Nobody would have an issue with this if
Kelly Barness had buried Leo Johnston at Regina in the first place.
She's no innocent victim here.
It is not only an abomination in FN
cultures to disinter the dead, it is an abomination in many
cultures.
The law may be clear by the imposed
colonialist government but it is
a completely separate issue for FN.
I've
said before and I say again, this is about the dominant culture
imposing itself on sovereign nations that they refuse to see as
sovereign nations.
You cannot go to another country with another
culture and demand, as the executor of an estate, to dig up dead because you have
that “right” in your own country. To say otherwise is to assume that
FN have no sovereignty to refuse your demands. It's an imperialist position to
assume that one has the right to impose the laws of one nation, on
another.
Now, whether or not one agrees that FN nations are sovreign and not just some subculture is where the whole thing breaks down.
This
is not about “her spousal rights” it is about a line she crossed
by wishing to disinter Leo Johnston's body. Leo is considered a
“fallen warrior” and as such, the Metis Nation is honour bound
to back the family and community that his body not be moved.
If
this was about Kelly's rights as a woman, such as enfranchisement I
would be inclined to consider her claim. It isn't. It's about
whether or not she has the right after making the decision
herself to hurt everyone else by
her actions. It's not about her control of her own body —it's about
her trying to commit an abominable act by using colonialist law to
prove her “right to control the body” as if it was property she owns--as the executor.
Not the spouse. The
executor.
Assuming
that “individual rights” are more important than communal
responsibilities or family considerations is a Euro-centric view.
Assuming that it is somehow more “moral” to view the world that
way is sheer colonialism. Accusing Metis Nation of being 'repressive'
because they will not support one individual who is direct conflict
with an entire community and his own family is against common sense. They are
trying to get justice in a case that should never have happened in
the first place and occurred due to one person's selfish actions.
**************************
Let's
reverse the whole thing for a minute and see how it looks.
Kelly
gets shot in the line of duty. She's been married one year. They have
no kids, so he doesn't have to worry about their opinion. He's still
young. Leo agrees with the RCMP to bury the body in their cemetery.
Everyone is traumatized. Everyone has access to the grave site.
Everyone is doing their best to mourn the dead and try to keep
living.
Kelly
tells everyone, except Leo apparently, that she wants to be buried in
the RCMP cemetery. He claims with no proof she wants to be buried in
the Metis cemetery even though it goes against what everyone else is
saying.
Now,
he decides, a year later that maybe he'd prefer to bury her in the
Metis burial grounds because it suits his agenda.
Her
whole family is appalled. The RCMP hires a lawyer and takes it to
court on behalf of all her friends, family, government and
tight-knit police community because they do not want to see their
fallen comrade disinterred and dishonored.
He
claims that no matter what her sister who is also RCMP, her mother,
family, friends and community thinks, he has all the rights because
the law says a man has the right to dig up his dead wife, whenever he
wants and plant her wherever he wants no matter what anyone else
thinks because he's the legal executor.
Kelly's
mother and sister beg him to reconsider. Kelly's family begs him to
reconsider. Her friends beg him to reconsider. The RCMP beg him to
reconsider. For that—they're called “repressive” because his
legal 'rights' as executor
supersede everyone else's under colonialist law.
The
Metis Nation is not publicly backing his claim. Nor is anyone else.
He's
the only one putting everyone else through secondary trauma because
he's left them no choice but to fight it.
You
can bet if this was reversed, everyone would be screaming at HIM as
being a selfish, culturally antiquated misogynist b-tard and if the
Metis Nation backed his claim you can also bet they'd be screaming
the same insults at them, too.
What
if her mother was legal executor and dug up the body and moved it
without HIS permission? Would that be okay, too?
I find
it incongruous that marrying someone means that you somehow own your spouse's body by default. Or if you are executor of an estate 'the body' is your property. People are not property. The dead are not "property". If that's the case, then necrophilia and cannibalism would be legal since the executor "owns" the body so they can do whatever they wish with it.
There
are some other considerations when I researched this:
-
The only reason this every hit the
media at all was because the Metis Nation is backing the family
against the spouse who is ex-RCMP as well. I have a hard time
believing she was somehow coerced to bury Leo somewhere she didn't
want to.
-
I don't buy Kelly Barness' story
that she didn't know about the RCMP burial ground because she was an
ex-RCMP employee herself. The Metis Nation has been tactful enough
not to point this out, publicly:
http://books.google.com/books?id=ce3VZuGnYQ4C&pg=PA250&dq=Kelly+Barsness+metis#PPA207,M1
-
Kelly Barness' statement that
“they fell in love in Regina” is a fabrication. They met in Fort
McMurray and married in Mayorthorpe while he was stationed there.
The RCMP burial grounds are in Regina. It speaks to her credibility
and I'm not surprised the media didn't question her about any of
this since it fits the right-wing agenda to state that the Big Bad
Metis are beating up the victimized widow.
-
The RCMP have refused to publicly
back Kelly's claims.
-
Leo's brother is not backing her
claim, even though he is an RCMP officer
-
She didn't “not rush” to move
the body for obvious reasons. First, it's expensive and secondly,
the mayor demanded a “cooling off” period before he would
release the body.
On to why I called out “racist
statement”:
Saying that his brother being alive is
somehow a substitution for Leo's work, life and where he is buried
is a racist statement and I stand by it.
Metis are not interchangeable. Assuming
that one Native person can be replaced with another is a product of
“YOU PEOPLE are all the same” thinking.
If I had stated, “Why don't those white people just
replace Jack Kennedy with Bobby Kennedy because those white people are
all the same and they should just get over it by focussing on Bobby instead” this whole board would be shocked and rightfully so.
How is this any different?
I left all the statements in and responded in pieces because I didn't
want to be accused of “being repressive” or “taking it out of
context” again.
My opinion is relatively simple.
He was Metis.
His job was RCMP.
It is, in all FN cultures I know of, an abomination to dig up the dead.
I gather his wife was not Metis?
The article doesn't say, but that seems to be the implication.
What surprised me is that for the Supreme Court to have said no, this issue must have been winding its way through at least two levels of court already. I'm going to do some google-sniffing to see if there's more info about this - like maybe a court decision.
Ok - here is the original Court of Queen's Bench decision (PDF file) denying an application by Grace Johnston (mother) and the Alberta Metis Nation to stop the relocation of Leo Johnston's remains:
http://www.albertacourts.ab.ca/jdb%5C2003-%5Cqb%5Ccivil%5C2007%5C2007abq...
And here is the Alberta Court of Appeal denying the Metis Nation's request to intervene in favour of Johnston's parents at the appeal level:
http://www2.albertacourts.ab.ca/jdb%5C2003-%5Cca%5Ccivil%5C2008%5C2008ab...
And this is the Court of Appeal rejecting the request by the Metis Nation of Alberta to intervene:
http://www2.albertacourts.ab.ca/jdb%5C2003-%5Cca%5Ccivil%5C2008%5C2008ab...
Now I have to do some reading...
Well, the Supreme Court didn't say no, they simply refused to hear the case. That's why there was no comment. They effectively upheld the decision of the Alberta Court of Appeal, which was made in May.
ETA: Sorry, cross-posted with unionist!
I think the Courts made the right decision. Legally, Kelly Johnston has the authority to decide what to do with her husband's remains and how best to accord with his wishes. Ethically, I don't see any disrespect to Metis culture, because the case is particular--Leo Johnston has no obligation to identify as Metis more than he identifies as a police officer. The courts assert no preference as to what is a better, or more moral choice for future cases.
Funeral services are for the living anyway. It's a shame that Leo Johsnton's parents will be offended, perhaps bitterly, by this, but you have to let your son gop eventually. Kelly has legal and moral jurisdiction over his remains.
*shrugging*
I just don't GET IT.
The guy is buried. He's Metis. He is, for want of tactful words, merrily pushing up dandelions with his ancestors.
Why would someone want to move his remains? Unless his widow [who might later marry someone else anyway] wants to be buried with him, and can't be?
She certainly has legal jurisdiction, as administrator of his estate - which is what the courts found. I'm not sure about the "moral" part; you may be right. But the complicating factor here is the that the Metis Nation of Alberta went to court as well, asking for his remains to be undisturbed. If "funeral services are for the living" (which, I agree, they are), are the Metis not among the living?
Anyway, I'm of several different minds about this one.
I'm not conflicted at all. The guy is already buried. He may even be buried in sacred ground for all I know since it's not written there anywhere.
I might feel differently if they had this argument the day he died instead of dragging it through the courts to this point. I fail to understand how that didn't happen in the first place if she was living with him during the time of his death and had legal custody of the body.
I don't know why she'd fight to dig him up and hurt his whole community.
She's his wife but this is HIS NATION.
Maybe it's a 'Nishy thing. I dunno...
Yes, well I'm not sure of the tact Kelly Johnston uses in exhuming the remains of her husband considering her family's (and the métis nation's) beliefs. I suppose my point mainly is that I don't see any special significance that this case involves First Nations. I don't feel that an already marginalized people is being singled out, and I don't think that this decision works to further marginalize FN beliefs. So I think this is entirely a legal question. Consider Terri Schiavo--I think most people would believe that the husband's interpretation of his wife's spiritual and physical wishes should stand (although, Schiavo was arguably still alive, and had a vested interest in the case--I don't think Leo does).
I'm not entirely set in my opinion, though. Can someone tell me why the métis should have any say in this situation at all, except to affirm Leo's parents' assertion that it is sacreligious to dig up buried remains according to métis tradition?
I believe that 2 ponies recent posting about the corrupting influence of religion and its tendency to divert energy and attention away from attempts by FN people to take postive action on their situation, applies here.
quote:
In my view, there is a significant “drift” towards the establishment of theocracies in several FN communities; at least 75% of the meetings I go to in FN communities start off with a prayer I take offense to this type of practice because I like to decide when & how I pray; with a braid of Sweetgrass in the privacy of my home – but sometimes I’m forced to hear a prayer to Jesus (from a FN person), other times a prayer to the Creator, the point is I’m basically forced. But is this open to discussion? No. And to suggest any other practice often results in being labelled with some pejorative term. There isn’t enough debate in our communities by & large; there isn’t enough discussion on how we’re going to allocate limited resources in an effort to ensure that youth have a chance at succeeding in this rapidly changing world, for instance. There’s a significant tendency for groupthink, and disagreements are largely solved by way of finger-pointing & allegations- at least in my experience as a 32 year old FN person with 14 years working in FN communities & organizations.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm sure that unionist would agree with this sentiment.
Here's what the Metis Nation said in a letter to Kelly Johnston last January:
[url=http://www.metisnation.ca/press/08-june26.html]Source.[/url]
Although I agree with the Theocracy drift problem, particularly as I'm atheist--I still back Metis Nation on this one.
It isn't about the religious aspect. It's about disenfranchisment of a NATION.
She *married* him. That's all. Where are the children in this? What are they saying? They're Metis, what do they want to see happen?
Cripes, I still DON'T GET IT!
So if she'd popped out a few kids she'd be worthy of having her rights respected?
It's not about a disenfranchised nation at all. It's about respecting her rights as a spouse - starting making exception for one religion and the next one will be knocking on the door.
Marriage is a lot to things to different people but no one has the right to dismissing it and suggesting race or religion trumps it or a "NATION" does for that matter. After all that went into gaining equal marriage in this country and the shit that is Prop 8 in the US it makes me more than a bit irrate to have to listen to someone shit on another person's choice to marry and have it belittled. It's out of order.
She didn't know about it
http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=9f056220-1266-4591-82b5-4ea70b1e19da&p=2
That is because you are stuck in the idea that FN are not *sovereign nations*, we're "Canadians" in your view.
The reason I mentioned children is because the children are Metis so why aren't their voices heard?
Marrying someone doesn't take necessarily precedence.
If the wife was so enamored of burying him somewhere else, she had her opportunity to do that when he died.
If she had legal custody of the body when he died why she didn't bury him elsewhere THEN?
Nobody here has successfully answered that question. So I went looking for it:
"Constable Johnston, who was Métis, was buried in the Willow Park
Cemetery in Lac La Biche, Alberta shortly after his death.
Approximately one year later his widow Kelly Barsness (who was also the
Administrator of his estate, and WHO HAD ORIGINALLY AGREED to his
burial in Lac La Biche) sought to have his place of burial changed to
the special RCMP Cemetery in Depot, Saskatchewan. "
Now she later claims she didn't know he could be buried at the RCMP cemetary. Well sorry, I don't buy it. It would have been right there in the benefits packages that she paid for the original burial with. And I doubt that all his RCMP buddies would have kept their mouths shut about it, either.
She doesn't get to change her mind a year later at the emotional expense of everyone else.
If he was a France National and his French family came over, took the body and buried him there with her permission-- would she be allowed to go over there and dig him up a year later? What would I expect the French government to say about it?
I'm pretty sure they'd tell the wife, "Thanks but no thanks. You had your chance."
No, not really. Nasty poke though. It doesn't matter who is coercing her they have no right.
Maybe because they are children and not the spouse? It's not coming across any less unprogressive when you change the phrasing. You're suggesting that a grown women shouldn't make a decision that some how her children are more important than she is because she's not the right race.
Actually it does. This is where your righteousness falls down. Being his spouse means she gets to make the decisions. Unless he wrote a will that indicates other wishes she is the voice for him when he's dead or incapcitated. That's one of the reasons us non-religious folks get married.
Yes she does - you may not like it but she can decide whatever she wants and it's really not too many people's business.
I don't agree with the decision to allow her to remove the body. This man has parents, other family. The wife is NOW deciding to hell with them, I'm doing what I want. That would have been fine, BUT, the husband was clearly a large part of his community, was clearly a proud Metis, and clearly the community respected him. Sorry but no, the wife should respect the wishes of others at this point. And I bet the RCMP had something to do with chamging her mind.
Sorry, not cool to dig up your dead husband just because she wants him buried where the police are buried.
Unless there is some evidence he wanted to be buried in the RCMP burial ground, then she should leave his body alone. Also, does she even give a hoot about what it means to her husband and his tradtion to have him dug up and reburied? Apparently not.
Scout, I fully agree with you that the decision belongs to the spouse in this case.
But the fact that the parents and the Metis Nation are extremely upset, to the point of going through all these court battles, shows that there's an underlying problem which needs to be addressed. It doesn't mean anyone gets to veto Kelly Johnston's decision. But it looks to me more than just a question of legality or a difference of opinion between family members.
Right.
If he was Jewish and she was Catholic and SHE AGREED to bury him in Jewish cemetery you can be damn sure she wouldn't be legally allowed to dig him up a year later because she found was offered a free plot the Catholic cemetery. And if she tried, you can be damn sure the Jewish community would be rightfully piffed.
The only reason this even GOT to court is because it's an RCMP cemetery and somehow that qualifies as "greater than" the Metis Nation or his family.
The woman is selfish, inconsiderate and has no regard for the feelings of anyone else in this matter.
She has no understanding whatsoever of the man's culture or history.
She dragged this thing through court and I can tell you right now if that was my brother they'd be dragging my body off the gravesite before they got to the corpse.
Can we say "shades of Oka" anyone?
It's that utter lack of respect that makes me wonder what this woman's REAL motives are.
Whatever they are, they sure didn't come out in court.
In the eyes of the law as his spouse she is his voice unless he left other written details. He didn't.
Stargazer when any man speaks to a woman like this it's wrong, she was married to him and to speak to her as if she's an ignorant idiot unable to understand how much more important her husband is to them than he is to her is not right. And if this was the Catholic Church you'd be steaming mad - the double standard is wrong.
It isn't clear that most of the people fighting for him to stay buried even knew him personally. The explain to his wife what an inspiration he is but really they have his living twin who is also in the RCMP let him inspire the community.
Lucky for us the law applies to all people who live here and not just those who think their culture carries a big enough stick that they can over-ride the interests of individuals. Also it wasn't her idea to go to court it looks like it was his parents, who had back-up. How nice for them to put their son's widow though the expense.
Apparently that's your bias, she is claiming to be acting on what he gave a damn about. Everyone else seems to be talking more about what it means to them and their culture and their community and their pride. She the only one wo seems to be talking about his life.
Wow, this is a bit much, now your suggesting she had nefarious motives. Why? Cause she's white? You need to dial it back.
That's out of proportion.
It doesn't give them the right to put Kelly Johnston through the crap they have - taking ads out in the newspaper to "convince" her? Hey how about the Catholic Church put big ads in the paper begging specific women to not have an abortion?
She's delayed her actions while she went to court for a year and by your own words has had conversations with his parents so she can "fully appreciate" the situation. I think his tone was utterly patronizing. It's wrong because it treats her as if she hasn't had a thought about this and that at his behest must make a better effort to see his side and cave. Are you suggesting that because he's Metis he can't be patronizing to a woman?
Was he living with his mother? Does his mother over-ride his wife? No, he chose to get married and make decisions about his life with his wife.
I don't think they went everyday but then again I guess the wife should take the bus. She apparently has the least right to him in death.
Did you not yourself bring other religions into this conversation? I am merely pointing out that no group has the right to tell his wife were to bury him.
Well you sure are wonderful to have a discussion with.
I said most, besides his parents and brother the rest of the people buying ads, sending letter and court the media like what he accomplished but do not appear to know him. It would be super if you'd stop twisting my words.
The letter above mentions what a shining example to the community he was, well he's dead and the are other living and breathing shining examples for the community - like his brother. Better a living role model for youth right?
Is the wife chopped liver? I feel for his Mother but her son made a choice to marry whom he did.
Really? How can you suggest that? What responsibilty did he take on when he married a non-Metis? Why does his being Metis supercede the marriage he entered into?
[quoteIf KB chose to marry an Italian and agreed to have him buried in Italy, you can be damn sure the pope would refuse to ship the body back if she changed her mind.
If the Pope could do that and I'm not sure he can he would still be the same asshole he always was and I'd disagree with his belief that he has the right do dictate such things. It would be wrong.
How nice of them to drag his widow through all this so strangers on the internet can accuse her of some scary hidden agenda and of doing this on purpose.