The Law in B.C. takes a backseat to indigenous "narratives"
Protecting indigenous feelings at the expense of truth
Woke Watch Canada is a reader-supported publication. Please consider becoming a paying subscriber or making a one-time or recurring donation to show your support.
By James Pew
In my last piece concerning unmarked graves, the defamation of Jim Heller by the B.C. Law Society, and the cancelling of B.C. MLA Dallas Brodi, called The Subversion of BC Law, I went through the melodrama unfolding around an indigenous culture training module, the Indigenous Intercultural Course (IIC), mandatory for B.C. lawyers since 2019, which was discovered by Heller to contain the false claim that 215 remains of children were unearthed in 2021 at a former Indian Residential School in Kamloops B.C.
Jim Heller is a lawyer and a member of the B.C. Law Society. His attempts to have the IIC corrected were at first ignored. Then, he and another lawyer, Mark Berry, brought forward a formal resolution concerning his proposed IIC amendments at the law society's annual general meeting. They were subsequently defamed by the law society, which triggered Heller to sue for defamation (the matter is still ongoing).
Before filing their resolution, Heller and Berry had taken their cues from a relevant B.C. court of appeal judgement by B.C.’s chief justice Len Marchand. That Justice Marchand is indigenous is of no small consequence. He had ruled in an appeal case concerning Justice Shelley Fitzpatrick who had been accused of anti-indigenous bias during a sentencing ruling involving indigenous defendants where she felt compelled to correct the record on a false statement made by defence lawyer (Benjamin Isitt) who, while arguing leniency for his client, had eluded to the “discovery” of 215 unmarked graves of indigenous children as if it had been substantiated.
I wonder if Benjamin Isitt had already completed the IIC training at the time he made his incorrect statement to Justice Fitzpatrick. If Isitt had, it is no stretch to assume that the misleading content in the IIC was, at least in part, responsible for Isitt’s false belief that children’s remains have been uncovered in Kamloops. And also, responsible for the libelous attacks against Justice Fitzpatrick. It is one thing for the activists and other members of the courtroom gallery to passionately believe falsehoods, but lawyers need to rise to a higher standard. However, if their own law society misleads them in a mandatory course, can we really blame lawyers for getting it wrong?
The latest development may help readers come to an answer on this. Heller recently brought to our attention, a letter from a retired B.C. lawyer addressed to the B.C. Law Society regarding the Justice Fitzpatrick situation. The letter emphasized the duty lawyers have to defend Justices (who are not able to defend themselves). But it also shows what the law society knew before Heller first contacted them with his concern over the falsehoods found in the IIC.
The retired lawyer had made the law society aware of the unsubstantiated claim of unmarked graves in Kamloops, and of the contentious scenario involving Justice Fitzpatrick. The problems associated with not correcting the record with regards to the known facts in Kamloops was made clear to them. The letter pointed out a provision in the code of professional conduct for B.C. where it is written that judges “are entitled to receive the support of the legal profession against unjust criticism and complaint.” This entitlement appears to have been denied a justice who favours facts over feelings. Referring to Justice Fitzpatrick and the “legal profession” (the lawyers of the B.C. law society), Heller proclaimed in an interview this week with Drea Humphrey of Rebel News, “rather than defending the judge, they are impugning the judge.”
Since we now know the issue was not new to them, why would the law society simply not correct the incorrect bits of the IIC when Heller first pointed them out? Instead, at least initially, they chose to ignore, defer, distract and dissemble, but since Heller formally challenged them, attack, escalate, exaggerate, and defame.
It is worth pointing out that not all B.C. lawyers agree with the law society's stance on these matters. When Heller and Berry brought their resolution to the AGM it was defeated by an unexpectedly close vote of 1,499 to 1,683. While some members publicly dismissed the resolution as racism, others had thoughtful things to say in a law society online portal discussion thread. However, in a break from convention, the law society shut down the portal (so lawyers could no longer discuss the resolution) days before voting was to take place. Did the law society panic because a rational fact-based discourse was taking place, instead of the expected pearl-clutching that normally occurs when indigenous narratives are questioned? This is anyone’s guess. However, the normal procedure to allow discussion of resolutions to continue until the voting is completed was not followed.
The most plausible assessment of this and other similar debacles involving the many highly specious indigenous claims is that Heller, the retired lawyer, the 1,499 lawyers who voted for the resolution, and anyone else seeking evidence for assertions made by indigenous bands concerning unmarked graves, are not actually racists or residential school deniers. This should go without saying, but in 2025 it absolutely needs to not just be said, but repeatedly broadcast. Because the message, the objective truth of the matter, is having a terrible time getting through the thickest of leftist skulls.
Another interesting detail found in the retired lawyer’s letter was his use of the term Citzens+ to refer to status indigenous Canadians. For example, after mentioning an example in the media of an “oral attack and slander on” Justice Fitzpatrick, “one of a number she has endured,” he asked the law society, “has the law shifted so far in favour of Citizens+ of this country that they are no longer bound by the laws of Canada and can slander judges with impunity both of which positions Citizens+ have taken in this and other matters?” He goes on to point out that the “slanders and lies relating to this and other cases by Citizens+ have been widely reported.” The letter closes by explaining that the law society seems to have dropped the ball on their requirement to defend judges by pointing out that they have not officially responded or condememed any of the libel, or the public spreading of untruths:
“What official response, as required by the Canons (Code of professional conduct for B.C.), to these unjustified comments and lies has come from the law society?”
Citizens+ is another illiberal concept, not unlike the Gladue process discussed in my previous piece on this file, which awards status indigenous Canadians with extra advantages and privileges not afforded to non-indigenous (non-status) Canadians. Citizens+ was the name of an indigenous policy document more widely known as the “Red Paper,” that rejected the liberal premise of Pierre Elliot Trudeau’s 1969 “White Paper,” which called for assimilation and to repeal the Indian Act. This meant the full enfranchisement of indigenous Canadians, and the mothballing of special status. It would have given indigenous Canadians private property rights, allowing individuals to buy and sell property on reserves. As it stands, the government views Indigenous lands as being held in a federal trust in order to prevent the breakup of the Indian reservation system.
The Red Paper incorporated the suggestions (and borrowed its title, “Citizens Plus”) from the Hawthorne Report (1967) – which argued against private land ownership and assimilatory policies, stating “Indians should be regarded as ‘citizens plus’; in addition to the normal rights and duties of citizenship, Indians possess certain additional rights as charter members of the Canadian community.” In addition, the Hawthorne Report authors expostulated that the White Paper offered “despair instead of hope.” Ultimately, the Red Paper incorporated the spirit of the Hawthorne Report when it was published in 1970 by the Indian Association of Alberta under Harold Cardinal. It proclaimed that indigenous Canadians should indeed be recognized as “citizens plus,” and be granted additional rights based on historical treaties and their unique status as original inhabitants. Apparently, for decades now, liberalism in Canada does not apply to those who arrived first.
Turning to the latest development concerning Dallas Brodie, an MLA and the former attorney general critic for John Rustad’s B.C. conservative party, who found herself in hot water for defending Heller and Berry. As discussed in my last piece on this file, Rustad removed Brodie from the conservative party by disingenuously conflating her critique of the progressive habit of deploying subjective relative truth, for the mocking of indigenous “survivors” of Indian Residential Schools. Brodi, in fact, did not mock indigenous people. Here comments regarding the multiple truths of the Left were made in an interview with professor Frances Widdowson (See below):
Here is the X-post, which is referring to Heller and Berry, that got Brodie into trouble initially:
On March 21, Brodie posted to X: “One of BC’s most powerful lobby groups wants to criminalize true statements about residential schools. They want me jailed for stating a fact. Don’t let them intimidate you. Canada is strong enough to handle any truth, as long as we remain free to speak it.” Indeed, the First Nations Leadership Council (FNLC) published a letter calling for “Canada to prioritize legislation to create legal protections against residential school denialism.”
According to the FNLC letter, “First Nations leadership have passed resolutions at the B.C. Assembly of First Nations and the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs for the rights and testimony of survivors to be upheld.” Just in case the illiberalism of the Gladue system, and the Citizens+ conception of indigenous Canadian citizenship was not scandalous enough, indigenous leaders are now demanding that those who question the narrative claims of indigenous people be thrown in the slammer. What could go wrong?
Thanks for reading. For more from this author read, Carney is a Net-Zero.
Follow Woke Watch Canada on X - @WokeWatchCanada
Or, by contributing to our Donor Box:
 | A guest post by
|
A very articulate and informative article exposing the contagion of stupidity.
“Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds. The mediocre mind is incapable of understanding the man who refuses to bow blindly to conventional prejudices and chooses instead to express his opinions courageously and honestly.”
Einstein
Dallas Brodie is of course correct, and Rustad is a coward.
What a mess B.C. is.
Good article.