Surprisingly, it was a tweet from Justin Trudeau, and not Donald Trump, that recently generated legal and political debate. Trudeau’s tweets are normally quite formal in substance, however, occasionally, they contain sharp, determined policy bites — in spite of any risk.

After Trump had imposed a four-month pause on refugees and temporarily banned travellers from seven countries, Trudeau tweeted: “To those fleeing persecution, terror and war, Canadians will welcome you, regardless of your faith. Diversity is our strength.” He appeared determined to highlight the difference in values between the two governments, even at the risk of upsetting tough NAFTA negotiations.

That same determination was evident in a tweet, following the controversial verdict in the trial of Gerald Stanley, the Saskatchewan farmer who was found not guilty of killing Colten Boushie, a 22-year-old Cree. Stanley was acquitted by a jury that did not include anyone of Indigenous heritage.

Trudeau tweeted that having just spoken with his justice minister, he “couldn’t imagine the grief and sorrow the Boushie family was feeling.” He also sent “love to them” from the U.S. where he was travelling.

Minister of Justice, Jody Wilson Raybould quickly followed suit, expressing her own sympathy, and added that she “was committed to working every day to ensure justice for all Canadians.”

The tweets themselves (not to mention the verdict) unleashed a firestorm of opinion because of their unusual nature. Rarely do elected politicians comment on trials and with good reason.

An independent judiciary, free of political interference, is a cornerstone of a healthy democracy. If elected officials are uncomfortable with a pattern of decisions, then their responsibility is to amend, change or introduce legislation.

Initially, the questions were tough.

Had the prime minister crossed the constitutional convention, which functionally ensures the separation of the three powers of government?

Was Trudeau questioning a jury decision? The timing of the tweet so soon after the verdict and the specific outreach to the Boushie family troubled many observers. Could his tweet prove to be a stumbling block in the event of an appeal?

Others countered that it was the prime minister’s responsibility, if not his obligation, to speak out, given the government’s strong priority to seek reconciliation with Indigenous peoples.

The verdict, combined with deep concerns about the fairness of criminal justice system itself, were not the only issues top of mind, as protests were organized.

Study after study, commission after commission, during decades of research have demonstrated that Indigenous incarceration is too high; the number of children in foster care is too high; the number of youth suicides are too high and the standards of living are too low.

In addition, government resources are being sapped as they deal with land claims and decisions from human rights tribunals. The inquiry into Missing Murdered and Indigenous Women has already been a painful and emotional exercise.

It was in this atmosphere, that the PM composed his tweet. One assumes he was aware of the risk.

But if there was political nervousness, his government didn’t flinch. The Boushie family came quickly to Ottawa to meet with relevant ministers and the PM. Trudeau emphasized in the House of Commons that he could not speak to the specifics of the case but that he would be soon be speaking to a new engagement between the federal government and Indigenous peoples regarding their rights.

Within a few days, the PM outlined a historic framework to recognize and implement Indigenous rights. No longer would Indigenous peoples have to fight prove their rights. Instead, those rights, written into section 35 of the Constitution, but never fully acknowledged, would be the starting point for any dispute or negotiation.

In addition, legislation proposed by NDP MP, Romeo Saganash, to ensure that Canadian law respects the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, garnered support from the Liberal government.

The Stanley trial verdict, which initially appeared as a dreadful blow to reconciliation, had in fact, kick-started an aspirational and ambitious “foundational shift” to be implemented before the 2019 election.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

Pierre Elliott Trudeau articulated the aspiration perfectly when he advocated for “a just society.” But, it is clear that, despite good intentions, we have come up short. Now, the question is whether we can move fast enough to achieve this elusive goal.

Let’s hope so because the vision of an updated “just society” is compelling and timeless. It should outweigh any risk.

Penny Collenette is an adjunct professor of law at the University of Ottawa and was a senior director of the Prime Minister’s Office for Jean Chrétien.

Read more about: