Research

Cet article examine comment des personnes allochtones interprètent des témoignages de survivants et survivantes des pensionnats autochtones et les responsabilités qu’elles associent à la reconnaissance des torts. À partir de quatre groupes de discussion (N = 22), nous analysons les réactions émotionnelles suscitées par ces récits, les critères qui structurent la reconnaissance morale des victimes ainsi que les conceptions de la responsabilité et des réponses aux injustices. Les résultats montrent que les témoignages suscitent des réactions émotionnelles fortes et une condamnation morale largement partagée. L’innocence, la vulnérabilité, la visibilité de la souffrance et le caractère direct des témoignages occupent une place importante dans cette reconnaissance. Toutefois, la reconnaissance des torts ne détermine pas à elle seule les obligations qui en découlent. Les personnes participantes négocient différemment l’étendue de leur responsabilité et les réponses jugées appropriées. Si un large consensus se dégage autour de la nécessité d’agir, les positions deviennent plus ambivalentes lorsque les discussions portent sur la restitution territoriale et l’autodétermination. À titre de mise en contexte, les données de l’Étude électorale canadienne de 2021 montrent que les peuples autochtones présentent le niveau moyen de discrimination perçue le plus élevé parmi les groupes évalués. L’article montre ainsi que la reconnaissance morale constitue moins une étape menant automatiquement à l’action qu’un espace de négociation autour de la responsabilité, de la réparation et de la réconciliation. 

Reconciliation in Canada requires a deep societal transformation in which the majority population (non-Indigenous Canadians) not only recognizes the historic victimization of Indigenous peoples in Canada but also recognizes their ongoing structural victimization. However, members of the advantaged group may be reluctant to embrace change and give up their privileged position. According to System Justification Theory, people are motivated to justify the existing system (status quo) even when it produces socioeconomic inequities. In this paper, we examine the willingness of non-Indigenous Canadians (n=58) in the province of Quebec to recognize Indigenous victimization. We then explore their attitudes towards recognizing economic autonomy and ceding control over resources to Indigenous peoples. While most respondents claim to support the economic autonomy of Indigenous peoples, a qualitative analysis of their views on what should be done to improve the economic situation paints a more nuanced picture. Some participants support the self-determination of Indigenous peoples, and others support the maintenance of the colonial status quo, whether in the form of collaboration or total control from the state.

In the context of collective victimization, such as colonization in Canada, recognizing past and ongoing victimization is essential to healing relations between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples. Reconciliation cannot occur without recognition of ongoing victimization. While most Canadians recognize historical victimization, fewer acknowledge ongoing victimization and support measures promoting the self-determination of Indigenous communities. The recognition of ongoing inequality can evoke feelings of guilt and pose a threat to the privileges of the advantaged groups, which may lead to minimizing and disregarding the experiences of victimization. While recognition of ongoing victimization can be uncomfortable, it is not impossible. Members of the advantaged group may be more willing to consider relinquishing their privileges if they receive social acceptance from members of the disadvantaged group. Using data (n = 313) collected from an original survey, this paper will examine the impact of social acceptance of non-Indigenous Canadians by Indigenous Peoples on the willingness of non-Indigenous Canadians to a) acknowledge the ongoing victimization of Indigenous Peoples, b) support justice measures and c) recognize their autonomy. The findings suggest that there is a positive relationship between social acceptance and both recognition of victimization and support for justice measures. However, no significant association was found between social acceptance and support for autonomy. These findings partially support the needs-based model, suggesting that social acceptance plays a role in promoting reconciliation, but not autonomy.

Since the 1970s, victimologists have identified victims as the ‘forgotten party’ in criminal law, emphasising its failure to recognise them as more than a witness to a crime. While victimology and our understanding of the effects of crime on victims have advanced considerably in recent years, victims largely remain the forgotten party in legal education. Law schools in Canada continue to approach victims as witnesses and fail to offer tomorrow’s legal professionals comprehensive training in victimology. Based on the premise that change starts with education, we created an interdisciplinary legal clinic for victims of crime in which law students work together with criminology students, providing legal information to victims. This article presents findings from an evaluation of the programme, which is based on a qualitative study of law students who participated in our legal clinic for victims. After a brief presentation of the programme and the training provided to students, we explore the experiences of the law students and examine how they feel their experience impacted the way they view law and prepared them to work with victims of crime.

Historical injustice against marginalized groups creates a persistent democratic challenge: publics may acknowledge harm while resisting reparative measures. Can communication strategies bridge this gap? We study this question in the context of reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples in Canada. In a preregistered survey experiment with 3,017 non-Indigenous adults, we compare statistical and narrative interventions conveying parallel information about contemporary inequalities linked to past harms.  We find that symbolic recognition is substantially more popular than materially, politically, or behaviorally demanding forms of repair. Statistical information is especially effective for recognition and advocacy, whereas narratives more strongly reduce resentment toward Indigenous Peoples and increase support for reparative policies.  Combining formats produces diminishing returns, suggesting that more information is not always more persuasive.  Focus groups help explain why: statistics make inequality legible but abstract, whereas narratives make harm concrete without automatically translating emotion into support for more demanding repair. Together, the findings show that recognition and repair are distinct dimensions of reconciliation and that different communication strategies are effective for each.