Dearest Colleagues,
My post addresses a matter of grave importance, the human rights of Indigenous women along the Highway of Tears and the role of communications law as a tool for positive change. Several times throughout the year, I find myself travelling along the Highway of Tears, infamous for the unsolved disappearances and murders of Indigenous women. I am always in disbelief at the long, isolated stretches of pavement, flanked by numerous hidden side roads, that do not have service. When travelling alone, whether day or night, it is often worrisome to think about. As an Indigenous woman, I can’t help to imagine how vulnerable I would be if I were to break down in one of these areas. Why is it okay for Indigenous women to be targets of violence here? The Highway of Tears is a distressing example of the intersection between human rights violations and systemic inadequacies in our society. Legal reform, in this respect, continues to be urgent – reform that ensures the safety and dignity of Indigenous communities, particularly women.
This calls for a reflective look into communications law, which, informed by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), holds the potential to drive significant change. The alignment of BC’s legal framework with UNDRIP, as enacted through the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA), provides an essential foundation for addressing these injustices.
However, we must confront a fundamental query: When will the severity of circumstances propel decisive legal action? Perhaps, not a question we are equipped to answer. Thus, how can communications law, as a legal instrument, inform necessary legal action? It seems, an answer could include a complex blend of 1) enhancing emergency communications infrastructure, 2) promoting culturally sensitive reporting, and 3) ensuring the active participation of Indigenous communities in policy formulation.
As law students, we understand the power of legal structures in shaping society. DRIPA not only aims to align with UNDRIP but also signifies a commitment to transformative change. By integrating these principles into communication laws (and beyond), we can achieve a framework that guarantees equitable access to services for Indigenous communities, a fundamental human right.
Potential meaningful reforms should cover improved connectivity, information empowerment, access to opportunities, cultural sensitivity in media representation, and inclusive policy development. We must advocate for enhanced emergency response systems and reliable telecommunications services to aid in the prevention of violence and improve investigation efficacy in MMIWG cases.
As future legal professionals, our role in promoting a just society, for all, is critical. It lies in advocating for the entrenchment of UNDRIP principles into BC’s legal standards, ensuring that Indigenous women’s voices are amplified, and their rights are unequivocally protected. We must collectively push for legal frameworks that respect Indigenous rights, promote safety, and foster substantive equality.
In conclusion, communications law reform is not only a regulatory adjustment, it is a key step towards acknowledging and upholding the human rights of Indigenous women. It is a clarion call for justice and recognition for those affected by the crisis along the Highway of Tears—a call that we, as a legal community, are obliged to answer in whatever capacity we can.
All my relations.
Mussi,
Cheyenne Campbell