Robin F. Hansen, "Prison Born: Incarceration and Motherhood in the Colonial Shadow" (U Regina Press, 2024)

Summary

---

Podcast Summary

Podcast: New Books Network
Host: Ranveeth (New Books Human Rights Channel)
Guest: Robin F. Hansen, Associate Professor, College of Law, University of Saskatchewan
Book Discussed: Prison Born: Incarceration and Motherhood in the Colonial Shadow (U Regina Press, 2024)
Release Date: December 26, 2025

---

Episode Overview

This episode features a compelling conversation between the host, Ranveeth, and legal scholar Robin F. Hansen about Hansen’s new book, Prison Born: Incarceration and Motherhood in the Colonial Shadow. The book delves into the widespread practice in Canada of automatically separating newborns from incarcerated birthing parents, especially focusing on Indigenous women’s experiences. The discussion unpacks the personal, legal, and theoretical dimensions of this injustice, reveals how colonial and systemic biases persist in the Canadian criminal justice system, and considers pathways for change within existing laws.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Personal Genesis and Motivation for the Book

• Robin recounts how her work on international law shifted to the issue of incarcerated mothers after encountering the case of a pregnant Indigenous woman deprived of the opportunity to parent her newborn due to prison policies.
• Hansen’s deeply personal connection—reading legal cases while pregnant herself—made the issue "impossible to ignore" and drove her to advocate for her client and eventually research the broader phenomenon.

“I learned that in Canada, it's very common practice for babies born to incarcerated persons to be automatically removed from their birthing parents at birth, just as a matter of course. And I didn't know that before… it really affected me finding out about this.” (Robin Hansen 02:06)

2. Research Methods and Approach

• Hansen combines legal analysis, systems theory, and reflective engagement, including personal experience and direct narratives from those affected, especially "Jackie" (a pseudonym for her client).
• She highlights how her study evolved from thinking solely about gender bias to a broader, more intersectional understanding rooted in Canada’s colonial context.

“There was quite a journey with it because I hadn't reflected very much on colonialism in Canada before this book… I was just trying to understand why this is happening.” (Robin Hansen 06:00)

3. "Jackie's" Story and Lived Experience

• A central narrative involves "Jackie," an Indigenous woman who was pregnant and sent to prison, highlighting lack of legal representation, stressful hearing processes, denied medical care, shackled labor, and their traumatic health impacts on both mother and child.
• The injustices described are deeply intertwined with stereotypes about Indigenous motherhood and systemic underfunding of legal support services.

“She only got 10 minutes notice of this motion hearing…she was in full-blown labor by Thursday night…and they put her in leg shackles...her placenta ruptured...and her son was born six weeks early.” (Robin Hansen 09:55) “She wrote that passage, and I think it's the most important part of the book. And, you know, once you start to see the process by which people are written off in the system, it's hard to unsee it.” (Robin Hansen 15:21)

4. Systems Theory, Spatialized Justice & Colonial Ideology

• Hansen uses systems theory and the concept of spatialized justice to explain how legal and bureaucratic processes perpetuate harm and dehumanization, particularly toward Indigenous people.
• These frameworks helped her trace how assumptions in the courtroom—such as the belief that foster care is automatically preferable—enable rights deprivations.

“I was really struck by how strong this idea that this was deserved was for this person. And I thought, okay, this is the core idea. This is why these children's rights are being ignored.” (Robin Hansen 20:18)

5. Charter Rights, International Law, and Legal Personhood of Newborns

• The discussion explores how current Canadian practices violate both Charter rights and international legal obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, as newborns’ interests and rights are not considered in sentencing and prison protocols.
• Hansen stresses that judicial decisions routinely ignore the ways that separation constitutes an additional, unacknowledged punishment for both mothers and children.

“A decision about separation made at birth that's not taking into account access to bonding is not fair process and is arbitrary and not consistent with the newborn's rights under Section 7 to fundamental justice.” (Robin Hansen 24:17) “There's an obvious obligation on Canada and its provinces to do this...we can't ignore the interests of the children point blank…with automatic separation and still be in compliance with our international law obligations.” (Robin Hansen 27:47)

6. Solutions Within Existing Legal Frameworks

• Hansen argues for pragmatic, non-radical reforms: courts and correctional facilities already have the means, under current law, to address and prevent these harms by implementing due process and focusing on the best interests of children.
• She suggests practical steps, such as:
  • Considering the welfare of children at every stage: bail, sentencing, and administration of incarceration
  • Creating dedicated facilities so mothers and newborns can remain together when in the child’s best interest
  • Learning from international best practices, since automatic separation is not universal

“My argument is that we have to check and see what should happen in the individualized circumstances. And in most cases, staying together is probably what we would see as being the appropriate course of action.” (Robin Hansen 31:22) "This book does not propose radical changes…simply propose that we within the legal system treat newborn children to incarcerated mothers as persons entitled to the rule of law.” (Robin Hansen 29:40)

7. The Colonial Roots of Incarceration and Dehumanization

• Hansen outlines how the Canadian legal system has historically criminalized Indigenous identity, embedding mechanisms for state control through law, and how dehumanization works on two levels: as a prisoner, and as an Indigenous person labeled criminal.

“I think that the greatest thing that I learned in writing this book was in seeing how the Canadian legal system created these categories for Indigenous people and then forced Indigenous people into them so that they could be incarcerated.” (Robin Hansen 35:42)

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Legal Assumptions and Prejudice:
  • "I was really struck by how strong this idea that this was deserved was for this person.” (Robin Hansen 20:18)
• On Lived Experience:
  • "She wrote that passage, and I think it's the most important part of the book…" (Robin Hansen 15:21)
• On Solutions:
  • “There needs to be a place, some sort of maternity house or, or health house for them to be in that will allow them to be together with their child after birth.” (Robin Hansen 31:22)
• On Dehumanization:
  • "There's two different layers of dehumanization happening, which is the dehumanization of being a prisoner and the dehumanization of being a readily labeled criminal indigenous person…” (Robin Hansen 35:42)

---

Key Timestamps

• [01:29] Introduction of Robin Hansen and the main theme.
• [02:06] Personal account: Hansen’s path to the project.
• [06:00] Research methodology: from gender bias to colonial critique.
• [09:55] “Jackie’s” story: legal process, lack of representation, shackled labor and trauma.
• [15:21] Systemic stereotypes and the importance of personal testimony.
• [20:18] Theoretical frameworks: systems theory, spatialized justice.
• [24:17] Charter rights, legal personhood at birth, and due process failures.
• [27:47] International law obligations and Canada’s failure to comply.
• [29:40] Solutions: Not radical, but within existing legal doctrine.
• [31:22] Concrete reforms: bail, sentencing, prison administration, medical best interest.
• [35:42] Colonialism, criminalization of Indigeneity, and dehumanization.
• [39:48] Hansen’s ongoing research: compiling international best practices.

---

Closing

The episode offers a deep, multidisciplinary dive into the legal, historical, and human realities of mothers and newborns affected by carceral Canadian policies. Robin Hansen’s work and advocacy illuminate the continuity between colonial oppression and contemporary legal practices, while also mapping out possible reforms that respect the rights and personhood of both mothers and children.

---

Transcript

[A]

Hi, this is Joe from Vanta.

[B]

In today's digital world, compliance regulations are changing constantly and earning customer trust has never mattered more. Vanta helps companies get compliant fast and.

[A]

Stay secure with the most advanced AI.

[B]

Automation and continuous monitoring out there.

[A]

So whether you're a startup going for your first SoC2 or ISO 27001 or.

[B]

A growing enterprise managing vendor risk, Vanta.

[A]

Makes it quick, easy and scalable. And I'm not just saying that because I work here. Get [e-mail] this is a real good story about Bronx and his dad Ryan.

[B]

Real United Airlines customers. We were returning home and one of.

[A]

The flight attendants asked Bronx if he wanted to see the flight deck and meet Captain Andrew. I got to sit in the driver's seat.

[B]

I grew up in an aviation family and seeing Bronx kind of reminded me of myself when I was that age. That's Andrew, a real United pilot. These small interactions can shape a kid's future.

[A]

It felt like I was the captain. Allowing my son to see the flight deck will stick with us forever.

[B]

That's how good leads the way. Think your lashes have hit their limit? Discover limitless length and full volume with Maybelline's Sky High Mascara. The Flex Tower Brush bends to volumize.

[A]

And extend every single lash from root to tip.

[B]

And the lightweight bamboo infused formula makes lashes feel weightless. Now in eight bold shades so you can take your lashes to new heights every day. Visit maybelline.com to shop Skyhigh mascara now.

[A]

Welcome to the New Books Network.

[B]

Welcome back to the New Books Network Human Rights Channel. I'm Ranveeth, your host. I'm here today with Robin Hanson to discuss Prison Born Incarceration and Motherhood and the Colonial Shadow. Robin is associate professor at the College of Law, University of Saskatchewan on Treaty 6 territory in Canada. Welcome to the show.

[A]

Thank you very much for having me.

[B]

So, my usual first question, and I think this question is particularly important salience, I'm not sure here with this book, how did you come to this project in the first place?

[A]

Yeah, that's a great question. Because I am an international law researcher. Most of my work was on multinational corporations. And then in the midst of the news waves covering the murdered and missing indigenous women and girls topic, I started researching ways that international law might be relevant to that topic. And that brought me to a case called Inglis I n G L I s. And in reading that case when I was in my third trimester of my second pregnancy, that's when I learned that in Canada, it's very Common practice for babies born to incarcerated persons to be automatically removed from their birthing parents at birth, just as a matter of course. And I didn't know that before. And so I had already had one child and was pregnant with another. And it really affected me finding out about this. So fast forward two years, I was still talking about this topic with people. And I eventually came across someone who was in that very predicament, who had been sent to prison six months pregnant, sentenced to 13 months. And so she was facing this automatic separation, and she was really concerned about her son because she wanted to care for him and was poised to do a committed job at that. And so that's how I came across. It was basically talking with people in the university community, the legal community. It trickled through to someone who was in that situation. And so then she got in touch with me, and I couldn't just ignore the situation. So I tried to find a criminal lawyer, and there wasn't any. And so then I was her lawyer, and we're still in touch. And it all worked out, more or less, because I represented her on an appeal. And the Crown agreed to change her house arrest, change her sentence to house arrest because she, six months before, before she had gotten pregnant, had, while under the influence, stolen more alcohol from a bar. And in stealing this alcohol, she had shown scissors to the bartender. And so then it was a charge of armed robbery. And so after the offense, she did treatment. She didn't have a criminal record. She was remorseful, she was low risk, but she was still sent to prison. And she's a Cree woman who also has close family ties to a Metis community. So that's kind of how I got into it. And so then I was just researching all around it to figure out why this is happening. And then the book arose, I guess we could say.

[B]

Yeah, I guess. Building on this, I'm a methods nerd. I love to talk to people about process and how they do research. And I'm curious, you know, before we jump in and more into the content of the book, your arguments, and just there's so much here. How did you go about conducting your research for this book? You know, what did that. That process look like? And I'm particularly curious, too, because you talk about, you know, your own experiences of, you know, speaking with different people who are part of. Part of the prison system in Canada, you know, throughout. Throughout this book. So you're. I found this. I found this compelling in part because it's not just a textual analysis, right. That you're, you're talking about how you yourself, you know, understood your, you know, your own experiences and speaking with folks.

[A]

Yeah, that's also a great question because it's definitely unlike anything else I've ever written. There was quite a journey with it because I hadn't reflected very much on colonialism in Canada before this book. And so I initially started at understanding the topic mainly from a bias against mothers perspective. Seeing childcare is unpaid labor, keeping women in the private space. And just thinking about it in kind of a race neutral approach, which of course doesn't really cut it because this is a very racial issue because indigenous persons, Indigenous women are. Well, Indigenous persons are incarcerated at 17.8 times according to Stats Canada data, the rate of non indigenous persons in Saskatchewan. So there's just this huge elephant in the room which is that this process of automatic separation is, is a continuation of colonial ideologies. So my process was to first just try to learn a lot more about colonialism and the Canadian legal system. And then from that I was just, I was trying to understand why this is happening. And so from that I happened across the spatialized justice analytic developed by Shereen Razak. And I found it to be a great tool for understanding the communications that were happening. And then I happened across systems theory, which was also a systemic approach. So it was through a process of elimination and just really immersing myself in a lot of different literatures that I came across the theory and on the method of reflecting on my experiences and Jackie's experiences. That just came because that was the core story, that was the situation being analyzed. And so when Jackie, a pseudonym, agreed to be a part of this process, then that story, her story, my story, the events could be the. The center of gravity for the theoretical analysis.

[B]

We'll talk more about your really rich theoretical engagements in a few minutes. But I want to offer some space to talk about just what happens. Right. Because something that I found really compelling and something that I really appreciate about this book is that you really foregrounds the process and the experiences of events, those within the system, particularly thinking through Jackie's experience. Right. And this also means that, you know, in an interview, it's always tricky, I find of sort of where to start. Do you start from the theory? Do you start from the experiences? But I wanted to. Shifting back, you write about emotion, hearing around the appeal. And it went, it went very suddenly, I guess, sort of keeping that short. And I'm curious if you can speak a little bit to motion hearings, this question of legal representation and also what it means to pregnant people who are incarcerated. Because I found that starting with this event or with that description, that it really, it offered me at least a lot of insight. You know, my experience in observing or experiencing what you described is basically nothing. But I really, I mean, it was really appalling to me. Just everything, everything that you described that felt, I mean, lack of a better term, it felt unjust.

[A]

Yeah. So she had been represented by Legal Aid Saskatchewan for her sentencing. And I didn't really understand at the time why she didn't have representation for an appeal. But I've since learned that it is essentially the policy of Legal Aid Saskatchewan to not fund appeals, which means that this is completely lopsided because the Crown, of course, has a whole appeals group. So there's a lopsidedness in that system. So she was incarcerated without a lawyer. And so when you're incarcerated, she was at Pine Grove. There's no Internet. It's erratic access to phones, erratic access to faxes, expensive phone calls through a private agency. And so I was trying to help her get an actual criminal lawyer. And one of the methods was seeking to get court appointed funds for counsel. And so that motion had been set to be heard, but then the court changed the time and then called the jail and told the jail of this new time, but the jail didn't tell Jackie. And so she only got 10 minutes notice of this motion hearing and it didn't go well. She didn't understand what they were saying. The Crown said that the original sentencing had been fair. And you know, Jackie said that they might as well have been speaking Chinese. She was really upset afterwards. It was, was just a slap in the face where another door was closed and she wasn't going to get anyone to, to, to be her agent in this legal system. And so she essentially went into labor after that. She was slow at first, but the motioneering was on Wednesday. She was in full blown labor by Thursday night. And the, the medical staff at the prison ignored her until after they kept on sending her back to her cell. It was only after the staff went away that they called an ambulance for her and they put her in leg shackles. And her leg shackles were even noted on her hospital chart in Prince Albert, her placenta ruptured. She had an emergency ambulance ride from Prince Albert to Saskatoon, again in Lake Shackles. And eventually her son was born the next day in Saskatoon. And he was early. He was, I think, six weeks early. So the motion hearing precipitated the labor. She also had untreated gestational Diabetes that had been diagnosed beforehand. But in the prison, for some reason, they. They didn't believe that she had them or refused to check for it or. I don't know. But that wasn't being taken care of either, which can also cause preterm labor. So all this to say is that the lack of representation is connected to trauma and lack of agency in the prison, which then has significant human rights violations that flow from that in the form of denial of right to health and also have huge ramifications with regard to the child's right to health and, you know, just a problematic situation inside with no agent. So the lack of representation really comes through. There's systems that are supposed to be in place, but they're dramatically underfunded to the. To the. To the point where they're just facilitating the system rather than. Rather than representing people adequately.

[B]

It was really. Yeah, really moved by the. The extended section just related to what you were just saying there. The extended passage about Jackie's pain and labor, which is a section that it seems like she herself wrote. It was incredibly difficult to read, not because it wasn't clear or wasn't, you know, very eloquent, but just really, really upsetting. And it was so salient how she was fighting every step of the way, you know, just to get access to clinical care, as well as, you know, still fighting for legal representation in the face of, you know, her child's, you know, it was to arrive into the world, you know, much sooner than anticipated. As you noted, just the description of the shackling, while an incredible pain and sort of fighting to get that understood was just. It sounded really, truly terrifying, and I appreciated that it was included in this book. It felt really important. And I'm curious how you were thinking about this really just lack of a better term, horrific situation alongside what you point to as the instrumentalized stereotype of the unfit indigenous mother doing giant finger quotes. Because this passage of how the stress of this sudden hearing, the lack of legal support that she had, leading to this incredibly traumatizing hospital experience, just the backdrop of these assumptions, these norms, these stereotypes that arise, you know, in a colonial settler state, it seemed so clear, and I really appreciated how you were thinking that through.

[A]

Yeah, she wrote that passage, and I think it's the most important part of the book. And, you know, once you start to see the process by which people are written off in the system, it's hard to unsee it. You know, it's the same thing as when we ignore someone who's asking for change on the street. Even though we hear them, you know, just you just this, this writing of people off that, the labeling of them as, as being deficient, not worth your time. That, that operates alongside with writing people off as just perpetual threats that have to be the recipients of violence. And the labour and shackles issue, that rule got changed. There wasn't a rule against it before, but they brought in a change to the policy on transports transporting prisoners provincially after. But I checked across Canada and in the federal system there's a rule against it and I think in Ontario there's an official rule against it. But in most of Canada they just leave these huge areas of discretion in such a way that it's rife for serious human rights denial in the form of maltreatment during labor, for instance. Yeah, I think the systems theory approach is important because it allows you to start to break down processes in the legal system to the communications that are being made and to the responses of those communications. So in the shackling instance, somebody initiated that, somebody brought out the shackles and somebody else agreed through compliance or silence that that's what was going to happen. And then it happened. So if the shackles had been brought out and someone else said, you know what, maybe we'll skip those because this person's in medical distress, it's not really necessary, then things would have been very different. But the cycles of communication, if those don't get interrupted, then just old systems of labeling of people as being.

[B]

You.

[A]

Know, threats or write offs just continue.

[B]

So good, so good, so good. New Year. New gear. Thousands of fresh active styles are at.

[A]

Nordstrom Rack stores now.

[B]

Save on top brands like Nike, Puma and free people starting at just $35. How did I not know Rack has Adidas? There's always something new.

[A]

Plus, join the Nordy Club to shop new arrivals first. Unlock exclusive discounts and more. Great brands, great prices. That's why you Rack shopping is hard.

[B]

I can never find anything in my size.

[A]

I don't even know my size.

[B]

I buy my clothes the same place I buy my groceries.

[A]

There's a better way. Make it easy with Stitch Fix. Just share your size, style, budget and done. Your personal stylist sends pieces picked just for you. That was easy.

[B]

Stitch Fix Online. Personal styling for everyone.

[A]

Free shipping and returns. No subscription required.

[B]

Get started today@stitch fix.com at Capella University. Learning online doesn't mean learning alone. You'll get support from people who care about your success, like your enrollment specialist who gets to know you and the goals you'd like to achieve. You'll also get a designated academic coach who's with you throughout your entire program. Plus, career coaches are available to help you navigate your professional goals. A different future is closer than you think with Capella University. Learn more at capella. Edu. Meet the computer you can talk to with Copilot on Windows. Working, creating and collaborating is as easy as talking.

[A]

Got writer's block?

[B]

Share your screen with Copilot Vision to help spark inspiration and use Copilot voice.

[A]

Voice to have a conversation and brainstorm ideas.

[B]

Or maybe you need some tech help with Copilot Vision. Copilot sees what you see. Let Copilot talk you through step by step guidance so you can master new apps, games and skills faster. Try [e-mail] copilot so building on that, your theoretical framing for this really wonderful, important book is rooted, as you note, and thinking through systems theory and also ideas of, of spatialized justice. And for those who might be unfamiliar with these terms or these ideas, you know, why did you go to these particular theories to unpack, you know, the questions that you explore in this book? And in particular, I just, I found it again, really compelling to apply these two theoretical approaches to how you were thinking about, you know, the colonial state, the colonial legal systems and space in the contemporary context.

[A]

Well, I was trying to figure out why this is happening. And I figured out why it was happening when I started reflecting on this conversation I had with someone when I was trying to put the documentation together for Jackie's appeal. So I made this information request and then the person I was seeking the information from countered back by saying that this information would be used as leverage to keep her out of jail. And I just, it really set me back a ways where I thought, well, why is this assumption happening? And I said to myself, well, I said to the person, I said, well, you know, she's very keen to be a mother to her child. She won't be able to do this if she's in jail and perhaps I can give you some additional information. And he countered and said, well, foster care is preferable in some instances. And I just thought, wow, this is, this is a real, you're really clinging to this idea that this is what's needed. Why, why is this idea so pernicious here? And I gave him, that's what I was thinking. I gave him the additional information and he eventually gave me the information I was looking for. But I was really struck by how strong this idea that this was deserved was for this person. And I thought, okay, this is the core idea. This is why these children's rights are being ignored. This is why these children are getting no access to due process and a major decision because they're getting taken from their mother, being denied, bonding when it may well be that that is a very huge health deprivation. And so I traced the system process to the idea that that person was expressing to me. And then I was trying to find the source of that idea. And I found it in the courtroom, in the decision to send a pregnant person to jail, in the knowledge that automatic separation is going to happen. So that's how I came to systems theory was because I was trying to find the source of the system human rights deprivation. It's in that assumption in the courtroom. And I came to Spatialized justice because there's been work on unpacking how the colonial legal system treats and has treated Indigenous persons. Really important work by Patricia Montour as well, Tracy Lindbergh in writing about critical Indigenous legal theory as well. And so I was building on what others have so strongly identified as so many junctures in Canadian legal process that dehumanize Indigenous persons. And I use those ideas in the context of systems theory, tracing the point where that dehumanization occurs in the communications.

[B]

So much of this book raises these questions of charter rights and newborns. And I was surprised by this argument, but I really, really compelled by it. And so to sort of circle back to some of the big. The big questions that you're asking about, you know, what does it mean for a pregnant person to be sentenced and for this separation to happen? You know, how do you see. How do you see charter rights and newborns happening in this particular case? And here I'm thinking in particular about what you're talking about in terms of what you call the double punishments not acknowledged in sentencing. I found that. So, yeah, just the attention that you offered to this, again, this forced separation, really, I keep saying compelling, but it's also just incredibly upsetting to know that this is happening. And the framing of charter rights I found, I found really helpful in thinking this through.

[A]

Yeah, I would say that a lot of the argumentation would apply to children that exist at the time of sentencing and not just children that are unborn. But the lack of consideration of the effects of sentencing on children is really evident. Once you see it, you can't stop seeing it. And it's a violation of the rights of the child. It's a violation of the charter rights of children. But specifically in the courtroom, what's happening is that because the Child that's not born yet is not a legal person. It's ignored. But the problem is that that child becomes a legal person at birth. And so you can't preemptively deny the rights of a person, that you can't set the legal system into motion such that it's supposedly okay at birth for rights to be ignored, because the rule of law says that everyone has charter rights, including newborn children. So what should be happening is that when a person is born and becomes a legal person, that there's space in the legal system for their right to fundamental justice and fair process to be operationalized. So the timing is what causes problems, but it's connected to the broader issue of dehumanizing and devaluing women as mothers when they're in the courtroom, because the rights of existing children are also being ignored. But the way that I see it is that the charter rights of children, setting aside section 15 for a moment, but the charter rights of children that are really being ignored here are the fair process rights in major state decisions. Because bonding after birth is very important for health development. And so a decision about separation made at birth that's not taking into account access to bonding is not fair process and is arbitrary and not consistent with the newborn's rights under Section 7 to fundamental justice. The additional rights that are associated with that, like the right to health, right to family, are also important. But my main issue is that there's no due process here and no space in the system for their rights to be considered, and no space in the system, in most cases, for there to be a practical option for mother and child to stay together after birth, which is, of course, necessary if that's in the best interest of the child. That's what a due process points to. So that's how I see it in the courtroom. There's prejudice against the unborn child. The child's being prejudged before their birth as not being entitled to rights which they should have at birth.

[B]

I was also, you know, building on this, this point about, about charter rights. I appreciate it as well that you're, you know, making links as well to international law. And so, you know, reference to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, you know, thinking again about, you know, what is in a child's child's interest. And so I'm. I'm curious how you're thinking about international human rights law as well as domestic legislation, again, when you're thinking about what this separation, what this forced separation is.

[A]

Doing well, under the Convention on the Rights of the child at Article 3, which Canada ratified in 91, Canada is bound to. In state decisions, including decisions by courts and administrative agencies, the best interests of the child are to be a primary consideration. So there's an obvious obligation on Canada and its provinces to do this. And so this flows into Canadian law through how it informs the Charter, but it also flows into Canadian law through the presumption of SCUP compliance, which holds that when we interpret Canadian laws, we're supposed to interpret them in such a way that reads them as being in compliance with Canada's obligations. Because otherwise, what is the point of Canada joining these treaties? Honestly, if they don't, if they just apply in the ether of the international system and don't have any import within Canadian law, then there's no point. So there is legal doctrine in Canada focusing on the presumption of statutory compliance, which means that this obligation on state actors to consider the interests of children in major state decisions has to be adhered to, which means that in sentencing decisions and bail decisions, in Corrections Administration's decisions, we can't ignore the interests of the children point blank, you know, in this completely blanket fashion that we're doing with automatic separation and still be in compliance with our international law obligations. So I see this as a clear obligation on state actors that's being entirely ignored at present and shouldn't be, because there is legal basis for there to be an obligation on state actors to consider the interests of children in incarceration decisions.

[B]

So as I don't know, a bit of, not a spoiler, but you end the book by writing this book does not propose radical changes. I am reasoning within existing doctrine and simply propose that we within the legal system treat newborn children to incarcerated mothers as persons entitled to the rule of law. And I found this, again, really, really thought provoking because you are, you point to, you point to all of these, you know, seriously upsetting, you know, abhorrence, things that can and do happen, Right? You know, describing what happened to Jackie as well as, you know, ways that you yourself, you know, intervened to keep, I would argue, you know, much worse things from happening. Right. You know, a sort of extended separation from happening. But you also, you know, you point to ways that it doesn't need to be this way within the existing system. And so I'm curious if you can speak to, you know, some of the mechanisms and some of the ways that this just doesn't need to happen.

[A]

Right.

[B]

That the existing frameworks, the existing ways in which this separation can be avoided. And I would add to this slightly rambly question that you also really point to the science on this too. Right. So that it is also medically in the best interest of the birthing parent and the child's to be together and that there are ways for this to happen, there are possibilities for this to be considered within the existing framework that we've got today.

[A]

Yeah, I mean there's basically three levels to appropriate responses. Decisions relating to bail, decisions related to sentencing and decisions related to the administration of prisons. So bail decision making cannot be done ignoring the impacts on children. So there needs to be shifts there to acknowledge the impacts on children sentencing. Similarly, in the uk, the sentencing guidelines now expressly are supportive of keeping pregnant persons out of prison because it's a high risk pregnancy environment because separation is so damaging for young children. So clear sentencing doctrine, addressing this very topic and bringing in due process into this topic, instead of carrying on with the assumptions being made about the value of the mother in the circumstance so challenging head on, all these blanket assumptions that are driving the process so far that is needed. Um, and then thirdly, with regard to the administration of correctional facilities, you know, if for some reason someone is incarcerated and they're pregnant and they go into labor, there needs to be a place, some sort of maternity house or, or health house for them to be in that will allow them to be together with their child after birth. It some sort of accommodation facilities. I mean, prison nurseries are widespread across the world in other jurisdictions beside Canada. And the United States is also not a leader in this regard, but there are a few. But in Europe, around the world, the idea of automatic separation is not as common. And so this default process of automatic separation can just be countered, practically speaking, by having some sort of secure environment that will allow the mother and child to be together, presuming that that's in the best interest of the children. I'm not. My argument has never been that in all circumstances there should be people staying together. My argument is that we have to check and see what should happen in the individualized circumstances. And in most cases, staying together is probably what we would see as being the appropriate course of action. And so having the infrastructure in place to allow that in the, in the system, as it were, is what's needed.

[B]

So I want to return to these points around colonialism and incarceration because they're threaded throughout the book. And I appreciated the way that you applied systems theory to think this through, particularly thinking through points that you make around how prison dehumanizes those within and how people are dehumanized broadly within these systems. And I'm thinking of this alongside the colonial logics that, as you noted, lead to a significant amount of Indigenous people incarcerated across Canada. When we're looking at disproportionate representation of different populations incarcerated in Canada. Right. Indigenous people are just astronomically overrepresented. And so, yeah, this really comes through, I think, with your attention to systems theory and thinking about prejudicial norms that go unsaid. And as you ask, how does the colonial lens see prison in a way that is consistent with colonial objectives? And so I'm curious if you can speak a little bit to this question of dehumanization and incarceration and how you apply these theoretical perspectives. I realize that that's a big question. I found how you really worked through this on the page really, really helpful. I know I learned a lot about this, and I'm sure listeners would as well.

[A]

Yeah. So there's two things happening there. The first is how the legal system has created these categories for Indigenous persons to be criminals. And so there were lots of criminals that could be treated as needing to be imprisoned. And so the Indian act had lots of offenses in it that could be dealt with with incarceration. There was Indigenous specific criminal offenses, all of the alcohol specific offenses. There used to be an Indian prostitution offense until the 50s. And so a real. I think that the greatest thing that I learned in writing this book was in seeing how the Canadian legal system created these categories for Indigenous people and then forced Indigenous people into them so that they could be incarcerated. So instead of, you know, in treating the alcohol issue as being one that would allow criminalization of Indigenous peoples, instead of being something to do with public health, it was just a space for the Canadian state to control and assimilate Indigenous peoples through the criminal law, through the Indian act law. So once I saw the Canadian legal system as. As creating these categories, which, by the way, they did kind of similar things in. In Ireland and perhaps other places too, then I started to see. So I started to see incarceration as this result set into place through the legal systems operation vis a vis Indigenous persons. And so that. That's the first. The. The first kind of moving part in this is. Is criminalizing indigeneity. And also there, of course, was the prohibition on Sundance and other ceremonies for so many years, too, in Canadian law. And also not sending your kid to residential school. And. Yeah, just so many things. And then the second point is that with regard to the dehumanization of persons who are imprisoned that that is connected to long standing political tensions about imprisonment, about how people on the outside are the good, respectable people, people on the inside are, you know, they deserve to be there, they don't deserve to have any rights, this sort of thing. So the dehumanization of persons who are imprisoned, it's such a loaded and important societal phenomenon that overlaps with the dehumanization of Indigenous persons through the criminal legal system with the result of incarceration happening as a result of those categories. So that's all very abstract, but I guess what I'm saying is that there's two different layers of dehumanization happening, which is the dehumanization of being a prisoner and the dehumanization of being a readily labeled criminal indigenous person that has its basis in so much of Canadian law with regard to Indigenous persons.

[B]

Well, I could talk to you for hours about this book, but we are approaching the end of our time together and I do truly want to thank you so much for your time speaking with me together. This is just an incredibly brilliant, rigorous and truly care filled book about the separation of newborns from incarcerated birthing parents. And I really, really hope that our listeners will go out and pick this up.

[A]

Thank you so much for having me.

[B]

Truly my pleasure and an honor. The classic New Books Network closing question is to ask what you're up to now, as I'm sure listeners are curious about what's next for all the authors that we feature. So what are you working on now that Prisonborn is out in the world?

[A]

Yeah, I'm compiling all sorts of examples of better practices from around the world of taking into account the interests of children in incarceration decisions. So right now I'm compiling approaches on this topic and compiling international law sources on this topic as well so that there can be recommendations made for changes within Canadian process, as I say, with regard to bail, sentencing and prison administration decisions so that we can keep the legal personhood and the rights of children more intact in the systems process.

[B]

I look forward to reading more about that when things come out. And thank you again for your time today.

[A]

Thank you so much. My pleasure. Hey, Ryan Reynolds here for Mint Mobile. You know, one of the perks about having four kids that you know about is actually getting a direct line to the big man up north. And this year he wants you to know the best gift that you can get give someone is the gift of Mint Mobile's unlimited wireless for $15 a month. Now you don't even need to wrap it, give it a try at Mintmobile. Com Switch Upfront payment of $45 for.

[B]

Three month plan equivalent to $15 per.

[A]

Month required new customer offer for first three months only. Speed slow after 35 gigabytes if network's busy.

[B]

Taxes and fees extra.

[A]

C mintmobile.com.