Why has the mainstream media ignored Indigenous protest in Saskatchewan?
Photo Credit: (Toronto Star / Google Images)
Written by: Jessi Glichrist
Our liberal media has been preoccupied by the protests that have erupted in cities across America in support of racial justice. Without explanation, we know what is meant by a reference to the cities of Minneapolis, Portland, Kenosha, and many more in 2020.
These cities saw protests. They saw riots. They saw looting. All in the name of opposing police brutality against black bodies. They saw counterprotests and civilian violence against those who support equality. The media went for it. The names of the victims and perpetrators alike have been everywhere.
But do you know whose name isn’t everywhere? Tristen Durocher.
Tristen Durocher is a young Mètis man from Northern Saskatchewan who has spent the summer peacefully advocating for a government response to the suicide crisis plaguing Saskatchewan’s northern Indigenous communities. On September 11, Tristen Durocher won a court case against the Saskatchewan government and the Provincial Capital Commission. This case is important for a number of reasons, but the national media has failed to discuss it any meaningful way.
On July 2, 2020, Tristen Durocher began his 639 kilometer walk from Air Ronge to the capital city of Saskatchewan to raise awareness for the suicide crisis plaguing Saskatchewan’s Indigenous communities, particularly in the North.
Northern Saskatchewan is not the Canada that many of us are used to. There is only one major highway leading to the far north. Essential services are not readily available within communities. They often require travel to larger urban centres. Local grocery stores may not be stocked with basic needs. Food shortages have been a concern long before the pandemic hit. Healthcare is often inaccessible. Serious health concerns require a flight to Saskatoon or Regina. There is a serious suicide problem among Indigenous people, youth, and children living in the region, which has only been exacerbated by COVID-19.
On June 19, 2020, the Saskatchewan Legislature voted down the proposed Bill 618 designed to address precisely this issue. Cumberland MLA Doyle Vermette introduced Bill 618, the Saskatchewan Strategy for Suicide Prevention Act, which recognized that suicide can be influenced by societal attitudes and conditions such as food insecurity, lack of healthcare, and feelings of isolation. This Bill had the potential to create positive and meaningful change in Saskatchewan.
In opposition to this proposal, Premier Moe and his followers cited concerns over the “wording of the bill” but withheld from proposing amendments. Bill 618 was struck down 13 in favour and 44 against.
On July 31, 2020, Tristen Durocher arrived in Regina and began his 44 day hunger strike, one day for each of the 44 MLAs who opted to continue the trend of government neglect in the north. Tristen set up a teepee on the West Lawn of Wascana Centre across from the Saskatchewan Legislative Building and surrounded it with a gallery of photographs depicting victims of suicide. But this was not only an act of advocacy. It was an act of grieving and of healing.
But for the Saskatchewan government, this was unacceptable. The Sask Party leadership refused to meet with Tristen and instead demanded that he vacate the premises because he had not applied for the requisite permit. On August 1, the Saskatchewan government decided to take him to court over the issue. The court date was set for just over a week before Durocher planned to end his ceremonial fast.
On September 11, the verdict was released. Judge Graeme Mitchell ruled that Tristan Durocher will be allowed to “complete his ceremonial cast and vigil without further incident” in front of the Legislature. Not only did the Judge dismiss the Provincial government’s suit, he determined the bylaws in question unconstitutional because they provided no accommodation for constitutionally protected political and spiritual expression. The judgement also notes that Tristen’s ceremonial act represents an attempt “to encourage all of us to move a little further” towards Truth and Reconciliation.
On September 11, 2020, a court in Canada finally recognized an Indigenous man’s right to protest his community’s unacceptable conditions. This case is important because it recognizes the norms embodied within the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. It sends the message that the days of politicians attempting to use ‘neutral’ laws to uphold colonialism are over. It sends a warning that attempts to marginalize Indigenous voices will be buried in Constitutional law. This case makes the constitution work for all people of Canada, not just its colonial forebearers.
But this case also leaves much unfinished. A comprehensive Bill that addresses the suicide crisis in northern communities is still illusive. Saskatchewan remains home to victims of the so-called Starlight Tours conducted by the Saskatoon Police Service, who made a habit of dropping off Indigenous men in rural areas in sub-zero temperatures without coats or shoes. Victims who have yet to see justice. Saskatchewan also remains home to the widely condemned judgement from an all-white jury that found Gerald Stanley not-guilty of murder after shooting and killing Colten Boushie.
The Saskatchewan government continued this trend of injustice when they preferred to forcibly remove Tristen Durocher rather than engage in any meaningful discussion over the very real suicide crisis affecting the North. We must make Saskatchewan v. Durocher 2020 SKQB 224 a starting point for reconciliation, not an end.
Yet this case – this whole situation – has been almost entirely ignored by the media outside of Saskatchewan. The brief stories that have touched on Tristen Durocher’s advocacy efforts have either critiqued him or displaced him from the story with headlines that highlight Saskatchewan’s fight to remove the teepee from the Legislature lawn and suggest that ‘bias’ may have been involved in the Judge’s ruling. While the Judge’s ruling upheld Tristen Durocher’s right to advocacy via freedom of expression, the national media machine has continued to silence Indigenous voices.
This silencing of marginalized voices is particularly curious considering the national media’s consistent commentary on racial injustice south of the border. This case reveals something deeper about our national media coverage.
First, it shows that our media imports issues to critique. The liberal media positions itself as ‘woke’ because it is willing to recognize systemic and institutional racism in other countries, but only rarely in Canada. By putting forward narratives about “Saskatchewan’s fight” and judicial bias, the national media coverage reinforces colonial tropes of Indigenous peoples as both threatening and sneakily manipulative.
Second, it reveals the geographic challenges of being heard in Canada. The national media has a tendency to overlook important controversies that happen outside southern Ontario, and particularly, in rural areas. The blockades between Toronto and Ottawa that emerged in solidarity with the Wet’suwet’en peoples, who are located in British Columbia, are a perfect example of how important it is to make noise in southern Ontario in order to receive recognition.
The lack of media coverage on advocacy efforts in Regina and even more recently, the state of emergency declared by the Assembly of Nova Scotia Mi’kmaw Chiefs in response to violence against Indigenous fisheries, highlight the geographic disparity in Canada’s national media coverage.
These cases are by no means a Saskatchewan-only or a Nova Scotia-only problem. They are symptoms of the legacies of colonialism that continue to inform public policy, government decision-making, and cultural attitudes across the country.
Finally, it reveals the media’s preoccupation with violence. The media has jumped at the chance to report on mass protests turned violent, instances of looting, and escalating police presence. But in doing so, it has overlooked important instances of peaceful protest and advocacy in our own backyard.
It is essential to recognize that protest can be violent, but it doesn’t have to be. And when it isn’t, we still need to listen. Sometimes meaningful change only takes one person standing up to injustice.
More Articles
