Pamela George Discrimination Case Essay

Linking to sexism, we move on to the case of Pamela George where the characteristic of discrimination occurred. This case is about a young lady who is the mother of two children living in Saskatchewan, and occasionally is a prostitute for monetary purposes, so that she could provide more goods for her kids. In December 1996, two men beat her to death. In Canada, the law claims that it is blinded from discrimination and every person has the right to be free from any sort of racial discrimination. The Official Version of Law claims to be impartial, meaning that it’s un-biased, is objective, meaning to not have any personal feelings or opinions and also to be neutral, meaning to not have any sides during a conflict, person, etc. George was murdered because she was and ‘Indian’ or as some would say an ‘aboriginal’. This is a form of discrimination as George is being treated negatively due to her race and color. During trial, the judge would always call her “the hooker” instead of calling her by her first name, being objective and discriminating her existence and social beings. The men were called “the boys” because they were ‘white’, whereas the aboriginal young lady would have

to be called a nasty name due to her hobbies and the fact that she was an Indian, her own rights of not being discriminated were taken away.
As stated by Razack, “White men forcibly removed aboriginal bodies from the city space, a literal cleansing of the white zone”, clearly analyzes the affect that aboriginals have towards other races.

They are being excluded because of their ethical background and color. As the trial was not held strictly in any shape or manner, this case not only highlights the role of race and gender but also the role of class. The two men were not held accountable as they were privileged due to their class position, meaning who they are, what their background carries, etc. Aboriginals were being put down, not even being considered during trials because white people were above them. Making us look back at the ideology of ‘The Official Version of Law’. Are any of the three cornerstones being showed in this

case?
By concluding this paper, I’d like to make a statement myself, and that is by me saying that I strongly believe that we have serious work to do into fixing what the belief of ‘The Official Version of Law’ truly means. ‘The Official Version of Law’ is recognized for the way individuals identify law as itself as impartial and equal. The version is meant to treat all individuals equally through the presence of the three aspects: impartiality, neutrality, and objectivity. The law affirms that it’s blinded from race, discrimination, sex and class; however, it never executes to the way we are told they should be. The contrary as towards what they affirmed is done almost every single time when a complication arises. With the cases mentioned above, it is evident that all the three cornerstones of being impartial, neutral and objective have been played wrongfully when dealing with a case in a trial. The law does use the three cornerstones during cases and we are all given the wrong information. The cornerstones are clearly how we make decisions in a trial and if we are told that they aren’t, then we should be proven to this recognized theory of ‘The Official Version of Law’.