THE GREAT PRETENDERS
February 14, 2024 12:30 PM Subscribe
Karima Manji wanted it all for her twin daughters, Amira and Nadya. And she found a way to help them get it: financial aid earmarked for Indigenous kids. The fact that they weren’t remotely Indigenous wasn’t going to stop her
The utter brazenness of Manji is astonishing:posted by spamandkimchi at 12:45 PM on February 14 [9 favorites]
In the post-script, the mother has pled guilty and charges have been dropped against the sisters. That's really frustrating to hear. this isn't something that happened to them; they were willing participants as adults in this fraud.
But the story is out there now. Good luck passing the bar with this in your history.
posted by thecjm at 12:50 PM on February 14 [12 favorites]
But the story is out there now. Good luck passing the bar with this in your history.
posted by thecjm at 12:50 PM on February 14 [12 favorites]
The lack of charges or convictions against Amira and Nadya Gill is extremely frustrating. I'm hoping this follows them around for a long time so they at least face some consequences of their actions.
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 1:00 PM on February 14 [7 favorites]
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 1:00 PM on February 14 [7 favorites]
Yup, this was a huge deal in my city, Kingston, where Queen's University is located. There was a lot of anger towards the twins.
posted by Kitteh at 1:10 PM on February 14 [3 favorites]
posted by Kitteh at 1:10 PM on February 14 [3 favorites]
Here is a copy of the Agreed Statement of Facts filed in court, seemingly obtained by APTN. From September 2020 to March 2023, the total amount paid out to Nadya and Amira Gill was $158,254.05.
posted by hepta at 1:14 PM on February 14 [2 favorites]
posted by hepta at 1:14 PM on February 14 [2 favorites]
I laughed at her picking someone ON THE REVIEW COMMITTEE.
posted by jenfullmoon at 1:34 PM on February 14 [14 favorites]
posted by jenfullmoon at 1:34 PM on February 14 [14 favorites]
Sounds like the review committee could use a little tightening up of its procedures, so that someone already rejected once for fraud would not just get to resubmit as if they were brand new.
posted by praemunire at 1:35 PM on February 14 [15 favorites]
posted by praemunire at 1:35 PM on February 14 [15 favorites]
Yeah, like...nobody noticed?! These people didn't have terribly generic names here ,either.
Also, you named your kid "Noah Noah?"
posted by jenfullmoon at 1:41 PM on February 14 [3 favorites]
Also, you named your kid "Noah Noah?"
posted by jenfullmoon at 1:41 PM on February 14 [3 favorites]
This isn't something that happened to them; they were willing participants as adults in this fraud.
As the mother of a daughter just a little older than these girls were when she filed for them...I don't actually think this is fair to say. There is so, so much relational power that you possess as a parent that I think needs to be taken into account in this sort of situation and that you need to be accountable for.
First, you can pressure children into a *lot* of things. I absolutely could get my daughter to sign things. I could get my daughter to sign a *mortgage* if I asked her to and she would do it no questions asked. There's so much trust that gets built up. It's monstrous that this woman abused that; I can't blame the girls without more information.
Second: we don't know how much they actually knew. Were they told the details of the faked adoption, or were they just given the cards? Did their mom maybe tell them that she had gotten Inuit status because of a former relationship, and that it then entitled them to it? Some mystery around how government works? They talked about their connection being through their mother, but didn't clarify appears to be the only actual claims of what they personally did. People are saying "well, but didn't they ask questions?" But that really misstates how some people engage with parents or feel comfortable engaging with their parents. I don't think we can assign malice to them.
posted by corb at 2:00 PM on February 14 [33 favorites]
As the mother of a daughter just a little older than these girls were when she filed for them...I don't actually think this is fair to say. There is so, so much relational power that you possess as a parent that I think needs to be taken into account in this sort of situation and that you need to be accountable for.
First, you can pressure children into a *lot* of things. I absolutely could get my daughter to sign things. I could get my daughter to sign a *mortgage* if I asked her to and she would do it no questions asked. There's so much trust that gets built up. It's monstrous that this woman abused that; I can't blame the girls without more information.
Second: we don't know how much they actually knew. Were they told the details of the faked adoption, or were they just given the cards? Did their mom maybe tell them that she had gotten Inuit status because of a former relationship, and that it then entitled them to it? Some mystery around how government works? They talked about their connection being through their mother, but didn't clarify appears to be the only actual claims of what they personally did. People are saying "well, but didn't they ask questions?" But that really misstates how some people engage with parents or feel comfortable engaging with their parents. I don't think we can assign malice to them.
posted by corb at 2:00 PM on February 14 [33 favorites]
Yeah, but one of these "girls" seems to have been in the process of completing her master's degree the same year that her mom successfully enrolled, and then went on to law school the following year. I know about relational power but this woman was hardly a high school kid.
posted by queensissy at 2:08 PM on February 14 [21 favorites]
posted by queensissy at 2:08 PM on February 14 [21 favorites]
These stories just make me so tired. How exhausting and unpleasant it must be for the family of Kitty Noah I can only imagine.
posted by Lawn Beaver at 2:15 PM on February 14 [3 favorites]
posted by Lawn Beaver at 2:15 PM on February 14 [3 favorites]
Second: we don't know how much they actually knew. Were they told the details of the faked adoption, or were they just given the cards? Did their mom maybe tell them that she had gotten Inuit status because of a former relationship, and that it then entitled them to it? Some mystery around how government works? They talked about their connection being through their mother, but didn't clarify appears to be the only actual claims of what they personally did. People are saying "well, but didn't they ask questions?" But that really misstates how some people engage with parents or feel comfortable engaging with their parents. I don't think we can assign malice to them.
They participated in an immersion program for non-native kids where they were not that natives though. Pretty hard for kids to forget that I think.
posted by srboisvert at 2:22 PM on February 14 [7 favorites]
They participated in an immersion program for non-native kids where they were not that natives though. Pretty hard for kids to forget that I think.
posted by srboisvert at 2:22 PM on February 14 [7 favorites]
Sounds like the review committee could use a little tightening up of its procedures, so that someone already rejected once for fraud would not just get to resubmit as if they were brand new.
Theses communities are tiny. Like really small. It's not like they have a real entrenched bureaucracy. It's more like the smallest small town government. Also most first nations are reluctant to disenfranchise others because there is such a history of the Canadian government or corrupt band leaders doing that to legitimate band members.
posted by srboisvert at 2:31 PM on February 14 [21 favorites]
Theses communities are tiny. Like really small. It's not like they have a real entrenched bureaucracy. It's more like the smallest small town government. Also most first nations are reluctant to disenfranchise others because there is such a history of the Canadian government or corrupt band leaders doing that to legitimate band members.
posted by srboisvert at 2:31 PM on February 14 [21 favorites]
This reminds me of Varsity Blues a bit, but it sounds like those girls were quite complicit even after college in publicizing their fake identities.
posted by jenfullmoon at 2:31 PM on February 14 [1 favorite]
posted by jenfullmoon at 2:31 PM on February 14 [1 favorite]
Theses communities are tiny. Like really small. It's not like they have a real entrenched bureaucracy.
I know, but it sounds like (at least) it was the same committee, and not that long afterwards. If spotting duplicate applications from a fraudster is beyond your organizational capacities--for whatever reason--you can't really handle the task of verifying ancestry or community affiliation.
Also most first nations are reluctant to disenfranchise others because there is such a history of the Canadian government or corrupt band leaders doing that to legitimate band members.
Right, I get that Indigenous identity can be a complex and delicate question even before the multiple layers of politics, but if your committee is not prepared to say "we cannot confirm this person is a member" when there are such red flags for fraud, your committee can't do the job it needs to do.
I'm not saying the committee members are bad people or were bribed or anything like that, just that being able to spot a repeat of a relatively recent and superobvious (given that a member of the committee was listed as the initial birth mother!!!) fraudulent application is absolutely necessary if you have any hope of deterring fraud.
None of this exculpates this family (though I am inclined to be less harsh towards the daughters, for the reasons corb has given), but people will keep taking advantage of systems that lack at least some capacity for self-defense.
posted by praemunire at 2:46 PM on February 14 [4 favorites]
I know, but it sounds like (at least) it was the same committee, and not that long afterwards. If spotting duplicate applications from a fraudster is beyond your organizational capacities--for whatever reason--you can't really handle the task of verifying ancestry or community affiliation.
Also most first nations are reluctant to disenfranchise others because there is such a history of the Canadian government or corrupt band leaders doing that to legitimate band members.
Right, I get that Indigenous identity can be a complex and delicate question even before the multiple layers of politics, but if your committee is not prepared to say "we cannot confirm this person is a member" when there are such red flags for fraud, your committee can't do the job it needs to do.
I'm not saying the committee members are bad people or were bribed or anything like that, just that being able to spot a repeat of a relatively recent and superobvious (given that a member of the committee was listed as the initial birth mother!!!) fraudulent application is absolutely necessary if you have any hope of deterring fraud.
None of this exculpates this family (though I am inclined to be less harsh towards the daughters, for the reasons corb has given), but people will keep taking advantage of systems that lack at least some capacity for self-defense.
posted by praemunire at 2:46 PM on February 14 [4 favorites]
Nadya and Amira Gill are fraudsters taking advantage of the white inability to tell brown folks apart.
This line cracked me up, because it's so true -- looking at the photos I, a white person, thought "huh, I guess?" It isn't like Rachel Dolezal, where you wonder how anyone fell for it after being in the same room for more than thirty seconds.
posted by The corpse in the library at 3:24 PM on February 14 [2 favorites]
This line cracked me up, because it's so true -- looking at the photos I, a white person, thought "huh, I guess?" It isn't like Rachel Dolezal, where you wonder how anyone fell for it after being in the same room for more than thirty seconds.
posted by The corpse in the library at 3:24 PM on February 14 [2 favorites]
I dunno. The daughter’s actions seem pretty suspect to me, especially the way they appear to have studiously avoided discussion of any specifics about their Inuit heritage.
It boggles my mind that somebody could spend years taking advantage of opportunities that came from having an indigenous heritage, while simultaneously managing to never learn the slightest thing about that heritage. It stinks.
posted by house-goblin at 3:31 PM on February 14 [6 favorites]
It boggles my mind that somebody could spend years taking advantage of opportunities that came from having an indigenous heritage, while simultaneously managing to never learn the slightest thing about that heritage. It stinks.
posted by house-goblin at 3:31 PM on February 14 [6 favorites]
Sounds like the mom is a real piece of work, though. She started with the older daughter when she was still in her teens and I'm sure was heavily involved with/extracting cash from the grifting business. Maybe the daughters didn't know any way to get out without blowing up their whole family. Not saying they're blame-free, but I do think they should be treated less harshly than the mother.
posted by praemunire at 3:41 PM on February 14 [2 favorites]
posted by praemunire at 3:41 PM on February 14 [2 favorites]
Also, you named your kid "Noah Noah?"
Double first and last names are really common in Inuit communities, especially in Kinngait - where the name Noah comes from.
Project Surname was run during the 1970's to give Inuit "last names" so they could be tracked in Government systems better. A lot of names had to be invented on the spot, sometimes by a mishearing of an Inuktitut word by the white government official, sometimes by people choosing the only name they had. In which we get Noah Noah, Parr Parr and Qiatsuq Qiatsuq (RIP)
posted by dogbusonline at 3:46 PM on February 14 [40 favorites]
Nadya and Amira Gill are fraudsters taking advantage of the white inability to tell brown folks apart.
This isn't fair (it's funny, though). There are a lot of indigenous people in the US and they look... like people. Some of them are extremely fair (astronaut John Herrington) and others are not (Jason Momoa and Jimi Hendrix), and some of them have very close ties to their heritage and others do not, so if someone says they are partly or fully indigenous, what am I supposed to think?
posted by It's Never Lurgi at 3:55 PM on February 14 [11 favorites]
This isn't fair (it's funny, though). There are a lot of indigenous people in the US and they look... like people. Some of them are extremely fair (astronaut John Herrington) and others are not (Jason Momoa and Jimi Hendrix), and some of them have very close ties to their heritage and others do not, so if someone says they are partly or fully indigenous, what am I supposed to think?
posted by It's Never Lurgi at 3:55 PM on February 14 [11 favorites]
What's really so stupid is that the sisters would very likely have had extremely successful educations and careers if they'd not tried to pull this bullshit. By all accounts, they're plenty smart and ambitious.
Nadya and Amira Gill are fraudsters taking advantage of the white inability to tell brown folks apart.
That was kind of funny. And distressingly true. I was often assumed to be Native American by white people when I was a kid. Not that far off, really, but since then, I'd been asked if I was Chinese, (Asian) Indian, Polynesian, African... I even had someone think I was German once (wtf?). When I moved to St. Louis in the late 80s, I seemed to puzzle everyone. Mexican Americans were virtually unknown there at the time. African Americans knew I wasn't Black, but Whites couldn't figure out where to put me, which was kind of nice, really. Being treated without all the usual nonsense baggage an experience everyone should have at least once.
posted by 2N2222 at 4:28 PM on February 14 [2 favorites]
Nadya and Amira Gill are fraudsters taking advantage of the white inability to tell brown folks apart.
That was kind of funny. And distressingly true. I was often assumed to be Native American by white people when I was a kid. Not that far off, really, but since then, I'd been asked if I was Chinese, (Asian) Indian, Polynesian, African... I even had someone think I was German once (wtf?). When I moved to St. Louis in the late 80s, I seemed to puzzle everyone. Mexican Americans were virtually unknown there at the time. African Americans knew I wasn't Black, but Whites couldn't figure out where to put me, which was kind of nice, really. Being treated without all the usual nonsense baggage an experience everyone should have at least once.
posted by 2N2222 at 4:28 PM on February 14 [2 favorites]
I’d say the mother is absolutely the most culpable. Without knowing what kind of crap she fed her kids, it’s way harder to asses their blame, especially on the internet. However, they are grown-ass adults who responded to the allegations with evasion rather than horrified shock at what their mother had done, so I don’t think they’re entirely innocent. You think they would’ve started questioning the situation much earlier.
posted by GenjiandProust at 4:30 PM on February 14 [6 favorites]
posted by GenjiandProust at 4:30 PM on February 14 [6 favorites]
Coming back to this - I think one of the reasons I am kind of conflicted on this is because the reactions of the children remind me a lot of the kind of reactions that children of substance abusers have, where they're desperately trying to keep things normal and keep their parent placated so that the parent won't burn shit down in their life. The kind of mother, for example, that indignantly raises a defense that she would never be a thief over 25K when she's actually stolen 800K - an absolutely insanely self destructive thing to do, holy shit - is the kind of mother that you desperately want to keep from making a fuss about things because god only knows what she will do. And the thing is, that's the way that people in that situation react when you question them about really any aspect of their stories. It's hard to know what is true for kids like that - and the mother absolutely seems like the type to say stuff like "why aren't you using the Inuit cards, I did so much work to get those for you".
Also like...as a public defender, I will say that prosecutors aren't really in the business of letting people off the hook when they have a good chance for a conviction. If they're not prosecuting the daughters, I bet it's probably either because they turned state's evidence, or because they genuinely were unaware of the depth of the deception.
posted by corb at 5:45 PM on February 14 [20 favorites]
Also like...as a public defender, I will say that prosecutors aren't really in the business of letting people off the hook when they have a good chance for a conviction. If they're not prosecuting the daughters, I bet it's probably either because they turned state's evidence, or because they genuinely were unaware of the depth of the deception.
posted by corb at 5:45 PM on February 14 [20 favorites]
I noted the aside about how the mother came to Canada as a child from Tanzania. That fired up some dormant synapses. Wikipedia tells me that many Indians left Tanzania under the Nyrere government because of "anti-Indian sentiment." Perhaps I am overly sympathetic to someone who quite possibly is just a nasty piece of work, but I wonder if there is a backstory of family instability and insecurity that goes some way to explaining her need to exploit, deceive and acquire. I doubt those early transitions were fun. I guess the author was likely not able to her side of the story - I wonder what it is.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 8:38 PM on February 14 [2 favorites]
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 8:38 PM on February 14 [2 favorites]
Also like...as a public defender, I will say that prosecutors aren't really in the business of letting people off the hook when they have a good chance for a conviction
In Canada, crown counsel aren’t elected, and are quasi-judiciary, and so this calculus runs just slightly differently. They need to determine if there’s a reasonable chance of prosecution but also whether proceeding is in the public interest. The Crown does not win or lose. Just one relevant passage: “If Crown counsel determines that the reasonable prospect of conviction threshold is barely reached, other public interest criteria may weigh in favour of not proceeding with the prosecution. For example, where the case against an accused is not very strong and they have personal circumstances that are mitigating, Crown counsel should consider not proceeding. These circumstances may include an accused who has been subject to systemic discrimination, has mental health challenges, or has committed the offence(s) because of a substance-use disorder.’”
posted by warriorqueen at 8:52 PM on February 14 [6 favorites]
In Canada, crown counsel aren’t elected, and are quasi-judiciary, and so this calculus runs just slightly differently. They need to determine if there’s a reasonable chance of prosecution but also whether proceeding is in the public interest. The Crown does not win or lose. Just one relevant passage: “If Crown counsel determines that the reasonable prospect of conviction threshold is barely reached, other public interest criteria may weigh in favour of not proceeding with the prosecution. For example, where the case against an accused is not very strong and they have personal circumstances that are mitigating, Crown counsel should consider not proceeding. These circumstances may include an accused who has been subject to systemic discrimination, has mental health challenges, or has committed the offence(s) because of a substance-use disorder.’”
posted by warriorqueen at 8:52 PM on February 14 [6 favorites]
Also like...as a public defender, I will say that prosecutors aren't really in the business of letting people off the hook when they have a good chance for a conviction
In the case of the daughters, it seems likely they could make a believable case that they had no idea of the truth until it all came out publically. Part of that decision likely involved them being prepared to testify that it was their mother who started the whole thing while they were too young to know better.
posted by dg at 9:28 PM on February 14
In the case of the daughters, it seems likely they could make a believable case that they had no idea of the truth until it all came out publically. Part of that decision likely involved them being prepared to testify that it was their mother who started the whole thing while they were too young to know better.
posted by dg at 9:28 PM on February 14
According to the article:
Also, from the end of the article:
posted by jomato at 9:49 PM on February 14 [3 favorites]
It’s unlikely that Manji told her daughters they were Inuit by birth. After all, if she had suddenly dropped the thunderous news that they were adopted, surely the girls—and the rest of the Gill family—would have been puzzled. How to explain, say, photos of her pregnant with twin daughters? Or the striking resemblance they bore to the rest of their family?In addition to knowing that they weren't adopted, the unstated assertion here is that the daughters knew that neither of their birth parents was indigenous. If that's true, then the most generous claim we can make is that they honestly believed it was possible to qualify for these awards because their mother had lived for a time in an indigenous majority city before they were born. The fact that they were evasive and avoided personal questions about their indigenous heritage suggests to me that they knew this was sketchy at best. Personally, I think they knew they were perpetrating fraud but managed to rationalize it somehow.
Also, from the end of the article:
In July, APTN journalist Danielle Paradis reported that a website called HOIF Trading Post had appeared online with a near-identical business model to Kanata. ... Paradis, trying to confirm Ouimet’s identity and any connection to Kanata, discovered corporate records for HOIF listing both Amira Gill and Karima Manji as proprietors.Maybe Manji took this step without her daughters knowledge, or maybe Amira Gill is scheming with her mother to keep the ball rolling.
posted by jomato at 9:49 PM on February 14 [3 favorites]
You cannot tell who is Indigenous in Canada. I've worked for 20 years on Indigenous matters. Indigenous people have been welcoming and mixing with people from around the world for 400 years. During my 20 years I have worked with Indigenous people who strongly manifest their non- Indigenous parent or parents. I would not have thought to question this mother's or sisters' claimed ancestry. That is why pretendians are so corrosive - the only way for non-Indigenous people to unmask pretendians is to ask intrusive questions of the kind you should never ask anyone who isn't already under suspicion of committing a crime.
posted by SnowRottie at 9:52 PM on February 14 [18 favorites]
posted by SnowRottie at 9:52 PM on February 14 [18 favorites]
the only way for non-Indigenous people to unmask pretendians is to ask intrusive questions of the kind you should never ask anyone who isn't already under suspicion of committing a crime.
Is there a different method for indigenous people to unmask pretendians that's not intrusive?
Another element about this story that's so amusing to me, and what Manji and her daughters were depending on, is that this kind of scam can only advance when people are unwilling to voice suspicions out loud, precisely because doing so is intrusive and rude. And I'm willing to bet many more people were suspicious than are going to admit. There are comedies built around this trope.
It's incredibly corrosive. Policies meant to correct for grave past injustices are made into a mockery by such laxity. But so are rigorous investigations and codifications that would be capable of weeding out people who truly are ineligible for such aid.
posted by 2N2222 at 10:44 PM on February 14 [2 favorites]
Is there a different method for indigenous people to unmask pretendians that's not intrusive?
Another element about this story that's so amusing to me, and what Manji and her daughters were depending on, is that this kind of scam can only advance when people are unwilling to voice suspicions out loud, precisely because doing so is intrusive and rude. And I'm willing to bet many more people were suspicious than are going to admit. There are comedies built around this trope.
It's incredibly corrosive. Policies meant to correct for grave past injustices are made into a mockery by such laxity. But so are rigorous investigations and codifications that would be capable of weeding out people who truly are ineligible for such aid.
posted by 2N2222 at 10:44 PM on February 14 [2 favorites]
the only way for non-Indigenous people to unmask pretendians is to ask intrusive questions of the kind you should never ask anyone who isn't already under suspicion of committing a crime
Very well put, and a much better response to the naive criticisms of the vetting committee upthread. As far as Ottawa is concerned, better an Indigenous body decide the status of applicants, even if that provides opportunity for fraud because then it's not their fault and they can give lip-service to self-determination. If they could find a way to divest their responsibility for doing the same for First Nations, they probably would.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 10:48 PM on February 14 [3 favorites]
Very well put, and a much better response to the naive criticisms of the vetting committee upthread. As far as Ottawa is concerned, better an Indigenous body decide the status of applicants, even if that provides opportunity for fraud because then it's not their fault and they can give lip-service to self-determination. If they could find a way to divest their responsibility for doing the same for First Nations, they probably would.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 10:48 PM on February 14 [3 favorites]
the naive criticisms of the vetting committee upthread
They didn't call up five randos to ask them if so-and-so is Indigenous. They consulted a committee formed for that purpose. If you're unwilling on principle to do any of this kind of vetting work because you consider it an imperialist imposition or whatever, fine; but then why are you on a vetting committee? It is entirely consistent to think it's inappropriate in most circumstances to ask intrusive questions to help establish or disprove Indigeneity and yet think that when a person is voluntarily seeking resources specifically earmarked for Indigenous people, they should experience some degree of scrutiny. It seems that the Nunavut government agrees sufficiently to have formed local-level committees to scrutinize such people, using the very local knowledge and ties that one would think necessary to make that judgment.
better an Indigenous body decide the status of applicants, even if that provides opportunity for fraud
Who else to decide who is Indigenous? It would be absolutely bizarre to ask white people, in the area or out of it, to make that call.
posted by praemunire at 12:13 AM on February 15 [2 favorites]
They didn't call up five randos to ask them if so-and-so is Indigenous. They consulted a committee formed for that purpose. If you're unwilling on principle to do any of this kind of vetting work because you consider it an imperialist imposition or whatever, fine; but then why are you on a vetting committee? It is entirely consistent to think it's inappropriate in most circumstances to ask intrusive questions to help establish or disprove Indigeneity and yet think that when a person is voluntarily seeking resources specifically earmarked for Indigenous people, they should experience some degree of scrutiny. It seems that the Nunavut government agrees sufficiently to have formed local-level committees to scrutinize such people, using the very local knowledge and ties that one would think necessary to make that judgment.
better an Indigenous body decide the status of applicants, even if that provides opportunity for fraud
Who else to decide who is Indigenous? It would be absolutely bizarre to ask white people, in the area or out of it, to make that call.
posted by praemunire at 12:13 AM on February 15 [2 favorites]
Over here watching Americans try to apply American law on Canadian matters. I mean, as I said upthread this has been a big news story for a long time before it got to the Blue. It just wasn't on American radar until the post.
posted by Kitteh at 4:53 AM on February 15 [6 favorites]
posted by Kitteh at 4:53 AM on February 15 [6 favorites]
Mod note: A few comments removed. Please remember to be considerate and respectful. Telling someone they're wrong isn't as helpful or useful as explaining why you think they're wrong.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 6:09 AM on February 15
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 6:09 AM on February 15
where the case against an accused is not very strong and they have personal circumstances that are mitigating, Crown counsel should consider not proceeding. These circumstances may include an accused who has been subject to systemic discrimination, has mental health challenges, or has committed the offence(s) because of a substance-use disorder.’”
Fascinating! Thanks for both that helpful context and peek into a better world!
posted by corb at 6:20 AM on February 15
Fascinating! Thanks for both that helpful context and peek into a better world!
posted by corb at 6:20 AM on February 15
Also, you named your kid "Noah Noah?"
posted by jenfullmoon at 1:41 PM on February 14 [2 favorites +] [⚑]
Very uncool to make fun of an Indigenous name. I thought metafilter was passed this type of infantile racism.
posted by plant or animal at 6:29 AM on February 15 [6 favorites]
posted by jenfullmoon at 1:41 PM on February 14 [2 favorites +] [⚑]
Very uncool to make fun of an Indigenous name. I thought metafilter was passed this type of infantile racism.
posted by plant or animal at 6:29 AM on February 15 [6 favorites]
As others have noted, Canadian criminal justice operates differently than the American system. I’m not a criminal lawyer and perhaps one will come along to correct me, but I don’t think “turning state’s evidence” exists here in the same way that it works in America. It is possible for the Crown to offer immunity agreements in exchange for testimony, but that doesn’t appear to be what happened here from reading the reporting.
This looks like what’s called a global resolution: a guilty plea agreement that resolves multiple charges against multiple defendants in a single plea agreement. Since a conviction was entered against the mother and the charges against the daughters withdrawn, none of the defendants now face a trial and so unless there are other charges pending or other related charges against other defendants (which there don’t appear to be), there’s no future proceeding the daughters could be providing assistance to the Crown with in exchange for their charges being dropped. In any event, now that the charges are withdrawn against the daughters, that would remove any leverage the Crown would have over them to incentivize future cooperation. So I just don’t think that’s what’s going on here.
If anything, this looks like the mother agreed to take the fall as part of a deal to spare her daughters from criminal convictions and/or an indication that the charges against the daughters were weaker to begin with. As to why the Crown decided it was appropriate to withdraw the charges against the daughters, that’s hard to guess without knowing more about the specific charges and the substance of the Crown’s case. And ultimately these are discretionary decisions of the Crown and we’ll almost certainly never see a public explanation of the rationale for taking this deal.
Since we’re all speculating here, I would guess that it might be hard to prove to a criminal standard that the daughters knew the extent of what was going on, and that might have made a conviction at trial uncertain. Or maybe the daughters were only charged with relatively minor offenses that wouldn’t attract significant penalties anyway and the Crown decided it was appropriate to jettison those in order to obtain convictions on the big charges: those against the mother. Again, hard to know. I would also reserve judgement somewhat until we see what happens at sentencing, because if this agreement includes a significant penalty for the mother then that might also be part of the rationale for this deal.
It is very unfortunate though that the Crown wasn’t able to work out a result that Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. was happy with - that’s not a great look for the Crown here.
posted by orchard_tufts at 6:32 AM on February 15 [5 favorites]
This looks like what’s called a global resolution: a guilty plea agreement that resolves multiple charges against multiple defendants in a single plea agreement. Since a conviction was entered against the mother and the charges against the daughters withdrawn, none of the defendants now face a trial and so unless there are other charges pending or other related charges against other defendants (which there don’t appear to be), there’s no future proceeding the daughters could be providing assistance to the Crown with in exchange for their charges being dropped. In any event, now that the charges are withdrawn against the daughters, that would remove any leverage the Crown would have over them to incentivize future cooperation. So I just don’t think that’s what’s going on here.
If anything, this looks like the mother agreed to take the fall as part of a deal to spare her daughters from criminal convictions and/or an indication that the charges against the daughters were weaker to begin with. As to why the Crown decided it was appropriate to withdraw the charges against the daughters, that’s hard to guess without knowing more about the specific charges and the substance of the Crown’s case. And ultimately these are discretionary decisions of the Crown and we’ll almost certainly never see a public explanation of the rationale for taking this deal.
Since we’re all speculating here, I would guess that it might be hard to prove to a criminal standard that the daughters knew the extent of what was going on, and that might have made a conviction at trial uncertain. Or maybe the daughters were only charged with relatively minor offenses that wouldn’t attract significant penalties anyway and the Crown decided it was appropriate to jettison those in order to obtain convictions on the big charges: those against the mother. Again, hard to know. I would also reserve judgement somewhat until we see what happens at sentencing, because if this agreement includes a significant penalty for the mother then that might also be part of the rationale for this deal.
It is very unfortunate though that the Crown wasn’t able to work out a result that Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. was happy with - that’s not a great look for the Crown here.
posted by orchard_tufts at 6:32 AM on February 15 [5 favorites]
Also like...as a public defender, I will say that prosecutors aren't really in the business of letting people off the hook when they have a good chance for a conviction
In Canada, crown counsel aren’t elected, and are quasi-judiciary, and so this calculus runs just slightly differently. They need to determine if there’s a reasonable chance of prosecution but also whether proceeding is in the public interest. The Crown does not win or lose. Just one relevant passage: “If Crown counsel determines that the reasonable prospect of conviction threshold is barely reached, other public interest criteria may weigh in favour of not proceeding with the prosecution. For example, where the case against an accused is not very strong and they have personal circumstances that are mitigating, Crown counsel should consider not proceeding. These circumstances may include an accused who has been subject to systemic discrimination, has mental health challenges, or has committed the offence(s) because of a substance-use disorder.’”
posted by warriorqueen at 11:52 PM on February 14
Something else to add to this is that when you’re assessing the public interest in agreeing to a global resolution like this, you’re assessing the public interest in resolving the whole thing as a package versus the public interest in taking it to trial. I.e. for each individual charge assessed individually, the public interest might have weighed in favour of obtaining a conviction but if you can resolve an entire complex case through a plea deal that might involve dropping a couple of otherwise slam-dunk but minor charges, the Crown might still decide that taking the overall package deal is in the public interest.
Keep in mind here that things like conserving scarce judicial resources, avoiding running up lawyer fees, and potentially avoiding re-traumatizing victims by requiring them to testify at trial are also in the public interest, and those factors can weigh against taking things to trial if there’s a reasonable guilty plea deal on the table.
I’d also add that it’s unclear whether this deal also included any agreement on a sentence / fine for the mother, but that could have also been a factor.
posted by orchard_tufts at 7:09 AM on February 15 [2 favorites]
In Canada, crown counsel aren’t elected, and are quasi-judiciary, and so this calculus runs just slightly differently. They need to determine if there’s a reasonable chance of prosecution but also whether proceeding is in the public interest. The Crown does not win or lose. Just one relevant passage: “If Crown counsel determines that the reasonable prospect of conviction threshold is barely reached, other public interest criteria may weigh in favour of not proceeding with the prosecution. For example, where the case against an accused is not very strong and they have personal circumstances that are mitigating, Crown counsel should consider not proceeding. These circumstances may include an accused who has been subject to systemic discrimination, has mental health challenges, or has committed the offence(s) because of a substance-use disorder.’”
posted by warriorqueen at 11:52 PM on February 14
Something else to add to this is that when you’re assessing the public interest in agreeing to a global resolution like this, you’re assessing the public interest in resolving the whole thing as a package versus the public interest in taking it to trial. I.e. for each individual charge assessed individually, the public interest might have weighed in favour of obtaining a conviction but if you can resolve an entire complex case through a plea deal that might involve dropping a couple of otherwise slam-dunk but minor charges, the Crown might still decide that taking the overall package deal is in the public interest.
Keep in mind here that things like conserving scarce judicial resources, avoiding running up lawyer fees, and potentially avoiding re-traumatizing victims by requiring them to testify at trial are also in the public interest, and those factors can weigh against taking things to trial if there’s a reasonable guilty plea deal on the table.
I’d also add that it’s unclear whether this deal also included any agreement on a sentence / fine for the mother, but that could have also been a factor.
posted by orchard_tufts at 7:09 AM on February 15 [2 favorites]
Very uncool to make fun of an Indigenous name. I thought metafilter was passed this type of infantile racism.
I'm not making fun of it, I just didn't get why you'd name someone the same name twice, as it sounds like it would gather a lot of confusion. I apologize for my infantile racism.
posted by jenfullmoon at 7:37 AM on February 15 [1 favorite]
I'm not making fun of it, I just didn't get why you'd name someone the same name twice, as it sounds like it would gather a lot of confusion. I apologize for my infantile racism.
posted by jenfullmoon at 7:37 AM on February 15 [1 favorite]
A few comments removed. Please remember to be considerate and respectful. Telling someone they're wrong isn't as helpful or useful as explaining why you think they're wrong.
People can throw out any old subjective parent-splaining nonsense that doesn't jibe with the actual events in the story but if you disagree you have to adequately vamp and filibuster, got it (I know, the Grey is right over there, I don't have time).
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 8:23 AM on February 15
People can throw out any old subjective parent-splaining nonsense that doesn't jibe with the actual events in the story but if you disagree you have to adequately vamp and filibuster, got it (I know, the Grey is right over there, I don't have time).
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 8:23 AM on February 15
I'm a bit hesitant to weigh in on the Indigenous aspects of this case but there are some Canadian context things that also may help.
First, due to residential schools and other racist, genocidal policies including the 60s scoop, tracing Indigenous heritage can be tricky. My outside perception is that this is evolving pretty rapidly, but there isn't a common understanding that has emerged yet.
I'll share Michelle Cyca, who is an Indigenous writer and editor's perspective on this (a piece at The Walrus): "I have become increasingly uncomfortable with how these stories reinforce the idea that justice can be reached by discrediting an individual’s claims rather than by dismantling the systems and cultural mechanisms that reward and reinforce such deceptions at scale. In the wake of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, many institutions sought to “indigenize,” doing so by rewarding self-identified Indigenous people with jobs, grants, awards, honours, and titles. This was often done on the basis of how well those individuals performed to expectations of what an Indigenous person should be, or who offered a non-threatening version of Indigeneity that served the interests of the institution. In short: organizations and institutions incentivized identity fraud."
While I fully support journalists covering all kinds of stories, I'm a little disappointed that Toronto Life did not assign this piece to an Indigenous writer (at least from what I'm aware of, could be wrong.)
I would argue that there's not only a communications gap between Indigenous communities and institutions like universities but a big culture gap around things like criteria, speed, etc. If a university requires new documentation, they may not have really thought through criteria for Métis and Inuit vs. First Nations and how hard that documentation is to come by. That may result in people pressured to say yes. Also, bad policies have caused issues. The second episode of The Newfoundlander (Canadaland) looks at this in some detail.
Some people in this thread have commented on the vetting committee. I have never lived in the north but I have a good friend who has been up there for over 20 years, and what I can say is - whatever resources or time you are picturing, cut it by 80% at least.
posted by warriorqueen at 9:42 AM on February 15 [12 favorites]
First, due to residential schools and other racist, genocidal policies including the 60s scoop, tracing Indigenous heritage can be tricky. My outside perception is that this is evolving pretty rapidly, but there isn't a common understanding that has emerged yet.
I'll share Michelle Cyca, who is an Indigenous writer and editor's perspective on this (a piece at The Walrus): "I have become increasingly uncomfortable with how these stories reinforce the idea that justice can be reached by discrediting an individual’s claims rather than by dismantling the systems and cultural mechanisms that reward and reinforce such deceptions at scale. In the wake of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, many institutions sought to “indigenize,” doing so by rewarding self-identified Indigenous people with jobs, grants, awards, honours, and titles. This was often done on the basis of how well those individuals performed to expectations of what an Indigenous person should be, or who offered a non-threatening version of Indigeneity that served the interests of the institution. In short: organizations and institutions incentivized identity fraud."
While I fully support journalists covering all kinds of stories, I'm a little disappointed that Toronto Life did not assign this piece to an Indigenous writer (at least from what I'm aware of, could be wrong.)
I would argue that there's not only a communications gap between Indigenous communities and institutions like universities but a big culture gap around things like criteria, speed, etc. If a university requires new documentation, they may not have really thought through criteria for Métis and Inuit vs. First Nations and how hard that documentation is to come by. That may result in people pressured to say yes. Also, bad policies have caused issues. The second episode of The Newfoundlander (Canadaland) looks at this in some detail.
Some people in this thread have commented on the vetting committee. I have never lived in the north but I have a good friend who has been up there for over 20 years, and what I can say is - whatever resources or time you are picturing, cut it by 80% at least.
posted by warriorqueen at 9:42 AM on February 15 [12 favorites]
Toronto Life is easy to hate on; for every deep dive story, there's a lot of "this couple decided buying a 17th century farm in Spain was cheaper than buying in Toronto! How did they do it??" (Lots of money, TL. You know, your main audience?)
Minor derail aside, I have a friend who worked as a social worker in Kuujjuaq and echoing what warriorqueen said, whatever resources you're picturing for so many Northern Indigenous towns, it's a mere fraction. The poverty in these places is heartbreaking. My friend--who loved her job--ended up going on leave for burnout, and felt so so guilty about it.
posted by Kitteh at 9:48 AM on February 15 [3 favorites]
Minor derail aside, I have a friend who worked as a social worker in Kuujjuaq and echoing what warriorqueen said, whatever resources you're picturing for so many Northern Indigenous towns, it's a mere fraction. The poverty in these places is heartbreaking. My friend--who loved her job--ended up going on leave for burnout, and felt so so guilty about it.
posted by Kitteh at 9:48 AM on February 15 [3 favorites]
Yeah, like my friend's husband is the volunteer fire chief, and so besides his full time job, he is first on the scene for every accident/fire/etc. There was no coroner, so now he's the community coroner. Because he's now involved in every death, he's now supporting a bunch of families in their grief. And because of that, he's now the youth crisis hotline.
I can only imagine how many more demands there would be on Indigenous elders and leaders. There is no neighbouring community of any size. It's poverty but it's also isolation. You cannot drive down the road to the next town. Access is fly-in only (or barge, in the summer - only $15 shipping per kilogram of stuff you want)
If your charger breaks for your cell phone, if you can afford one, good luck to you. Consulting with people is not that easy.
I just checked for amusement how I would get a blueray disc to my friend via Amazon (I do send her things from time to time.) The same disc I can get by 10pm tonight would get to her for an estimated delivery date of March 7 and the shipping over Prime would be $30.30 plus tax.
This is just to say - a lot of things could delay a committee or lead them to barrel through some approvals, conceptually. Grant applications probably don't allow for the timeframe required, so I imagine there are human people trying to fill that gap in ways that end up suboptimal.
But that's all speculation. It is, however, context that helps to understand how easy it is to say "well these people should have done better" without really grasping the system they are in.
posted by warriorqueen at 11:02 AM on February 15 [8 favorites]
I can only imagine how many more demands there would be on Indigenous elders and leaders. There is no neighbouring community of any size. It's poverty but it's also isolation. You cannot drive down the road to the next town. Access is fly-in only (or barge, in the summer - only $15 shipping per kilogram of stuff you want)
If your charger breaks for your cell phone, if you can afford one, good luck to you. Consulting with people is not that easy.
I just checked for amusement how I would get a blueray disc to my friend via Amazon (I do send her things from time to time.) The same disc I can get by 10pm tonight would get to her for an estimated delivery date of March 7 and the shipping over Prime would be $30.30 plus tax.
This is just to say - a lot of things could delay a committee or lead them to barrel through some approvals, conceptually. Grant applications probably don't allow for the timeframe required, so I imagine there are human people trying to fill that gap in ways that end up suboptimal.
But that's all speculation. It is, however, context that helps to understand how easy it is to say "well these people should have done better" without really grasping the system they are in.
posted by warriorqueen at 11:02 AM on February 15 [8 favorites]
Very uncool to make fun of an Indigenous name. I thought metafilter was passed this type of infantile racism.
I'm American, and in no way eligible for any kind of indigenous or tribal membership in Canada or the US. But it's not obvious to me that "Noah Noah" is any kind of indigenous naming convention. As far as I know, it isn't among the Native Americans I've known here in the US Southwest. So, please, before you get all fingerwaggy, don't be too presumptuous about that response. For all I know, he was named in a flight of whimsy.
It's kind of funny how Canadian responses are, I dunno, weirdly defensive here. We ignorant folk trying to inject some good ol' 'Murrican reason into this crazy story are probably wasting our time, but the way it's getting all 'splainy on us, kind of has a tinge of "Forget it, Jake, it's Chinatown". I mean, yeah, we aren't all that familiar with how things are run (or not run) up north. But if you really want to own the story, have at it.
posted by 2N2222 at 3:56 PM on February 19 [1 favorite]
I'm American, and in no way eligible for any kind of indigenous or tribal membership in Canada or the US. But it's not obvious to me that "Noah Noah" is any kind of indigenous naming convention. As far as I know, it isn't among the Native Americans I've known here in the US Southwest. So, please, before you get all fingerwaggy, don't be too presumptuous about that response. For all I know, he was named in a flight of whimsy.
It's kind of funny how Canadian responses are, I dunno, weirdly defensive here. We ignorant folk trying to inject some good ol' 'Murrican reason into this crazy story are probably wasting our time, but the way it's getting all 'splainy on us, kind of has a tinge of "Forget it, Jake, it's Chinatown". I mean, yeah, we aren't all that familiar with how things are run (or not run) up north. But if you really want to own the story, have at it.
posted by 2N2222 at 3:56 PM on February 19 [1 favorite]
« Older Union of Soviet Smoochiest Republics | Notation Must Die! Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments