s 1987 murder trial in Rome, Ga., included 10 blacks among 95 potential jurors. After more than half the pool was excused for specific reasons, each side was allowed to make a set number of additional strikes, as long as it wasn’t because of race or gender. On a sheet during the selection process, prosecutors listed the five remaining black prospects on top labeled definite NO’s.

On objection, the defense cried foul, but the trial judge and every appellate court after that accepted the prosecution’s alternative nonracial reasons. The courts continued to accept these nonracial justifications even after the defense in 2006 obtained the prosecutor’s jury selection notes.

During the selection process, prosecutors highlighted their names, circled the word ‘black’ on their questionnaires and added handy notations. Prosecutors also rated the black jurors against each other in case the prosecution had to accept one black juror.

Georgia courts have consistently rejected Foster’s claims of discrimination, even after his lawyers obtained the prosecution’s notes that revealed prosecutors’ focus on the black people in the jury pool.

The Foster case could give the court the chance to add teeth to its standards. Justice Anthony Kennedy suggested the court could clarify what trial judges should do when prosecutors offer “a laundry list of reasons for striking the black juror, and some of those are reasonable and some are implausible.”

Justice Stephen Breyer also added his commentary in questioning the rationale, saying “I think any reasonable person looking at this would say no, his reason was a purpose to discriminate on the basis of race.”

If the justices find that Foster’s constitutional rights were violated and instruct that he be given a new trial, the ruling could impact the way prosecutors, defense attorneys and trial judges handle jury selection in the future.

Furthermore, because Foster received a death sentence, the decision could fuel concerns previously voiced by two justices that the death penalty itself may be unconstitutional.

For more information, please see:

Al-Jazeera America — Supreme Court takes up racial bias in jury selection case – 2 November 2015

BBC News — US Supreme Court hears white jury case – 2 November 2015

CBS News – Supreme Court seems troubled by prosecutor’s rejection of black jurors – 2 November 2015

NPR — Supreme Court Weighs 1987 Conviction By All-White Jury – 2 November 2015

NY Times — Supreme Court to Decide if Georgia Went Too Far in Excluding Black Jurors – 2 November 2015

USA Today — Supreme Court takes up racial discrimination in jury selection – 2 November 2015

Wall Street Journal — Supreme Court Justices Fault Rejection of Blacks in Jury-Selection Case – 2 November 2015