Colten Boushie was a 22-year-old from Red Pheasant Cree Nation in Saskatchewan. In August 2016, Colten was shot in the back of the head and killed by Gerald Stanley. On Friday, an all-white jury found that the accused -- Gerald Stanley -- was acquitted of all charges. The administration of justice in this case, from beginning to end, reeks of racism. The Federation of Sovereign Indigenous Nations and the Battlefords Agency Tribal Chiefs are calling for an immediate appeal of the verdict and an inquiry into this "gross miscarriage of justice”. A massive petition will show federal and provincial Justice Ministers that there is cross-country support for these demands. Sign the petition calling for an immediate appeal and inquiry.. Please also consider donating to the Boushie/Baptiste family, to support them in their time of morning and healing and on their journey for justice: https://www.gofundme.com/justice4colten Here’s a recap of what happened: Gerald Stanley, a white man from North Battleford SK, shot Colten Boushie, a young Indigenous man, in the head. The RCMP responded to Boushie’s death by storming his family’s home with guns drawn, searching Boushie’s house without a warrant and accused his mom of drinking. When the case went to court, Indigenous people were systematically excluded from the jury. Those left with the power to decide Stanley’s fate would be all white. Despite expert evidence and testimony that the gun didn’t fire accidently, Stanley was fully acquitted of any responsibility — even manslaughter — for Boushie’s death. This verdict is a striking example of how racism still persists in Canada’s justice system. There needs to be an immediate appeal and special inquiry into the administration of justice in this case immediately. The Minister of Justice in Saskatchewan has power to launch an inquiry and call for an immediate appeal of the verdict. Justice Minister Jody-Wilson Raybould, who has spoken out about the verdict, has the political weight to make it happen. Sources: Stanley says he shot Boushie in head: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/colten-boushie/article32451940/ Federal Minister speaks out: https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/we-have-to-do-better-trudeau-reacts-to-gerald-stanley-verdict-1.3798036 All-white jury: http://www.macleans.ca/news/the-gerald-stanley-verdict-is-a-blow-to-reconciliation-and-a-terrifying-one-at-that/ Indigenous leaders call for inquiry: http://www.ckom.com/2018/02/09/238156/ To support Colten's family in their time of mourning and healing, and on their journey for justice, please donate: https://www.gofundme.com/justice4colten

Downtown Eastside residents have struggled for over a decade to get the site at 58 W. Hastings for social housing for low-income community members. Led by Indigenous women community organizers, residents and supporters have marched through the streets, organized two tent cities including the 2010 Olympic tent city and 2016 tent city, guided tours with BC's new NDP Minister of Housing and Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction, held countless public meetings, demonstrations, and more. About 1,200 homeless people and 3,000 SRO residents live in the Downtown Eastside with no decent housing available for them at rents they can afford. Homeless people have about half the life expectancy of other people in society. Indigenous people, women and children fleeing violence, and other marginalized communities are more likely to experience homelessness. SRO living, where residents share washrooms with everyone on their floor, is not adequate: residents do not have private kitchens, have numerous rodents and bugs, and are often subject to abusive management. SRO residents and homeless people need decent, dignified social housing they can afford. Yet the Mayor and City of Vancouver are planning to reduce the amount of social housing from the promise 100% down to 30%. The plan to build over 200 units of housing in the DTES, with only 70 of them planned to be at welfare/pension rate, is a waste of good housing and further contributes to the gentrification of the DTES. A “social mix” building which includes expensive rentals will exacerbate market pressures on the neighbourhood, create higher rents for SRO residents, and generate the displacement of even more low income people from the DTES. On August 2, 2016, Mayor Gregor Robertson signed a commitment to build 100% welfare and pension rate, community-controlled social housing at 58 W Hastings. Since then, the city has reneged on its promise. Instead of a project that would provide over 300 units to low-income people, the city is moving along with a project that could provide as few as 70 units at a time with record high homelessness. Read more about the Our Homes Can’t Wait Coalition and our community vision for housing on 58 W Hastings here: www.carnegieaction.org/ourhomescantwait/

Many countries in the Middle East, particularly Egypt, rely heavily on tourism for employment - providing direct and indirect income to countless people. When Western countries put up travel advisories, many people are discouraged from visiting. As a result, local incomes are reduced, unemployment is increased, poverty is worsened, and countless families suffer unnecessarily. This is an avoidable tragedy, and directly contradicts the aims of our international aid, and the great work of countless NGOs and others who are working on development in the region. At the same time, many Western countries have had significant security events happen in major urban areas, and have not had similar advisories placed on them by the Canadian government. Canadians (including myself) and other expats have lived, worked and traveled in and out of Egypt happily and safely over the last several decades, even when travel advisories have been present, including staff at the Canadian embassy in Cairo. This petition is not suggesting that there are no safety risks - simply asking that the region get treated fairly, and endorsed equally compared to Western countries.

Shocking news broke on November 11 that the government of Ontario has been hiding evidence for decades that the grounds of the infamous Dryden mill site upstream of Grassy Narrows are soaked with mercury. [https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/11/11/ontario-knew-about-mercury-site-near-grassy-narrows-for-decades-but-kept-it-secret.html] Tell Premier Wynne and Prime Minister Trudeau to make an immediate, binding commitment to build a state of the art Mercury Home and Treatment Centre in Grassy Narrows First Nation.

Fish farms operating in Mamalilikala, Namgis, and Musgamagw Dzawada'enuxw territories of the Broughton Archipelago in BC are threatening wild salmon populations, and poisoning vital water sources. [1] Deadly diseases and viruses from open-cage feed lots are spreading to wild salmon, putting at risk indigenous communities that rely on the wild salmon, and over 100 species that depend on wild salmon to survive. The Mamalilikala, Namgis, and Musgamagw Dzawada'enuxw do not consent to the operation of finfish aquaculture within their territories, and peaceful occupation of fish farms has been ongoing for over 2 months. [2] The BC Minister of Agriculture Lana Popham has sent a letter to fish farm operator Marine Harvest implying that they may not have their tenure for their Port Elizabeth salmon farm renewed in 2018, and Premier John Horgan has committed to further discussions with Indigenous communities about the future of the fish farms. In the meantime, fish farms in the Broughton Archipelago continue to be restocked with fish that will out-live Marine Harvest’s current license. [3] We need to make sure that the BC NDP hears loud and clear that there is widespread support for the removal of open-net cage feed lots from the Broughton Archipelago. We call on the BC NDP to fulfill their commitment to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), and remove all open-net fish farms from the Broughton Archipelago that are operating without the consent of indigenous communities. [4] We demand that: • No restocking of existing empty pens/sites; • No use of hydrogen peroxide to be used to treat sea lice infestations; • No renewal of licences and/or tenures; and • For the industry to remove all open-net cage fish farms sites from the collective territorial waters. Sources: [1][2]https://www.biv.com/article/2017/10/horgans-tone-salmon-farming-unsettling-marine-harv/ [3]https://www.biv.com/article/2017/10/horgans-tone-salmon-farming-unsettling-marine-harv/ [4]https://www.bcndp.ca/reconciliation [photo] https://www.raincoast.org/2017/08/bc-government-signals-challenge-for-trans-mountain-pipeline-on-legal-grounds/

Samsing, operators of the North Kent Wind Farm, continue pile driving into the bedrock of Chatham Kent, knowing that it has destroyed the water wells of dozens of families. Ontario regulators are doing nothing to protect these families, who have relied on well water for generations. The pile driving sends toxic sediment into the water that ruins water pumps. The sediment could eventually settle, but the vibrations from the turbines prevent this. Ultimately, the pile driving has resulted in dozens of families and their farms being cut off from their water supply. A few farmers tried to blockade the site to prevent further damage and Samsung sued them for the cost of delays. Tell Samsung to clean up its act! Boycott their phones, TVs and appliances and demand your pension funds divest from them now.

Brandon's issues with heroin and meth are increasing daily. Four overdoses in one weekend (October 22nd) is a wake up call for our community to take action. There are currently no designated drug-detox beds in Brandon, meaning many people wanting to get help first have to try to detox in their own homes, without medical intervention, before attempting to get into treatment. Without adequate support services in our community, the number of overdoses will continue to rise. We need action now. For more information, click here: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/brandon-drug-overdoses-1.4370099

Bill 62 is state-sanctioned Islamophobia. It targets Muslim women specifically, and by denying Muslim women wearing the niqab access to public services, the government of Quebec is isolating women and discriminating against them on the basis of their faith. Bill 62 is a slippery slope to religious intolerance that must be struck down. In the 2015 election, Trudeau campaigned in support of Muslim women’s right to wear the niqab. Earlier this year, his government passed a motion condemning Islamophobia. But now, he’s refusing to stand up against this Islamophobic bill. The media already slamming Trudeau’s “Islamophobia hypocrisy”, speculating he’s staying on the sidelines to avoid losing votes in seat-rich Quebec. If thousands of us remind Trudeau of his strong statements against Islamophobia, we can force him to take a stand against Bill 62 -- or look like a hypocrite. [3-4] Sources: [1] https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/10/24/quebec-justice-minister-explains-how-niqab-ban-would-be-applied-after-widespread-criticism.html [2] http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/constitutionality-of-quebec-s-bill-62-difficult-to-defend-legal-expert-says-1.3645585 [3] http://torontosun.com/news/national/bill-62-reveals-trudeaus-islamophobia-hypocrisy [4] http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/althia-raj/the-veil-of-convenience-trudeau-stays-silent-as-quebec-targets-muslims_a_23250365/ *Photo by Matt d'Amours*

Une Canadienne sur cinq subira une agression sexuelle au cours de sa vie universitaire. En fait, tout porte à croire que les barrières systémiques qui empêchent plusieurs femmes à signaler des agressions sexuelles rendent cette statistique encore plus élevée. Sans une politique suffisante concernant la violence sexuelle, les universités n’auront pas les moyens de prévenir le harcèlement et la violence sexuelle subis par des femmes sur leurs campus. Actuellement, il n’y a presque pas d’université au Canada qui va assez loin dans sa politique sur la violence sexuelle et plusieurs ne s’en sont même pas doté d’un. Le gouvernement du Québec a déjà promis 23 millions de dollars sur cinq ans pour contrer la violence sexuelle dans ses institutions postsecondaires et la ministre de l’Éducation et de l’Enseignement supérieure, Helène David, a affirmé que ce projet de loi devrait être présenté cet automne. Il faut que nous nous assurions que ce projet de loi va assez loin et assure que les politiques sur la prévention de la violence sexuelle rédigées par les universités et CEGEPs incluent : Une clause d'immunité spécifique pour la consommation de drogues et d'alcool. Protection contre les contacts face à face pendant le processus de plainte. Mesures provisoires centrées sur le survivant. Options de plaintes anonymes et organisées par des tierces parties. Reconnaissance des impacts intersectionnels de la violence sexuelle. Formation obligatoire en matière de soutien et de sensibilisation à la violence sexuelle pour tous ceux qui sont impliqués dans le processus de plainte Tierce partie indépendante du comité d'appelExistence de délais clairs Reconnaissance de la culture du viol sur les campus. Les Politique ne devrait pas autoriser des : Délais pour le dépôt d'une plainte formelle Sanctions menaçantes pour les plaintes vexatoires, malveillantes ou fausses Motions de bâillon (pendant ou au-delà du processus de plainte) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 in 5 Canadian women will experience sexual assault while at university. Evidence suggests that these numbers are actually much higher due to the systemic barriers to reporting assaults that many women face. [1] Universities have the means to prevent women from experiencing sexual assault and harassment on campus, but they need sufficient policies put in place to do that. Currently, almost no Canadian universities have adequate policies, and many have none at all. [2] The Government of Quebec has already committed $23 million over five years to counter sexual violence in post-secondary institutions, and Higher Education Minister Hélène David has said that legislation is coming this fall. [3] We need to make sure that the legislation goes far enough in holding universities and colleges accountable, and that the legislation recommends that educational institutions’ sexual violence prevention policies have: A Specific Immunity Clause for Drug and Alcohol Use Protection from Face to Face Encounters During the Complaint Process Survivor-Centric Interim Measures Anonymous and Third Party Complaint Options Recognition of the Intersectional Impacts of Sexual Violence Required Sexual Violence Support and Sensitivity Training for all those involved in the Complaint Process Independent Third Party Member of the Appeal Committee Existence of Clear Timelines Acknowledgment of Campus Rape Culture Policies should not have: Time limits for Filing a Formal Complaint Threatening Sanctions for Vexatious, Malicious or False Complaints Gag Order (During or Beyond the Complaint Process) A Loophole whereby a complaint can be suspended if the respondent ends their relationship with the school (i.e. transfers or drops out) [4] Sources: [1][4] http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/4106721/Our-Turn-Action-Plan-Final-English-2.pdf [2] http://www.universityaffairs.ca/news/news-article/universities-across-canada-implement-sexual-violence-policies/] [3]http://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/quebec-to-invest-23-million-to-fight-sexual-violence-on-campuses

[Not your Province? Find the petition for your Province here: https://you.leadnow.ca/efforts/what-you-can-do-for-metoo] 1 in 5 Canadian women will experience sexual assault while at university. Evidence suggests that these numbers are actually much higher due to the systemic barriers to reporting assaults that many women face. [1] Universities have the means to prevent women from experiencing sexual assault and harassment on campus, but they need sufficient policies put in place to do that. Currently, almost no Canadian universities have adequate policies, and many have none at all. [2] The provincial government needs to mandate that all post-secondary institutions implement sexual violence prevention policies, provide the funding necessary for them to do so, and create oversight mechanisms to hold those institutions to account. Legislation should recommend that educational institutions’ sexual violence prevention policies have: A Specific Immunity Clause for Drug and Alcohol Use Protection from Face to Face Encounters During the Complaint Process Survivor-Centric Interim Measures Anonymous and Third Party Complaint Options Recognition of the Intersectional Impacts of Sexual Violence Required Sexual Violence Support and Sensitivity Training for all those involved in the Complaint Process Independent Third Party Member of the Appeal Committee Existence of Clear Timelines Acknowledgment of Campus Rape Culture Policies should not have: Time limits for Filing a Formal Complaint Threatening Sanctions for Vexatious, Malicious or False Complaints Gag Order (During or Beyond the Complaint Process) A Loophole whereby a complaint can be suspended if the respondent ends their relationship with the school (i.e. transfers or drops out) [3] Sources: [1][3] http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/4106721/Our-Turn-Action-Plan-Final-English-2.pdf [2] http://www.universityaffairs.ca/news/news-article/universities-across-canada-implement-sexual-violence-policies/

[Not your Province? Find the petition for your Province here: https://you.leadnow.ca/efforts/what-you-can-do-for-metoo] 1 in 5 Canadian women will experience sexual assault while at university. Evidence suggests that these numbers are actually much higher due to the systemic barriers to reporting assaults that many women face. [1] Universities have the means to prevent women from experiencing sexual assault and harassment on campus, but they need sufficient policies put in place to do that. Currently, almost no Canadian universities have adequate policies, and many have none at all. [2] The provincial government needs to mandate that all post-secondary institutions implement sexual violence prevention policies, provide the funding necessary for them to do so, and create oversight mechanisms to hold those institutions to account. Legislation should recommend that educational institutions’ sexual violence prevention policies have: A Specific Immunity Clause for Drug and Alcohol Use Protection from Face to Face Encounters During the Complaint Process Survivor-Centric Interim Measures Anonymous and Third Party Complaint Options Recognition of the Intersectional Impacts of Sexual Violence Required Sexual Violence Support and Sensitivity Training for all those involved in the Complaint Process Independent Third Party Member of the Appeal Committee Existence of Clear Timelines Acknowledgment of Campus Rape Culture Policies should not have: Time limits for Filing a Formal Complaint Threatening Sanctions for Vexatious, Malicious or False Complaints Gag Order (During or Beyond the Complaint Process) A Loophole whereby a complaint can be suspended if the respondent ends their relationship with the school (i.e. transfers or drops out) [3] Sources: [1][3] http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/4106721/Our-Turn-Action-Plan-Final-English-2.pdf [2] http://www.universityaffairs.ca/news/news-article/universities-across-canada-implement-sexual-violence-policies/

[Not your Province? Find the petition for your Province here: https://you.leadnow.ca/efforts/what-you-can-do-for-metoo] 1 in 5 Canadian women will experience sexual assault while at university. Evidence suggests that these numbers are actually much higher due to the systemic barriers to reporting assaults that many women face. [1] Universities have the means to prevent women from experiencing sexual assault and harassment on campus, but they need sufficient policies put in place to do that. Currently, almost no Canadian universities have adequate policies, and many have none at all. [2] The provincial government needs to mandate that all post-secondary institutions implement sexual violence prevention policies, provide the funding necessary for them to do so, and create oversight mechanisms to hold those institutions to account. Legislation should recommend that educational institutions’ sexual violence prevention policies have: A Specific Immunity Clause for Drug and Alcohol Use Protection from Face to Face Encounters During the Complaint Process Survivor-Centric Interim Measures Anonymous and Third Party Complaint Options Recognition of the Intersectional Impacts of Sexual Violence Required Sexual Violence Support and Sensitivity Training for all those involved in the Complaint Process Independent Third Party Member of the Appeal Committee Existence of Clear Timelines Acknowledgment of Campus Rape Culture Policies should not have: Time limits for Filing a Formal Complaint Threatening Sanctions for Vexatious, Malicious or False Complaints Gag Order (During or Beyond the Complaint Process) A Loophole whereby a complaint can be suspended if the respondent ends their relationship with the school (i.e. transfers or drops out) [3] Sources: [1][3] http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/4106721/Our-Turn-Action-Plan-Final-English-2.pdf [2] http://www.universityaffairs.ca/news/news-article/universities-across-canada-implement-sexual-violence-policies/