Winnipeg Free Press > Opinion > Columnists > Drunk driving should lead to chief's suspension, incarceration

Columnists

Winnipeg Free Press - PRINT EDITION

Drunk driving should lead to chief's suspension, incarceration

By: Colleen Simard

14/11/2009 1:00 AM | Comments: 33

I haven't been reading the news much lately, but a story about Waywayseecappo Chief Murray Clearsky was hard not to notice. It was unbelievable.

A few weeks ago, Clearsky went to court for another drunk driving charge, this one stemming from December 2007. It ended up with Clearsky getting a light sentence with no jail time. His lawyer argued successfully that the chief was needed at home on the rez to oversee H1N1 vaccinations.

Wow. What was he going to do exactly that he was needed so badly at home? Hold everyone's hand while they got the shot or chauffeur the ones that didn't have a ride or a vehicle? C'mon now.

I find it hard to believe it was so important that he be there -- and hard to believe the judge accepted it too.

The worst part is this wasn't the first time Clearsky had been convicted of a drunken driving charge. He's been charged three times since 1983, and also has a dangerous weapon conviction.

Murray Clearsky has to own up to his problems.

It's embarrassing -- he's taking advantage of his standing in a community and using it to get out of doing jail time for a serious conviction. That's my opinion, and you are welcome to disagree, but first answer me this.

If Clearsky wasn't a chief do you think he would have done some time in jail for three convictions? No doubt about it.

It's time for us to demand better from our leaders.

It used to be a person did some heroic acts on behalf of the people or gave away their last possessions to help someone else and earned the peoples' respect before they were made chief. Sitting Bull would turn over in his grave if he heard about this one.

There are a lot of good chiefs out there, but when Clearsky does stuff like this he makes us all look bad. And speaking about voting isn't there something in the Indian Act that says a chief or councillor position becomes vacant if they are "unfit to continue because he has committed an offence?"

Maybe Clearsky hasn't lost his job because Wawayseecappo residents aren't aware of that?

Or Waywayseecappo might follow its own election code if a majority of the band members ever decided to go that way. Band codes should include a section that severely deals with council members, especially chiefs, who break the law. And those rules need to be enforced.

Bands like Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation have created their own election code that make a criminal record check part of the nomination process. People with a criminal record can't run for office. If an elected chief or a councillor is convicted of an offence then that person is removed and a by-election is held for that job.

Judging by his track record Clearsky has some serious issues with alcohol abuse and that's what needs some attention. He has said he's attended Alcoholics Anonymous meetings and he should continue with that. You don't just go to a few meetings and declare yourself cured of alcoholism.

It's like we're all enabling him when we let him off on something like this. What Clearsky probably needs is an intervention to get him on the path to sobriety.

Drinking and driving is never acceptable. Too many people have died or killed others by making the same stupid mistake. And it's time for people to expect more from our leadership -- the people of Waywayseecappo deserve way better.

Colleen Simard is the publisher of Urban NDN (www.urbanndn.com)

colleen.simard@gmail.com

Republished from the Winnipeg Free Press print edition November 14, 2009 A19

  • Rate this Rate This Star Icon
  • This article is currently rated an average of 5 out of 5 (4 votes).

    • We want you to tell us what you think of our articles. If the story moves you, compels you to act or tells you something you didn’t know, mark it high. If you thought it was well written, do the same. If it doesn’t meet your standards, mark it accordingly.

    You can also register and/or login to the site and join the conversation by leaving a comment.

    Rate it yourself by rolling over the stars and clicking when you reach your desired rating. We want you to tell us what you think of our articles. If the story moves you, compels you to act or tells you something you didn’t know, mark it high.

33 Commentscomment icon

JamesM, the law you are referring to applies to everyone regardless of colour. The law does say to pay particular attention to the history of Aborignals, because Aboriginals have had a very different history, and the services that the government provides in our communities, than the mainstream experiences. All lawyers, regardless of the colour of their client, will try to use issues from their client's past to get their client off or reduce the sentence... its their job. And ever consideration a judge takes in his deliberations has to be mentioned in his summary.

Ah yes, Chris Buors, resident pothead and legal expert. Thanks for the tip, Chris but "vehicular manslaughter" is NOT a charge. It does NOT exist in the code.

Manslaughter IS in the code, you're half right, kind of like being half baked. But you can't be charged with vehicular manslaughter. You watch too much American television.

Oh and I think it was Crystal TAMAN....not TANMAN.

I do enjoy getting you riled up though, just makes your posts look that much more crazy.

Don't feed the Chris Buors troll. Anyone with a wikipedia entry such as his crave sany form of attention they can get.

Chris, stop playing philosopher and get back to your flier route. I want to know what's on sale at Best Buy this weekend.

Luke

Crime implies harm to another person or their property.

By that definition, stealing is a crime, killing another person is a crime and playing bumper car is a crime too. What part of harm to another person or their property did you miss?

Mhirnatsu

Nothing changed, I merely corrected your convoluted definition of harm.

Causing people mental anguish is not a crime, looking at pictures is not a crime. Harming children is a crime, and kidnapping is a physical activity that causes harm too. Slavery is the ownership of another human being and is all based on physical coercion too. How could you not be causing harm by physically restraining people?

Most people should be ticketed for bad driving if that is what they are doing. No one gets a criminal record for not signaling a lane change.

WpgGal

What doesn't make legal sense is making crimes out of things that are not crimes. Many police don't respect the drunk driving laws as we found out in the Tanman Inquiry. The whole shift seemed to be at the same bar and plenty of them went on to party.

And that is the whole point of this debate. Passing laws that not even police respect does a disservice to the purpose of the law.

Jason Wayne

Manslaughter is most certainly in the criminal code and that policeman who killed Crystal Tanman ought to have faced that charge. All anyone worried about was whether or not the policeman was drunk. What difference does it make if he was merely tired?

"There is no crime until there is physical harm done to another person."

So, now you are changing your story. In the original quote, it said harm, now it says physical harm.

If one were to allow your new definition of crime to persist, then one could do all the psychological and mental harm possible, and not be committing a crime; As long as there is no physical harm. If this were the case, then child pornography is not a crime. kidnapping is not a crime as long as it doesn't get physical. Heck, as long as you treat them half decent, slavery is legal according to that definition.

"There is no shortage of activities that show disregard for human life....playing football and knocking the socks off your opponent could kill them, driving someone into the boards playing hockey has injured and even killed."

Yes, but;
a) A person makes the conscious choice to play sports, equips themselves with proper PPE with full knowledge of the harm that can occur.
b) Just as there are rules against dangerous operation of a vehicle (including but not limited to drunk driving), there are rules against unnecessary roughness in sports.


Outside of holiday check stops, most people pulled over for drunk driving are a result of reckless driving. That is an action that they are engaged in. Having drunk driving as the crime just eliminates the "my client was not in charge of his faculties due to intoxication" defense.

I hope that Chris Buors is being extremely ironic in his posts. Firstly, they don't make any legal sense. Using conspiracy theroist's and crazy anarchist ideas to back up ludicrous ideas is, in my opinion, quite sad and does not by any means make your point stronger - it only makes it stranger. Secondly, I have to assume that you are passionate about your ideas, as far reaching as they may be, and that's great. It is not a vice to drive drunk. It is a crime. It is a vice to drink. But once you make the decision to get behind the wheel, it becomes a crime. You intentionally got behind the wheel - you didn't have to. Therefore, the criminal intent is there. No one put a gun to your head and said "drive." (If that were the case, then there was no criminal intent.) But nice try. "A" for effort at the very least, for creating some interesting, if not misled, debate.

Chris Bours, by your reasoning the car thieves that killed Tony Lanzellotti while running from the police needn't take any responsibility for their actions. Get high, steal a car, play bumper cars & murder a person trying to make a living. Noone is responsible for their actions & has no responsibility towards fellow humans? I'm glad I don't live in your world.

Mhirnatsu..

"A person who is driving drunk is violating people's rights, and therefore is harming others. The fact that driving while drunk is a conscious decision means that the person is making the choice to harm others"

Saying so does not make it so. Like what "rights" is someone violating when they safely drink over the limit and drive home without any harm to anybody....that is the norm and few are the accidents.

There is no crime until there is physical harm done to another person. Then as I said, it is time for criminal charge and not before. If the drunk drives home safely who is harmed. Name the person, not some imaginary "right" that people don't have.

Danger lurks everywhere, no one has a right to be safe from the driver who is changing the radio station or petting their dog. Accidents that cause death due to those distractions leave their victims just as dead.

Why pick on drunk drivers when the sleepy driver is just as much if not more of a menace? People make the decision to drive tired every day. When they fall asleep and kill someone should they get a lighter sentence because they were not drunk only sleepy?

It is not the government's business to protect people from potential harm. Only real harm and only once that harm has been caused. [edited]

Spinoza tells us why...No victim, no crime.

Chris Buors, please tell me the Canadian criminal code section for "vehicular manslaughter" then get back to us.

Meequetch Colleen as you have spoken very wisely. It is a shame it will fall on deaf ears as there are too many that need him as their cheif to maitain their lifestyles. With that said it has been very hard to make any change within this reserve. When someone stands up or speaks up they are faced with ANGRY supporters and you face lies that are spoken about you and you are shut out by your own people.

Cheif Clearsky was not around when the vaccine clinic was open. One of the councillors even stated they would not take the H1N1 shot. So it is very sad that the community suffers. You have spoken the truth. There needs to be change!

View all Comments

The comment period for this story has ended.

letters

Make text: Larger | Smaller

Special coverage

Poll

Would you pay more to supersize your garbage bin?

View Results