The Colonization of Restorative Justice

Restorative justice (RJ) is often praised for its focus on healing and reconciliation instead of punitive measures. However, it’s important to recognize that Indigenous restorative justice (IRJ) is not simply a variation of RJ; it is a distinct approach rooted in Indigenous worldviews and traditions.

I’ve observed a concerning trend where non-Indigenous individuals adopt RJ practices without fully understanding their depth. For instance, at the Thunder Bay Courthouse, there is a "restorative justice court" within its Indigenous court that primarily serves non-Indigenous individuals. Many programs labeled as restorative justice tend to emphasize accountability over the true essence of RJ as reflected in Indigenous practices.

This situation illustrates what I refer to as the colonization of restorative justice—appropriating Indigenous frameworks without respecting their original context. Because of this, I believe it’s essential to distinguish between RJ and IRJ.

Let’s explore what restorative justice is, how Indigenous restorative justice differs, and why these distinctions are important.

What is Restorative Justice?

According to the Principles and Guidelines for Restorative Justice Practice in Criminal Matters (2018), RJ aims to repair the harm caused by crime. It facilitates communication between those harmed and those who acknowledge their responsibility, allowing both sides to address their needs following an offense.

RJ processes invite victims, offenders, and affected community members to discuss the context and repercussions of the crime, with trained facilitators guiding the conversation. While RJ varies across different communities, it typically emphasizes principles such as:

• Reparation: Acknowledging and addressing the harm caused by crime.
• Respect: Treating all participants with dignity and compassion.
• Voluntariness: Ensuring participation is based on informed consent.
• Inclusion: Encouraging meaningful involvement of all affected parties.
• Empowerment: Allowing participants to take an active role in their healing.
• Safety: Prioritizing the well-being of all involved.
• Accountability: Supporting individuals in taking responsibility for their actions.
• Transformation: Fostering understanding, healing, and personal growth.

How Indigenous Restorative Justice Differs

While RJ has drawn from Indigenous justice principles, Indigenous restorative justice is fundamentally different. As Mandamin (2021) highlights, IRJ emphasizes:

• Community-Driven: Initiatives are developed and led by Indigenous communities.
• Culturally Relevant: Practices reflect the culture and experiences of the community.
• Focus on Individuals: It addresses social misconduct while considering the health of the entire community.
• Social Issues: Aiming to tackle the over-incarceration of Indigenous peoples.

Similarities and Key Differences

Both RJ and IRJ involve the community in identifying issues and determining appropriate responses. However, mainstream RJ often struggles to fully grasp or effectively apply the concept of community.

A key difference lies in accountability. In Indigenous legal traditions, accountability is closely tied to community relationships. Many Indigenous cultures have systems where individuals play specific roles that contribute to the community’s balance. When someone fails to fulfill their responsibilities, the impact is felt throughout the community.

Traditional RJ typically focuses on individual accountability, requiring reparations to be made directly to the victim. In contrast, Indigenous RJ acknowledges that harm affects not only the individual but also the broader community, making reparations relevant to both the victim and the community.

Challenges in RJ Today

Despite its positive intentions, restorative justice is not without its challenges. It’s crucial to address the complexities surrounding RJ, particularly regarding settler colonialism and paternalism.

Settler Colonialism: Mainstream RJ can sometimes be perceived as a replacement for Indigenous justice systems rather than a complementary approach. This risks undermining Indigenous self-determination and the legitimacy of Indigenous justice practices.

Paternalism: Some RJ programs for Indigenous peoples may unintentionally reinforce the notion that Indigenous communities cannot create their own justice systems. Instead of fostering self-determination, these programs may impose solutions that do not align with Indigenous values.

Moving Forward

To create justice systems that truly respect Indigenous values, we must understand and acknowledge the differences between RJ and IRJ. Indigenous restorative justice embodies a worldview that prioritizes community, interconnectedness, and collective well-being.

Recognizing, respecting, and integrating Indigenous approaches into broader justice frameworks is essential. By doing so, we can work towards a more inclusive and respectful system that honors the diverse practices of justice across cultures.l approach to justice that honors Indigenous traditions while meeting contemporary needs.

References:

 Mandamin, L. S. (2021). Naadamaagewin: Indigenous restorative justice (Master's thesis, University of Alberta)

Federal-Provincial-Territorial Meeting of Ministers Responsible for Justice and Public Safety. (2018). Principles and guidelines for restorative justice practice in criminal matters.