This Is Bigger Than Donald McLeod
The Impact of the Hearing into Justice McLeod’s Conduct on the African Community
The hearing into the complaint about Justice Donald McLeod’s conduct is nearing its end. Counsel for Justice McLeod concluded calling for evidence on February 26, 2021 with Dr. Wendell Adjetey — whose expert testimony simultaneously served as a public lecture — speaking about the origins of anti-Black racism; the historical underrepresentation of Africans in positions of authority, and in the case of Justice McLeod, a responsibility to not simply sit on the bench but consider his lived experience consistent with the due diligence expected of him; the burden on Africans anointed and appointed to serve as spokespersons for the community and engage the state; and the historical context and consequences of being labelled a house Negro.
While the hearing panel has an obligation to act with dispassion and objectivity, we must take notice of the mental and emotional gravity felt by individual community members and the hearing’s deleterious impact on the community’s interpersonal dynamics.
At each proceeding, there are hundreds of individuals who tune in whether as a show of solidarity or mere curiosity, and one may wonder why. Playing out before the community are personal and internal grievances that are being dissected by an externally established and colonial system, and scurrilous allegations that have a high probability of imperilling the legal career of Justice McLeod. Many are of the view that the hearing is both an astronomical waste of financial and human resources and contradicts an Afrocentric protocol of handling disagreements.
The absence of the only sitting African judge, in what is colloquially described as “No Deal Peel”¹, to preside over cases with African youth implicated in the criminal justice system cannot be overlooked. In the case of R. v. Jackson, 2018 ONSC 2527², Justice S. Nakatsuru in his judgement wrote of the importance of considering the social context of African Canadians when sentencing. Considering his own personal circumstances, Justice McLeod brought that lens by balancing the situation of the youth before him and the importance of ensuring justice is served.
We have all seen the real tears shed, and the agony and frustration deeply felt by community members called to give evidence. Private matters are now public fare. Unethical and unscrupulous actions have been unearthed. Relationships built on trust have been broken by betrayal. Consternation grows rather than dissipates. Seeds of doubt have been sown which threaten community organising and activism that are critical to the advancement, promotion and protection of human rights for the African community. Community members must now contemplate many times over any decision to engage in advocacy. Mental health practitioners and those witnessing the hearing would diagnose the aforementioned points as classic vicarious trauma. It makes it abundantly clear that this is detrimental to not only Justice McLeod, but the community.
Without question, Justice McLeod has tested the limits of the permissibility of advocacy by judges. Like the hearing panel, we have been thrust into a discomfiting position. Though Justice McLeod’s conduct is the object of the hearing, what really stands on trial is our openness to different forms of advocacy, the methods by which we resolve intracommunity conflicts, and the community’s reputation.
¹ Fine, S. (2016). Peel Regional Police Chief Jennifer Evans under fire for refusal to end carding. The Globe and Mail. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toronto/peel-regional-police-chief-jennifer-evans-under-fire-for-refusal-to-end-carding/article33425584/
² Nakatsuru, S. (2018). R. v. Jackson, 2018 ONSC 2527 (CanLII). CanLII. https://canlii.ca/t/hrm8w
