September 30, 2025 • 41 mins
Ruth van Vierzen's journey began in 1970, the year she was born and David Milgaard was wrongfully convicted of murder. While Ruth built her life, Milgaard spent years in prison for a crime he didn't commit, until his release in 1992. This injustice inspired a remarkable advocacy journey that ultimately reshaped Canadian law.
In 2019, after Milgaard advocated for an independent commission to address wrongful convictions, Ruth reached out to him via LinkedIn. This connection led to the formation of a powerful advocacy group, including lawyer James Lockyer, wrongfully imprisoned Ron Dalton, and filmmaker Lori Kuffner.
Through strategic letter writing, media engagement, and lobbying, the group secured meetings with Justice Minister David Lametti, which ultimately led to the establishment of the Miscarriage of Justice Commission. This was significant because Canada was the only G7 nation without such a body to review wrongful convictions, despite numerous government recommendations.
The commission is crucial for all Canadians, particularly Indigenous people who are disproportionately affected by wrongful convictions. Though Milgaard passed away in 2022 before the commission was fully implemented, his legacy lives on in the David and Joyce Milgaard’s Law, a symbol of transformative advocacy.
Ruth’s story shows that meaningful change often starts with one person's determination to take action or refuse to give up. When we see injustice, we all have the power and perhaps the responsibility to be that person. What issue matters enough to you that you would be willing to persist until you see change?
- Share Your Thoughts and Shape the Show! Tell me what you love about the podcast and what you want to hear more about. Please email me at behas.podcast@gmail.com and be part of the conversation!
- To be on the show Podmatch Profile
Ordinary people, extraordinary experiences - Real voices, real moments - Human connection through stories - Live true storytelling podcast - Confessions - First person emotional narratives - Unscripted Life Stories.
Thank you for listening - Hasta Pronto!
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:00):
Hi, I'm Daniela. Welcome to my podcast, because Everyone has a Story, the place to give ordinary people's stories the chance to be shared and preserved. Our stories become the language of connections. Let's enjoy it. Connect and relateBecause everyone has a story.
I am so excited and trulyhonored to have Ruth in the show
(00:23):
today.
I really enjoy getting to knowher.
She has its incredible abilityto take a very complex story and
make it clear andunderstandable.
And her passion for addressinginjustice really shines through.
And it is inspiring to seesomeone so committed to make a
difference.
While it is not her life story,she is giving us the incredible
(00:48):
opportunity to learn about alaw as important as the
Miscarriage of JusticeCommission, the David and Joyce
Milgard Law.
Something that many of us mightnever have known about
otherwise.
Ruth's journey, inspired by thewrongful conviction of David
Milgard, who spent 23 years inprison for a crime he didn't
(01:09):
commit, shows how one persondetermination can create real
change.
So let's enjoy her story.
Welcome, Ruth, to the show.
Thank you so much for beinghere.
Thank you.
I know you have a very, verydifferent story, and I'm really
excited that you're sharing it.
So why do you want to shareyour story?
RuthvanVierzen (01:28):
Thank you for the opportunity to share this
story because I think it reallyhas, even though it's a
Canadian-based story, I think itwill be of great interest
globally.
And it's uh something that Iactually got involved with uh
starting back in 2019.
I reached out to a gentlemanwho was very notorious in
Canada, but not for a reason hewanted to be notorious.
(01:50):
That started us workingtogether.
It started a friendship, and wewere able to accomplish a lot
regarding a very importantissue.
So I'm I'm really happy to havethis chance to share it because
it does have globalimplications, you know, beyond
just Canada.
DanielaSM (02:06):
Yes, and I'm excited that you're going to share that
with everyone and that we aregoing to learn because I know
you were saying that there wasnot enough press.
I'm excited that we have anavenue here to do that.
Yes, absolutely.
Your story starts in in 2019,or when does your story start?
RuthvanVierzen (02:21):
It actually starts in 1970, the year that I
was born.
Because that is the year thatDavid Milgard, who we're going
to be talking about, was foundguilty and imprisoned for a
crime he didn't commit.
He was not released from prisonuntil 1992, when I was in
(02:43):
university.
And I think about this a lotfrom the time that I was born
all the way through those yearsuntil I was in university.
He was wrongly imprisoned.
And I like to share that as astarting point to give
chickeners imagine that lengthof time and imagine spending day
in and day out in a prisonwhere you don't belong because
you were found guilty of a crimeyou never committed.
(03:05):
So it started in 1970, 1992, itmust have been 1992.
I still recall the day I wassitting in my apartment reading
the paper, and that was the yearthat he was released from
prison because I'd beenfollowing his story, right?
And I remember, so I rememberreading about him and saying to
myself, it was such a graveinjustice.
And that I thought one day I Iwant to do something around this
(03:28):
problem of wrongful convictionsin Canada.
And that was kind of, I justleft.
Like I just remember thinking,I want to get involved in this
somehow.
Never really gave it muchthought for many years.
I mean, I followed the storiesof other wrongful convictions.
And then uh David Milgard madethe cover of the Globe and Mail,
one of our national newspapers,uh, back in 2019.
And I and I read the article,it was so impactful.
(03:51):
And yeah, the headline wassomething like, This can happen
to anyone or this can happen toyou.
It was very, very impactfulbecause it's so true, right?
That we have a problem inCanada with wrongful
convictions.
And I was like, okay, this isit.
I'm getting involved.
I'm reaching out because hementioned in the article he
wanted to start a view, like aboard.
(04:12):
He wanted to start anorganization that would pressure
the government to create acommission around wrongful
convictions to finally speed upthe process.
I reached out to David onLinkedIn and I messaged him and
I introduced myself.
I said, I read the article inthe paper, and I remember
writing, I said, I'm sure you'vebeen inundated with messages
and offers of help.
(04:33):
But if if you're still lookingfor volunteers, let me know.
I'd like to get involved andhelp this commission get
created.
And he replied within minutes.
And he said, No, you're theonly person who's reached out to
me.
So I was shocked.
He wasn't inundated at all.
We ended up having a phone callthat day and things started
rolling and we never lookedback.
(04:54):
The the only happy ending tothe story is that called the
Miscarriage of JusticeCommission, it was created just
in the final months beforeJustin Trudeau left office.
That was one of his very bigimportant accomplishments that
he doesn't get enoughrecognition for.
DanielaSM (05:07):
So I have a lot of questions.
So you say that you alwaysfollow the story, but why
necessarily since you werelittle, you follow the story?
RuthvanVierzen (05:15):
Well, not since I was little, but as I got
older, I'm I'm very sensitive tothings around injustice.
I always have been.
As I got older, I I would, youknow, and was starting to follow
the news more.
I always found myself verydrawn to stories about people
who were wrongly uh convicted,wrongly imprisoned in Canada.
DanielaSM (05:34):
Do you go to school and study law or related to
that?
RuthvanVierzen (05:38):
I studied public policy at York University.
Part of that was we had to dothere's a big component around
public law and constitutionallaw, not criminal law, but I
I've always had an interest inlaw.
I mean, to have aconstitutional law and public
law background, it helps, right?
Because you understandgovernment and government
workings as well.
DanielaSM (06:00):
And then when you reach out, I know that him and
his mother are the ones, youknow, the they were all working
together to to help him outtheir jail.
Uh so what happened?
So he he studied law while hewas in prison, or how did he
decide to create this commissionthat I also read that every
other country like Australia,the UK have it, Canada was the
(06:22):
only one who didn't.
RuthvanVierzen (06:23):
Yes.
I don't know the history of howhe came to this decision around
wanting to start thisindependent commission, but it
was something that he had beenthinking about for a long time.
And I think he was juststruggling to maybe put the
pieces together, get the rightpeople in place to make it
happen.
You know, and and we havereally important organizations
in Canada like Innocence Canada,which um which uh is is a legal
(06:48):
organization that provideslegal services, and many of the
lawyers involved have helped touh free wrongly imprisoned
people.
But it just everything kind ofjust came together.
So uh when we um when westarted working together, he
identified other key people hewanted to be in our group.
We invited them, and I'd liketo mention them because they
they absolutely deserve to benamed here.
(07:10):
Uh one is James Lockier, he'sone of Canada's most prominent
criminal trial lawyers, veryactive in getting wrongfully
convicted people exonerated.
Ron Dalton, he was wronglyconvicted.
He's from the East Coast, hewas wrongly convicted, spent
eight years in prison.
And then Lori Kufner, she is uhshe has a production company,
(07:31):
she does social justicedocumentaries, she's out west.
So we worked together as agroup, uh, and then of course
David, David and I.
So we would we would meetremotely, we would strategize.
For any of your listeners whodon't think letter writing still
works, we wrote many lettersand we were very strategic, and
it absolutely works.
(07:51):
Yeah, we did we did a lot ofwork together, we organized
media conferences, it got theball rolling.
Because of David's notoriety,we were able to build on that.
So we we were able to get ameeting with then Justice
Minister David Lametti.
We went to Parliament Hill, metwith him.
So James, David, and I went andwe met with uh David Lametty in
(08:12):
his office.
And I'm pointing that outbecause I find we live in a time
where people feel verydisconnected from the workings
of government.
I mean, I can only speak forCanada, but I find here that if
you have an interest in a topicand you want to get the ear of
politicians, government, youknow, bureaucrats, you can do
that.
But you have to, you have to dothe work.
You have to make those stepsbecause, you know, they they
(08:34):
need to know if you have anissue with something, right?
And it wasn't easy, it was alot of work.
We had to work through thechallenges of COVID, uh, but we
just kept going and we were verypersistent and we kept writing
letters and uh and it absolutelypaid off.
DanielaSM (08:48):
People that were wrongly convicted were also
participating.
How was that?
RuthvanVierzen (08:52):
Yeah, so I'm not sure to what extent they were.
I I know that we had talkedabout informing them about it
and absolutely informing people.
We we have to make sure thatpeople in the prison system know
about the the new commission.
David Lametti, through hisoffice, they started a
consultation uh process.
They had two uh very impressiveretired uh judges who led the
(09:16):
consultation process.
It went on for uh severalmonths.
So people were invited to makepresentations, and that included
people who were wronglyconvicted, who were now
released, and they were able tomake presentations.
I was able to attend one of theroundtable discussions.
It was very well done.
So they came out with a bunchof recommendations that then
informed the creation of thecommission.
DanielaSM (09:38):
How was the process?
Can you describe it in like asimple way?
How so you you wrote a letterto David, and then he said, Oh,
great that you're going to bepart of it, and then you try to
collect other people to be inthe committee.
And so what happened then?
RuthvanVierzen (09:53):
Yeah, so on we were communicating with social
media, we had a phone call, gotto know each other, uh, agreed
that yes, we, you know, he wasinterested in what I could bring
to the table to help.
So we had that initial uh so herecommended the the people,
James, Ron, and Lori, that westart working together.
They all agreed as well.
And we had we just had we setup the initial meetings, we had
virtual uh calls, thank God fortechnology, especially because
(10:17):
we were doing all of this.
Um, I remember we were we metwith David Lametty in his
office, and then not long after,all the COVID stuff happened,
which definitely impacted ourwork.
But luckily with technology, wewere able to keep meeting.
We decided to that we would,under David's uh name, we would
send letters from the group,like from David, but on behalf
(10:38):
of the group, and we wouldexplain why this was so
important that Canada have this.
So we we and it wasn't just oneletter, you know, we we ended
up writing several letters, butwe also CC'd all of the other
leaders of the other politicalparties.
I found out like who are theshadow ministers, like the
conservatives in opposition,they will have shadow ministers
(11:00):
who are like the critics andthey they will keep an eye on
what's happening in certainportfolios.
So I we so we were verystrategic.
We included as many people aswe thought would have what were
stakeholders, and uh it didn'thappen right away, but
eventually we got the ear of theJustice Department and Prime
Minister Trudeau, because hewas, of course, included as well
in the in the letter campaign.
The conference really helped.
We organized the conferencethat happened out in, I'm gonna
(11:23):
say Calgary or Winnipeg.
David was out in the Calgaryarea, so it made sense to have
it out there.
I didn't go to that, but we gotsome really good press coverage
from it.
And then we were able to buildon that momentum because now
it's getting into the press.
So when things get into thepress, it's harder for the
government to ignore.
And they weren't ignoring us,but but it just it helps with
the momentum, right?
(11:44):
To get press interest in thestory.
DanielaSM (11:46):
And what were the challenges that you came across?
RuthvanVierzen (11:49):
You know, you mentioned earlier about how
other countries, if you think ofAustralia, Britain, all of
Gotland, they already havemiscarriage of justice
commissions.
Canada has definitely been lateto the game with it.
We've had now, I think at thetime we'd had six or seven
inquiries based on previouswrongful conviction high-profile
cases.
And every inquiry, you know howthat happens in Canada,
(12:11):
something goes wrong, we have aninquiry.
And then the report comes out.
Every report said that Canadaneeds a commission that is
independent of the governmentthat addresses wrongful
convictions and works morequickly to get these wrongly
imprisoned people out of prison.
Because if you're saying thatyou're wrongly imprisoned, you
can stay in jail for years whileit goes through the process.
(12:35):
And then it can sit on thejustice minister's desk for
another, like for months oryears while they're deciding is
this politically, legally, doesthis make sense to release this
person, right?
So the whole point of thecommission is to speed that up.
So we had a very good contactin England.
And I wish I could remember hername.
She was very helpful.
(12:56):
I should have confirmed hername before I came on, but she
was our uh David had connectedwith her, and she was an and she
she's very active in thecommission there and wrongful
convictions.
She was an amazing source ofguidance for us on what to do,
what not to do.
To the credit of the inquiry,the judges, they looked heavily
into what was being done inother countries for best
(13:18):
practices and what not to do.
And that also helped to inform.
So we really got the ballrolling on a lot of really
important stuff.
And why it was so important isbecause it helps every single
Canadian.
We always said this is not apolitical party issue.
This is something where anyCanadian can be wrongly
(13:40):
convicted, and every Canadianwill be helped by having a
commission like this.
It's a really importantfail-safe for Canadian citizens.
No one is immune from awrongful conviction.
So uh we just felt so driven tomake sure that we weren't the
only country in like the G7 thatdoesn't have a wrongful
conviction commission,especially when we have a bad
(14:02):
track rec track record forwrongful convictions.
But the US didn't have acommission.
No.
They have uh, I believe it'suh, I want to say North
Carolina, one of the states haskind of their own version of it,
which we also got informationon.
I'm sure you're familiar withtheir high incarceration rates.
They have a very highproportion of people of color
(14:23):
who are in prison.
And they have a really highrate of wrongly imprisoned black
people.
They tend to disproportionatelysuffer from wrongful
convictions.
They need this, they absolutelyneed this.
I hope that the states willjust individual states will
start doing it more and more,and that will kind of encourage
the federal government there todo it.
But maybe, maybe, maybe they'llbe inspired by us.
DanielaSM (14:46):
Yes, that's true.
What is the difference thenbetween the old and the new now
in the systems?
RuthvanVierzen (14:52):
I I will say that because this happened just
before we had the change in thegovernment, I think Prime
Minister Carney, I don't thinkhe's doing the same
instructional letters to hiscabinet the way that Trudeau
did.
Trudeau was very detailed inhis instructions.
My understanding is thatbecause this all happened just
before Trudeau stepped down andthen there was the election, but
(15:13):
my understanding is that themoney had been set aside to fund
it.
But I don't know at this pointwhat's happening with it.
And call, I need to reach outand see what is happening in the
Justice Department to moveforward with it.
Oh, how does it improve things?
Yes.
So the key thing is it's anindependent body.
So whereas before the justiceminister made the final
decision, this is an independentbody where someone who has been
(15:35):
not just wrongly convicted, butthere was also this idea of
addressing disproportionateconvictions.
So someone uh put so forexample, we know that indigenous
people in Canada have a muchhigher rate of incarceration,
but they also get sentenced tomuch longer terms.
And there's this whole thingnow happening with Indigenous
people, not just now, it's beenbuilding for a while where they
(15:57):
get like an indeterminatesentence.
It's very vague.
For example, there's adisproportionate number of
indigenous people who getidentified as dangerous
offenders.
And I having read the case law,I know that it's often not
appropriate or valid.
There's a lot of racism in ourjustice system against
Indigenous people.
It's not justice for Indigenouspeople.
Yeah, so the reason I'mbringing that up is because the
(16:18):
whole point of the commission,as well, it said we have to
address not just wrongfulconvictions, but
disproportionate sentencing.
People who are getting waylonger sentences for things that
maybe a white person will getmuch less.
What it does is it gives anavenue for someone who is
wrongly convicted.
They don't have to wait for thejustice minister to make the
final decision, for example.
(16:39):
And I'm not going to be able tolike give all the technical
details, but the key thing is itgives them an avenue where they
an independent body of, youknow, made up of lawyers and
experts, they will look at thecase in an unbiased way and they
will identify if there if therewas a miscarriage of justice,
is that it's an avenue ofindependence that also helps to
(17:02):
speed up the process so thatsomeone can doesn't languish.
But isn't this similar tohaving uh no, because they what
they'll do, uh and and I'm I'm Iprobably won't use the right
wording, but what they'll do isthey will give um, so they're
not going to make a decision.
They will say, they will givelike a recommendation, they will
say that yes, it it there is auh and I have to be careful
(17:25):
about the wording becausethere's a very specific legal
wording that that basically tosay that there was a probability
of a miscarriage of justice.
And then that opens things backup.
Whereas someone who so if theyhave to go through all like
there still are appeals, butwhat it does is it it uh speed
it just it speeds up theprocess.
(17:46):
I'm trying I'm trying toexplain it as like a
non-technical way as possible,but yes, of course.
DanielaSM (17:51):
Thank you.
I appreciate it.
And it's always the same peoplein this commission, or is this
like a big uh kind of group ofpeople, association, and then it
depends on each case.
Maybe 10 people go to these and10 people go to that other
case.
How does that work exactly?
RuthvanVierzen (18:05):
I believe they're still working through
the details because there wasalso discussions about how long
is their term?
Is it renewable terms?
Because the idea is you alsowant fresh perspectives, but you
don't want to lose thatexpertise either, right?
And there's also, for example,they were like, well, we we need
to have people of colorrepresented, we need to have
indigenous representation.
So it can't just be a bunch ofwhite people with legal
(18:26):
backgrounds doing this.
We have to have the legalexpertise, but we also have to
have representation thatreflects the problem that got us
here in the first place.
I don't think all of thedetails are sorted out.
And I think also where where itwas left was that it's in
place, but it's going to betweaked as they go.
They're going to improve uponit based on lessons learned.
Remember at one point they weretalking about like two-year
(18:48):
terms or something.
So it wouldn't be like someonestays in it forever.
It would be that there would berotations out for sure.
DanielaSM (18:54):
But so at the moment you say that it's left that yes,
you got the approval, but it'snot in place yet because the
government changed.
RuthvanVierzen (19:02):
So yeah, my understanding is that it was
funded, but I don't know at thispoint what the new government
under Mark Carney is doing.
And that's the other point,too, is that you know, when you
take something like this on, it,you know, it seems like it was
a it is an importantaccomplishment that we were all
able to work together and andbring this to fruition.
But the work often like, youknow, it doesn't end.
(19:26):
Like there was like I was soexcited and thrilled when the
commission was um came into lawbecause it's now on the books.
But the work doesn't end therebecause you still have there's
still there's always thatoversight need, right?
Yeah, we're like, okay, but butwhat's happening now?
We've changed government.
And the as you know, with withwatching the news and politics,
(19:46):
the the the what we focus onchanges so quickly.
Right now it's what's going onsouth of the border and
wildfires, and and then that candistract from other goals,
right?
So as citizens, we need to keepour elected officials
accountable to make sure thatthey're not taking their eye off
things as well.
So, but I have to give creditto the government because there
(20:07):
were long periods where it wasthings kind of went quiet, and
then we'd be like, okay, we needto follow up and see what's
happening.
So I would be making phonecalls and I would talk to like
uh their the parliamentaryassistants who were amazing, by
the way.
And they were like, We we uh weknow it seems like it's quiet,
but we assure you we are workingon things.
Uh, and it was a top priorityfor uh David Lametty, who has
(20:28):
who since has left publicoffice, but he was true to his
word.
He said that day in his office,he said, This is a top priority
for me, and we will get thisdone.
That's a big commitment.
And they they did.
I feel like they they maybedidn't get enough recognition
for that.
You know, now they've bothTrudeau and and Lametty have
left office, and I'd say it wasone of the most important things
(20:49):
that they did in theirpolitical careers.
And and oddly, the media hasbeen very quiet about it.
I remember the day it wasannounced, I got it in like in
my computer, right?
Because I fought I wasfollowing the updates, and the
media wasn't running storiesabout this.
It was James Lockyer, anotheruh criminal lawyer, who said
it's one of the most importantchanges to Canada's criminal law
(21:12):
in decades.
So why wasn't the media pickingup on it?
It's very strange to me.
And that's why I so amappreciative of this
opportunity, because I can putthis out on social media and and
you know, share the story.
It can go global through yourchannels and and the more people
that hear about it, and uh andthen in other countries where
(21:32):
they don't have access to thislevel of justice, perhaps, it
can spur on change in othercountries as well.
So it's hopefully it itinspires uh people to just be
aware of it and then perhapstake action in their own
countries.
DanielaSM (21:46):
That's true.
And also the law is is alreadythere.
So perhaps each next person shears it and says, Oh, I was
wrongly convicted, they knowthat this exists, this
commission can happen.
What is you know one stepcloser, I guess.
RuthvanVierzen (22:00):
Absolutely.
And and that's what ended uphappening after the fact because
one of the things our group hadagreed to do was reach out to
our local media as well.
We just kept trying to get morepress interest.
I'm in North Bay, Ontario.
I had reached out to our localpapers.
One of them agreed to talk withme.
What was cool is that weactually I got David on the
phone as well.
(22:20):
So the reporter did aninterview at the with both me
and David, and it ended upmaking the cover of our local
paper here, which I was reallypleased about.
And from that, I had three, no,I had four people reach out to
me.
Two on Facebook.
I had a grandmother reach outto me who was very concerned
about her grandson who was beingheld in a local jail.
(22:43):
But needless to say, it itreally highlighted how basically
there were a bunch of chargesthat had gotten added on.
Like they they will pile on thecharges because they they want
to get the person for something,right?
Basically, this young guy wassaying, I I admit I'm guilty of
that.
But he's like, I'm not guiltyof what I'm being accused of
(23:04):
here.
And he says, and I'm not goingto agree to it.
And they said, if you agree toeverything, we'll let you out on
bail.
And he said, I'm not agreeingto those things.
And then eventually hisgirlfriend came forward and
said, or his ex-girlfriend andsaid, Yeah, I lied about those
charges, about thoseaccusations.
So she didn't want to appear asa witness because she had lied.
We are all vulnerable to thejustice system at every level.
(23:27):
If it doesn't work withintegrity, and if the employees
of that system don't behavethemselves, we're the ones who
pay the price.
That grandmother was suffering.
She wanted her grandson out ofjail.
Uh, a woman reached out to meabout her indigenous partner who
was languishing in jail.
A group of us end up working,starting to work together to
(23:47):
support him.
So, this, you know, when youtake this kind of action, you
don't know where it's going tolead, but you can end up having,
you know, impacts that you'rethat you don't expect you're
going to have, and it can bereally positive.
You know, I always say topeople, what's of interest to
you?
Like I have a personal rule.
If I'm gonna complain aboutsomething, I then have to do
(24:08):
something about it.
Speaker 00 (24:09):
So I I hold myself accountable to that.
So so I'm like, I have to becareful what I complain about
because then I expect myself to,whether it's environmental
pollution or injustice orwhatever.
So like, okay.
DanielaSM (24:21):
That's a that's a difficult one.
That's true.
It's easy to complain, but whatcan you do about it?
RuthvanVierzen (24:26):
Exactly.
And this is one of my petpeeves when people keep saying,
well, when is the governmentgoing to fix this?
When is the government going todo this?
And people are constantlylooking to the government to do
everything.
And I get it, we pay taxes andall of that, but the government
is not intended to be our keeperfor every single thing in our
lives.
We have to stop ceding controlto government institutions
(24:50):
because the more we do that, themore we're saying, I am not in
control of my own life and Ican't affect change.
When in fact, the very oppositeis true.
Government expects us to stepup.
And like we have to do ourcivic duty.
We are civilians in thiscountry, and we we have, I think
we have a responsibility to doour part and not just ask the
government to do everything.
And then on top of it, complainabout the taxes, right?
(25:12):
Like every time we want thegovernment to do something new,
there's a tax cost for themdoing that.
So is it something we can doourselves, right?
There is a cost to creatingthis commission, but if you
think of how much is paid out towrongly, because here we pay
out to wrongly convicted uhCanadians in millions of
dollars.
If we don't have to do that,and if we're not paying the
(25:35):
daily and yearly cost to housean innocent person in jail for
decades, that's all money savedbecause the commission builds in
accountability.
Uh, it keeps peopleaccountable.
So there's a lot of costsavings, and that all all the
cost savings came about becausea group of us said, you know, we
need to, we need to affectchange around this once and for
all.
DanielaSM (25:54):
Yes, when you talk about us expecting the
government to fix everything, Ifeel like sometimes it is a lack
of knowledge on how can I goabout it.
You know, like I have a lot ofquestions sometimes about the
municipality, and I just don'tknow uh when do they talk about
this?
Where can I go and listen toabout this case, you know?
And so I mentioned it to myhusband and I just forget about
it.
(26:14):
Obviously, it's supposed to bemy work to find out where you're
busy with your daily life andstuff, so it's easy to complain
than try to research morebecause I I'm sure that all this
that you did was a lot ofresearch.
RuthvanVierzen (26:26):
It it was.
Uh, thank God we live in a timethough where everything is at
our fingertips.
Um and my rule is if it's notat my fingertips, I'm on the
phone.
I pick up the phone.
I and you know, I I probablycall City Hall more than they
would like, but I don't carebecause they're it's like I'm
not a nuisance.
If I have a legitimate request,I'll call and find the
(26:47):
department I have to speak toand to get the answers that I
need.
And and we all have that at ourfingertips.
Go online, do the research, uh,and then pick up your phone if
if you still can't get theanswers.
Because all of these people,you know, we have to remember
there's they're civil servants.
Their job is to supportCanadians, whether municipally,
(27:08):
provincially, federally.
So I think as long as weapproach them with respect and a
genuine interest or concern,then I, you know, I think it's
very valid to pick up the phoneand call them.
It's come it's come up in ourcity because there's it, there's
been ongoing issues aroundtransparency in our
municipality.
There's concerns aboutaccessibility of the public to
go to meetings, like what you'resaying, right?
(27:29):
Like when is the meeting beingheld on that?
When is there a committeemeeting?
I find that they're they'regood about putting stuff online,
but I find with our new councilhere and mayor, it doesn't seem
to be as available.
Like they seem to be a littlebit more, I don't know,
secretive around how they'redoing things.
I don't that's my perceptionbased on like it used to be that
you could access all theirmeetings on cable and you can't
seem to do that anymore.
(27:50):
There, I think that there issuch a problem with lack of
transparency.
Like there's a tendency for uhpoliticians to underestimate the
intelligence of voters, right?
Of citizens, and to theirperil, because that's when they
get blindsided.
And and it and there is such alack of trust now, which is
(28:11):
really unfortunate, but theybreed that lack of trust because
of the lack of transparency andthings like that.
They're like, just be vague,just be vague, it'll go away.
And I always say to people, youknow, what's my secret weapon?
When when I'm really when Ireally believe in something,
what's my secret weapon forgetting uh for achieving a goal
or getting what I want?
It's because I'm persistent andI don't give up and I don't go
(28:34):
away.
And the number of times thatsomeone said to me, We really
just hoped you were gonna goaway.
And that and I've been told,like I've had, I've had people
in government say to me, Oh,well, usually a citizen will
email or or write us once orcall, and then they never do it
again.
And so it's easy to ignorethem.
And and that's really importantinformation for your listeners
(28:55):
to have.
They just know if they put ifthey put your information at the
bottom of the pile, you'relikely never gonna reach out and
then they can shred it in ayear or so.
DanielaSM (29:03):
Yes.
RuthvanVierzen (29:03):
If you truly believe in what you're going
for, keep asking.
Like the vague responses, it'sunacceptable.
Yes, it's absolutelyunacceptable.
And and I think it's up to usto push back and say, that was
vague and an insult to myintelligence.
Take another crack at youranswer, right?
DanielaSM (29:21):
Yes, that's good.
That's good.
You know what is it's funnybecause I am very persistent
too, and I don't go away.
That's sometimes I have gottenthings that way too, because I'm
thinking, no, I want you toanswer, even if it says no, I
want to know.
So we insist, and it's true.
I mean, otherwise people wouldjust forget about you.
RuthvanVierzen (29:37):
Absolutely, and you have a right to know.
We all have a right to knowabout things going on in public
office that directly affect us.
Like we're having a majorcontroversy in North Bay right
now.
Our mayor uh is under thespotlight because he used city
credit cards for personalexpenses, and it amounted to
(29:59):
like $23,000 at a municipallevel.
Like that might sound like asmall amount of money, but at
the municipal level, it's it'snot.
And it was like for things likedog food and cigarettes and
golf course memberships.
And this all came out at a timewhen they raised our taxes.
His answer was, I'm not in thewrong.
(30:19):
I didn't make any mistakes.
But now we have an integritycommissioner, and it's just been
this big thing.
And this is to my point, why dowe have such a lack of trust?
Because these stories keepcoming out about people who are
entrusted with the public trust.
They need to, they need to leadwith integrity, and and they're
consistently found to havetheir hand in the cookie jar.
(30:41):
And it puts the onus on us,then we do have to do the work
as citizens, right?
But maybe that's not such a badthing that we have to say, you
know what, we it's up to us tokeep vigilant and keep them
accountable because they clearlycan't do it on their own.
DanielaSM (30:53):
Exactly.
Very few people would takeaction like you.
The majority of the peoplewould just complain and
continue.
So, Ruth, going back to these,I want to know the moment.
How was the, you know, you youwere saying a little bit how was
the the excitement of when itwas approved, but after so many
years of you working for these,how was that moment when you you
(31:14):
got a letter or an email?
How was it?
RuthvanVierzen (31:17):
I got an email because I was on the the email
updates.
It was it's very difficult toexpress the incredible relief
that me and and many, many otherpeople, because this became a
very big movement of people.
There were so many peopleinvolved in this process by the
end who who spoke as witnesses,who went to Ottawa and spoke in
(31:41):
the Senate uh hearings, whichthat's a whole other thing.
I learned I had never watchedSenate hearings uh for a
particular issue.
Like sometimes I'll catch themon TV, but we have we have an
incredible democracy here.
And if you get involved insomething like this and you see
the process, I think Canadiansactually should be proud of the
(32:01):
how our democracy works.
And it may not be exciting, butwe really do our homework to
make sure that when a law ispassed, that it's that it
reflects the current times andand what Canadians are wanting.
So I got very involved in whatthere were extensive committee
hearings where witnesses cameforward and spoke to Senate
members about this issue.
(32:23):
Guy Paul Moran, he was wronglyconvicted back in the 80s.
He was exonerated, but he gavean incredible witness testimony
along with two indigenous menwho were also wrongly convicted.
James Lock here, David Lametti.
There were such impressivepeople who came forward as
witnesses.
So I really enjoyed listeningto those committee hearings.
The reason I'm telling you thatis because the clock was
(32:44):
ticking.
And we knew that Justin Trudeauthat an election was going to
be called.
And we were down to the finalweeks.
And what happens with a newbill is that there will be a
Senate committee ahead, there'sa Senate critic, and this person
is assigned to really evaluatea new piece of legislation very
carefully and to send it back tothe House of Commons to work
(33:07):
out the details, to improve it,to say this is problematic, you
got to fix it.
What was interesting is that inthis particular one, because
all of the stakeholders, eventhe Senate members, everyone was
saying, like they were beggingthem.
They were like, please do notsend this back to the House.
We don't have time.
There's going to be an electioncalled, and this will die.
(33:27):
And all of these years of workwill just be gone.
It'll evaporate.
I I'm guessing, I don't know,but I'm I don't think it did go
back.
I think they basically saidit's a good piece of
legislation.
We're going to work it out.
We're going to improve it as wego.
I was dreading it.
I and I'm listening to theseexperts saying, please, please
don't send it back to the Houseof Commons.
(33:48):
And um, you know, so it wasjust a waiting game.
And I was just dreading that itwas gonna get just, you know,
it was just gonna get lost.
So when I got the news, I was,I was, it was like, I think it
was, I'm thinking December, andit was like the best Christmas
present.
I was just like, this is thismade my year.
(34:08):
So all of that work, it we wedid it.
The sad thing is that David uhMilgard died in 2022.
He died very suddenly andunexpectedly.
And his mom had passed priorjust prior to that.
So it's it's actually the JoyceMilgard Law.
We wanted it named after them,and we didn't think it would
(34:29):
ever happen.
But to David Lametti's credit,he he said, We're gonna name it
the Joyce and David Milgard Law.
Uh, it's the Miscarriage ofJustice Commission.
So they didn't mess around.
They they acknowledged there'sa miscarriage of justice.
It it just there were all thesewonderful gifts around it.
I I was so thrilled, but alsosad.
It was bittersweet becauseDavid and Joyce weren't there.
(34:50):
I mean, they're they're therelike spiritually.
Uh I'm hoping smiling, but theylike they they made such
tremendous sacrifices fordecades.
It just would have been nice ifwe all could have celebrated
together with it around it.
But uh yeah, it was just a itwas euphoria.
I I was just and not because II'm like, oh, look what we did,
although we did achievesomething really important, it's
(35:12):
because look what we did forthe country for our fellow
Canadians, and that was alwaysthe case.
DanielaSM (35:18):
Yes, and I think that is uh a major achievement.
The satisfaction is isincredible because you work
really hard, you and your teamto do this.
So that's just incredible.
Wow.
Yeah.
You were having a job while youwere doing this, or this was
your only job?
RuthvanVierzen (35:34):
No, this was just uh I I did it around my I'm
self-employed, so I have someflexibility with my schedule,
but I was working like afterhours and and weekends, and and
it wasn't like it's not that itwas a you know, these things
they go in spurts.
So sometimes I'd be workinglike, you know, maybe a Saturday
writing letters or something,and then there'd we'd be waiting
(35:54):
and but it was over severalyears.
So that's the thing too.
I think when you take somethinglike this on, especially with
the government, you have to bein it for the it's like a long
game, and you have to be willingto just keep pushing, like we
were saying, keep following upand and keep prodding them and
don't go away until you it'slike it's like what happened in
Ontario with the green belt, youknow, when the government was
(36:17):
trying to uh develop protectedlands, Ontario citizens just
kept pushing, right, until theyget they gave in.
So that's what we need to do ascitizens.
I think it's our it's our duty.
DanielaSM (36:27):
Is there something that you need to do?
Keep pressing for Mark Carneyto to do something.
RuthvanVierzen (36:31):
Yes, and that's something I'm going to take on
now.
Um, I haven't been in touchwith my like fellow team members
in a while.
Just because he did hisinstructions to his cabinet
ministers differently than truethan Trudeau did.
So I'm not really clear whattheir priorities are.
So I'm I'm gonna reach out.
And and again, that's thethat's the kind of thing that
everyone should feel veryprepared and and open to doing
(36:54):
and not be anxious about callingon your whether it's your MP in
your local town or uh goingright to Parliament Hill.
They're civil servants, that'swhat they're there for, and they
do want to hear from Canadians.
Yeah, I'll I'll just reach out.
I'll I'll just make a phonecall and some inquiries and find
out what's happening.
Speaker 00 (37:13):
And I'll I'll do some updates on social media.
DanielaSM (37:15):
Yes.
So this is a story, but it'salso your story.
So after achieving this bigthing of this piece of
legislation, what else is therefor you?
Like, are you feeling like,okay, now I want to do more of
this or this was enough, or whatis it?
RuthvanVierzen (37:30):
So I I was working in this for a number of
years and helping other people.
I I have stepped back.
I've got some things that I'mI'm working on personally in in
my life on more of the creativeside.
The I'm the kind of personwhere if something comes up and
I feel really strongly about it,then I will get involved.
Something just came in my newsfeed this morning and
(37:50):
environmentally that's impactingour region.
I signed the petition.
Signing a petition, I think, isreally important, but I'm I
know that's something I'm gonnaget more involved in because
it's impacting, it's aboutchemical spraying in our region.
That hurts all of us, right?
So I I know I'm gonna getinvolved in that a little bit
more.
But I'm I'm more like ifsomething's really important to
me and impacts me, or or I canhelp others, I'll definitely get
(38:13):
involved.
DanielaSM (38:14):
And your friends and your group of people are very
similar to you?
Is that more than just a roof?
Um, like, oh, people who arepolitically or like active on on
stuff like this?
Yeah, and somebody who, youknow, you decide, okay, I really
care about this, I'm gonna dosomething about it.
I think that you are a rarecase, but you you let me know.
RuthvanVierzen (38:31):
Um, I don't I don't know.
I don't think so.
I I'm not sure.
Like I've I've had um, youknow, I I think about some of
the people I'm connected with onFacebook who we message once in
a while.
And I I think there are peopledoing their own things that are
that they're passionate about.
There's a group here that'svery focused on cleaning up our
city, and they've got a reallygood volunteer base now.
(38:51):
I see people doing likespecific things that they're
really passionate about.
Uh and and they're making areally big difference.
Like last year, my husband andI volunteered at this Christmas
dinner that goes on.
It's been happening for yearsand years and years to bring the
community together who they'repeople are gonna either be alone
for Christmas or they'rethey're underhoused.
And that was an amazing thingto be part of.
(39:12):
But that's we were justvolunteering there, but there's
a group of people and there's awoman heading that up.
She's headed up for years.
So I get very inspired bythings like that.
And we can all do that.
You know, it's find somethingthat is important to you that
you enjoy that and and seize it.
And and you know, if you're nothappy with something, it wait,
what's that thing?
Be the change you want to seein the world, right?
(39:34):
It's it's so true.
If we feel strongly enough,we'll muster up the courage and
and the commit the time to doingit.
Yes.
And if you don't, don'tcomplain about it.
Yes.
DanielaSM (39:46):
Exactly.
Wonderful.
Is there anything else that uhwe you think we didn't touch
enough or do you want tomention?
RuthvanVierzen (39:53):
Uh no, I do want to thank you again for the
opportunity to tell this story.
Uh I I was trying to share itin a way that was um, you know,
inspiring.
I don't I don't think it itwould overwhelm people to do
what we did as a group.
I do just want people to feelinspired.
If they see change that needsto be made in their community or
(40:15):
their country, just start andtrust, have faith that the
resources you need and thepeople you need are going to
fall into place, that that youwill get what you need to make
it happen.
And don't give up, bepersistent.
Yes, be persistent.
DanielaSM (40:28):
That's true.
That's true.
And no, I appreciate the story.
I didn't know anything aboutthis, so I am grateful for you
coming and sharing and in asimple way as I can understand
it and many others too.
Thank you so much for beinghere.
Thank you.
It's great to be here.
Thanks.
I hope you enjoyed thisconversation with Ruth as
matters as I did.
Her clarity, passion, and are abeautiful reminder that
(40:53):
standing up against injustice,no matter how complex, can lead
to a real change.
If this episode of TV, pleasewrite a comment and share it
with someone who could use areminder of the power of
determination and poverty,leading to ordinary magic spread
out of the court.
Join me next time for anotherstory conversation.
(41:14):
Thank you for listening.
Hi, I'm Daniela. Welcome to my podcast, because Everyone has a Story, the place to give ordinary people's stories the chance to be shared and preserved. Our stories become the language of connections. Let's enjoy it. Connect and relateBecause everyone has a story.
I am so excited and trulyhonored to have Ruth in the show
(00:23):
today.
I really enjoy getting to knowher.
She has its incredible abilityto take a very complex story and
make it clear andunderstandable.
And her passion for addressinginjustice really shines through.
And it is inspiring to seesomeone so committed to make a
difference.
While it is not her life story,she is giving us the incredible
(00:48):
opportunity to learn about alaw as important as the
Miscarriage of JusticeCommission, the David and Joyce
Milgard Law.
Something that many of us mightnever have known about
otherwise.
Ruth's journey, inspired by thewrongful conviction of David
Milgard, who spent 23 years inprison for a crime he didn't
(01:09):
commit, shows how one persondetermination can create real
change.
So let's enjoy her story.
Welcome, Ruth, to the show.
Thank you so much for beinghere.
Thank you.
I know you have a very, verydifferent story, and I'm really
excited that you're sharing it.
So why do you want to shareyour story?
RuthvanVierzen (01:28):
Thank you for the opportunity to share this
story because I think it reallyhas, even though it's a
Canadian-based story, I think itwill be of great interest
globally.
And it's uh something that Iactually got involved with uh
starting back in 2019.
I reached out to a gentlemanwho was very notorious in
Canada, but not for a reason hewanted to be notorious.
(01:50):
That started us workingtogether.
It started a friendship, and wewere able to accomplish a lot
regarding a very importantissue.
So I'm I'm really happy to havethis chance to share it because
it does have globalimplications, you know, beyond
just Canada.
DanielaSM (02:06):
Yes, and I'm excited that you're going to share that
with everyone and that we aregoing to learn because I know
you were saying that there wasnot enough press.
I'm excited that we have anavenue here to do that.
Yes, absolutely.
Your story starts in in 2019,or when does your story start?
RuthvanVierzen (02:21):
It actually starts in 1970, the year that I
was born.
Because that is the year thatDavid Milgard, who we're going
to be talking about, was foundguilty and imprisoned for a
crime he didn't commit.
He was not released from prisonuntil 1992, when I was in
(02:43):
university.
And I think about this a lotfrom the time that I was born
all the way through those yearsuntil I was in university.
He was wrongly imprisoned.
And I like to share that as astarting point to give
chickeners imagine that lengthof time and imagine spending day
in and day out in a prisonwhere you don't belong because
you were found guilty of a crimeyou never committed.
(03:05):
So it started in 1970, 1992, itmust have been 1992.
I still recall the day I wassitting in my apartment reading
the paper, and that was the yearthat he was released from
prison because I'd beenfollowing his story, right?
And I remember, so I rememberreading about him and saying to
myself, it was such a graveinjustice.
And that I thought one day I Iwant to do something around this
(03:28):
problem of wrongful convictionsin Canada.
And that was kind of, I justleft.
Like I just remember thinking,I want to get involved in this
somehow.
Never really gave it muchthought for many years.
I mean, I followed the storiesof other wrongful convictions.
And then uh David Milgard madethe cover of the Globe and Mail,
one of our national newspapers,uh, back in 2019.
And I and I read the article,it was so impactful.
(03:51):
And yeah, the headline wassomething like, This can happen
to anyone or this can happen toyou.
It was very, very impactfulbecause it's so true, right?
That we have a problem inCanada with wrongful
convictions.
And I was like, okay, this isit.
I'm getting involved.
I'm reaching out because hementioned in the article he
wanted to start a view, like aboard.
(04:12):
He wanted to start anorganization that would pressure
the government to create acommission around wrongful
convictions to finally speed upthe process.
I reached out to David onLinkedIn and I messaged him and
I introduced myself.
I said, I read the article inthe paper, and I remember
writing, I said, I'm sure you'vebeen inundated with messages
and offers of help.
(04:33):
But if if you're still lookingfor volunteers, let me know.
I'd like to get involved andhelp this commission get
created.
And he replied within minutes.
And he said, No, you're theonly person who's reached out to
me.
So I was shocked.
He wasn't inundated at all.
We ended up having a phone callthat day and things started
rolling and we never lookedback.
(04:54):
The the only happy ending tothe story is that called the
Miscarriage of JusticeCommission, it was created just
in the final months beforeJustin Trudeau left office.
That was one of his very bigimportant accomplishments that
he doesn't get enoughrecognition for.
DanielaSM (05:07):
So I have a lot of questions.
So you say that you alwaysfollow the story, but why
necessarily since you werelittle, you follow the story?
RuthvanVierzen (05:15):
Well, not since I was little, but as I got
older, I'm I'm very sensitive tothings around injustice.
I always have been.
As I got older, I I would, youknow, and was starting to follow
the news more.
I always found myself verydrawn to stories about people
who were wrongly uh convicted,wrongly imprisoned in Canada.
DanielaSM (05:34):
Do you go to school and study law or related to
that?
RuthvanVierzen (05:38):
I studied public policy at York University.
Part of that was we had to dothere's a big component around
public law and constitutionallaw, not criminal law, but I
I've always had an interest inlaw.
I mean, to have aconstitutional law and public
law background, it helps, right?
Because you understandgovernment and government
workings as well.
DanielaSM (06:00):
And then when you reach out, I know that him and
his mother are the ones, youknow, the they were all working
together to to help him outtheir jail.
Uh so what happened?
So he he studied law while hewas in prison, or how did he
decide to create this commissionthat I also read that every
other country like Australia,the UK have it, Canada was the
(06:22):
only one who didn't.
RuthvanVierzen (06:23):
Yes.
I don't know the history of howhe came to this decision around
wanting to start thisindependent commission, but it
was something that he had beenthinking about for a long time.
And I think he was juststruggling to maybe put the
pieces together, get the rightpeople in place to make it
happen.
You know, and and we havereally important organizations
in Canada like Innocence Canada,which um which uh is is a legal
(06:48):
organization that provideslegal services, and many of the
lawyers involved have helped touh free wrongly imprisoned
people.
But it just everything kind ofjust came together.
So uh when we um when westarted working together, he
identified other key people hewanted to be in our group.
We invited them, and I'd liketo mention them because they
they absolutely deserve to benamed here.
(07:10):
Uh one is James Lockier, he'sone of Canada's most prominent
criminal trial lawyers, veryactive in getting wrongfully
convicted people exonerated.
Ron Dalton, he was wronglyconvicted.
He's from the East Coast, hewas wrongly convicted, spent
eight years in prison.
And then Lori Kufner, she is uhshe has a production company,
(07:31):
she does social justicedocumentaries, she's out west.
So we worked together as agroup, uh, and then of course
David, David and I.
So we would we would meetremotely, we would strategize.
For any of your listeners whodon't think letter writing still
works, we wrote many lettersand we were very strategic, and
it absolutely works.
(07:51):
Yeah, we did we did a lot ofwork together, we organized
media conferences, it got theball rolling.
Because of David's notoriety,we were able to build on that.
So we we were able to get ameeting with then Justice
Minister David Lametti.
We went to Parliament Hill, metwith him.
So James, David, and I went andwe met with uh David Lametty in
(08:12):
his office.
And I'm pointing that outbecause I find we live in a time
where people feel verydisconnected from the workings
of government.
I mean, I can only speak forCanada, but I find here that if
you have an interest in a topicand you want to get the ear of
politicians, government, youknow, bureaucrats, you can do
that.
But you have to, you have to dothe work.
You have to make those stepsbecause, you know, they they
(08:34):
need to know if you have anissue with something, right?
And it wasn't easy, it was alot of work.
We had to work through thechallenges of COVID, uh, but we
just kept going and we were verypersistent and we kept writing
letters and uh and it absolutelypaid off.
DanielaSM (08:48):
People that were wrongly convicted were also
participating.
How was that?
RuthvanVierzen (08:52):
Yeah, so I'm not sure to what extent they were.
I I know that we had talkedabout informing them about it
and absolutely informing people.
We we have to make sure thatpeople in the prison system know
about the the new commission.
David Lametti, through hisoffice, they started a
consultation uh process.
They had two uh very impressiveretired uh judges who led the
(09:16):
consultation process.
It went on for uh severalmonths.
So people were invited to makepresentations, and that included
people who were wronglyconvicted, who were now
released, and they were able tomake presentations.
I was able to attend one of theroundtable discussions.
It was very well done.
So they came out with a bunchof recommendations that then
informed the creation of thecommission.
DanielaSM (09:38):
How was the process?
Can you describe it in like asimple way?
How so you you wrote a letterto David, and then he said, Oh,
great that you're going to bepart of it, and then you try to
collect other people to be inthe committee.
And so what happened then?
RuthvanVierzen (09:53):
Yeah, so on we were communicating with social
media, we had a phone call, gotto know each other, uh, agreed
that yes, we, you know, he wasinterested in what I could bring
to the table to help.
So we had that initial uh so herecommended the the people,
James, Ron, and Lori, that westart working together.
They all agreed as well.
And we had we just had we setup the initial meetings, we had
virtual uh calls, thank God fortechnology, especially because
(10:17):
we were doing all of this.
Um, I remember we were we metwith David Lametty in his
office, and then not long after,all the COVID stuff happened,
which definitely impacted ourwork.
But luckily with technology, wewere able to keep meeting.
We decided to that we would,under David's uh name, we would
send letters from the group,like from David, but on behalf
(10:38):
of the group, and we wouldexplain why this was so
important that Canada have this.
So we we and it wasn't just oneletter, you know, we we ended
up writing several letters, butwe also CC'd all of the other
leaders of the other politicalparties.
I found out like who are theshadow ministers, like the
conservatives in opposition,they will have shadow ministers
(11:00):
who are like the critics andthey they will keep an eye on
what's happening in certainportfolios.
So I we so we were verystrategic.
We included as many people aswe thought would have what were
stakeholders, and uh it didn'thappen right away, but
eventually we got the ear of theJustice Department and Prime
Minister Trudeau, because hewas, of course, included as well
in the in the letter campaign.
The conference really helped.
We organized the conferencethat happened out in, I'm gonna
(11:23):
say Calgary or Winnipeg.
David was out in the Calgaryarea, so it made sense to have
it out there.
I didn't go to that, but we gotsome really good press coverage
from it.
And then we were able to buildon that momentum because now
it's getting into the press.
So when things get into thepress, it's harder for the
government to ignore.
And they weren't ignoring us,but but it just it helps with
the momentum, right?
(11:44):
To get press interest in thestory.
DanielaSM (11:46):
And what were the challenges that you came across?
RuthvanVierzen (11:49):
You know, you mentioned earlier about how
other countries, if you think ofAustralia, Britain, all of
Gotland, they already havemiscarriage of justice
commissions.
Canada has definitely been lateto the game with it.
We've had now, I think at thetime we'd had six or seven
inquiries based on previouswrongful conviction high-profile
cases.
And every inquiry, you know howthat happens in Canada,
(12:11):
something goes wrong, we have aninquiry.
And then the report comes out.
Every report said that Canadaneeds a commission that is
independent of the governmentthat addresses wrongful
convictions and works morequickly to get these wrongly
imprisoned people out of prison.
Because if you're saying thatyou're wrongly imprisoned, you
can stay in jail for years whileit goes through the process.
(12:35):
And then it can sit on thejustice minister's desk for
another, like for months oryears while they're deciding is
this politically, legally, doesthis make sense to release this
person, right?
So the whole point of thecommission is to speed that up.
So we had a very good contactin England.
And I wish I could remember hername.
She was very helpful.
(12:56):
I should have confirmed hername before I came on, but she
was our uh David had connectedwith her, and she was an and she
she's very active in thecommission there and wrongful
convictions.
She was an amazing source ofguidance for us on what to do,
what not to do.
To the credit of the inquiry,the judges, they looked heavily
into what was being done inother countries for best
(13:18):
practices and what not to do.
And that also helped to inform.
So we really got the ballrolling on a lot of really
important stuff.
And why it was so important isbecause it helps every single
Canadian.
We always said this is not apolitical party issue.
This is something where anyCanadian can be wrongly
(13:40):
convicted, and every Canadianwill be helped by having a
commission like this.
It's a really importantfail-safe for Canadian citizens.
No one is immune from awrongful conviction.
So uh we just felt so driven tomake sure that we weren't the
only country in like the G7 thatdoesn't have a wrongful
conviction commission,especially when we have a bad
(14:02):
track rec track record forwrongful convictions.
But the US didn't have acommission.
No.
They have uh, I believe it'suh, I want to say North
Carolina, one of the states haskind of their own version of it,
which we also got informationon.
I'm sure you're familiar withtheir high incarceration rates.
They have a very highproportion of people of color
(14:23):
who are in prison.
And they have a really highrate of wrongly imprisoned black
people.
They tend to disproportionatelysuffer from wrongful
convictions.
They need this, they absolutelyneed this.
I hope that the states willjust individual states will
start doing it more and more,and that will kind of encourage
the federal government there todo it.
But maybe, maybe, maybe they'llbe inspired by us.
DanielaSM (14:46):
Yes, that's true.
What is the difference thenbetween the old and the new now
in the systems?
RuthvanVierzen (14:52):
I I will say that because this happened just
before we had the change in thegovernment, I think Prime
Minister Carney, I don't thinkhe's doing the same
instructional letters to hiscabinet the way that Trudeau
did.
Trudeau was very detailed inhis instructions.
My understanding is thatbecause this all happened just
before Trudeau stepped down andthen there was the election, but
(15:13):
my understanding is that themoney had been set aside to fund
it.
But I don't know at this pointwhat's happening with it.
And call, I need to reach outand see what is happening in the
Justice Department to moveforward with it.
Oh, how does it improve things?
Yes.
So the key thing is it's anindependent body.
So whereas before the justiceminister made the final
decision, this is an independentbody where someone who has been
(15:35):
not just wrongly convicted, butthere was also this idea of
addressing disproportionateconvictions.
So someone uh put so forexample, we know that indigenous
people in Canada have a muchhigher rate of incarceration,
but they also get sentenced tomuch longer terms.
And there's this whole thingnow happening with Indigenous
people, not just now, it's beenbuilding for a while where they
(15:57):
get like an indeterminatesentence.
It's very vague.
For example, there's adisproportionate number of
indigenous people who getidentified as dangerous
offenders.
And I having read the case law,I know that it's often not
appropriate or valid.
There's a lot of racism in ourjustice system against
Indigenous people.
It's not justice for Indigenouspeople.
Yeah, so the reason I'mbringing that up is because the
(16:18):
whole point of the commission,as well, it said we have to
address not just wrongfulconvictions, but
disproportionate sentencing.
People who are getting waylonger sentences for things that
maybe a white person will getmuch less.
What it does is it gives anavenue for someone who is
wrongly convicted.
They don't have to wait for thejustice minister to make the
final decision, for example.
(16:39):
And I'm not going to be able tolike give all the technical
details, but the key thing is itgives them an avenue where they
an independent body of, youknow, made up of lawyers and
experts, they will look at thecase in an unbiased way and they
will identify if there if therewas a miscarriage of justice,
is that it's an avenue ofindependence that also helps to
(17:02):
speed up the process so thatsomeone can doesn't languish.
But isn't this similar tohaving uh no, because they what
they'll do, uh and and I'm I'm Iprobably won't use the right
wording, but what they'll do isthey will give um, so they're
not going to make a decision.
They will say, they will givelike a recommendation, they will
say that yes, it it there is auh and I have to be careful
(17:25):
about the wording becausethere's a very specific legal
wording that that basically tosay that there was a probability
of a miscarriage of justice.
And then that opens things backup.
Whereas someone who so if theyhave to go through all like
there still are appeals, butwhat it does is it it uh speed
it just it speeds up theprocess.
(17:46):
I'm trying I'm trying toexplain it as like a
non-technical way as possible,but yes, of course.
DanielaSM (17:51):
Thank you.
I appreciate it.
And it's always the same peoplein this commission, or is this
like a big uh kind of group ofpeople, association, and then it
depends on each case.
Maybe 10 people go to these and10 people go to that other
case.
How does that work exactly?
RuthvanVierzen (18:05):
I believe they're still working through
the details because there wasalso discussions about how long
is their term?
Is it renewable terms?
Because the idea is you alsowant fresh perspectives, but you
don't want to lose thatexpertise either, right?
And there's also, for example,they were like, well, we we need
to have people of colorrepresented, we need to have
indigenous representation.
So it can't just be a bunch ofwhite people with legal
(18:26):
backgrounds doing this.
We have to have the legalexpertise, but we also have to
have representation thatreflects the problem that got us
here in the first place.
I don't think all of thedetails are sorted out.
And I think also where where itwas left was that it's in
place, but it's going to betweaked as they go.
They're going to improve uponit based on lessons learned.
Remember at one point they weretalking about like two-year
(18:48):
terms or something.
So it wouldn't be like someonestays in it forever.
It would be that there would berotations out for sure.
DanielaSM (18:54):
But so at the moment you say that it's left that yes,
you got the approval, but it'snot in place yet because the
government changed.
RuthvanVierzen (19:02):
So yeah, my understanding is that it was
funded, but I don't know at thispoint what the new government
under Mark Carney is doing.
And that's the other point,too, is that you know, when you
take something like this on, it,you know, it seems like it was
a it is an importantaccomplishment that we were all
able to work together and andbring this to fruition.
But the work often like, youknow, it doesn't end.
(19:26):
Like there was like I was soexcited and thrilled when the
commission was um came into lawbecause it's now on the books.
But the work doesn't end therebecause you still have there's
still there's always thatoversight need, right?
Yeah, we're like, okay, but butwhat's happening now?
We've changed government.
And the as you know, with withwatching the news and politics,
(19:46):
the the the what we focus onchanges so quickly.
Right now it's what's going onsouth of the border and
wildfires, and and then that candistract from other goals,
right?
So as citizens, we need to keepour elected officials
accountable to make sure thatthey're not taking their eye off
things as well.
So, but I have to give creditto the government because there
(20:07):
were long periods where it wasthings kind of went quiet, and
then we'd be like, okay, we needto follow up and see what's
happening.
So I would be making phonecalls and I would talk to like
uh their the parliamentaryassistants who were amazing, by
the way.
And they were like, We we uh weknow it seems like it's quiet,
but we assure you we are workingon things.
Uh, and it was a top priorityfor uh David Lametty, who has
(20:28):
who since has left publicoffice, but he was true to his
word.
He said that day in his office,he said, This is a top priority
for me, and we will get thisdone.
That's a big commitment.
And they they did.
I feel like they they maybedidn't get enough recognition
for that.
You know, now they've bothTrudeau and and Lametty have
left office, and I'd say it wasone of the most important things
(20:49):
that they did in theirpolitical careers.
And and oddly, the media hasbeen very quiet about it.
I remember the day it wasannounced, I got it in like in
my computer, right?
Because I fought I wasfollowing the updates, and the
media wasn't running storiesabout this.
It was James Lockyer, anotheruh criminal lawyer, who said
it's one of the most importantchanges to Canada's criminal law
(21:12):
in decades.
So why wasn't the media pickingup on it?
It's very strange to me.
And that's why I so amappreciative of this
opportunity, because I can putthis out on social media and and
you know, share the story.
It can go global through yourchannels and and the more people
that hear about it, and uh andthen in other countries where
(21:32):
they don't have access to thislevel of justice, perhaps, it
can spur on change in othercountries as well.
So it's hopefully it itinspires uh people to just be
aware of it and then perhapstake action in their own
countries.
DanielaSM (21:46):
That's true.
And also the law is is alreadythere.
So perhaps each next person shears it and says, Oh, I was
wrongly convicted, they knowthat this exists, this
commission can happen.
What is you know one stepcloser, I guess.
RuthvanVierzen (22:00):
Absolutely.
And and that's what ended uphappening after the fact because
one of the things our group hadagreed to do was reach out to
our local media as well.
We just kept trying to get morepress interest.
I'm in North Bay, Ontario.
I had reached out to our localpapers.
One of them agreed to talk withme.
What was cool is that weactually I got David on the
phone as well.
(22:20):
So the reporter did aninterview at the with both me
and David, and it ended upmaking the cover of our local
paper here, which I was reallypleased about.
And from that, I had three, no,I had four people reach out to
me.
Two on Facebook.
I had a grandmother reach outto me who was very concerned
about her grandson who was beingheld in a local jail.
(22:43):
But needless to say, it itreally highlighted how basically
there were a bunch of chargesthat had gotten added on.
Like they they will pile on thecharges because they they want
to get the person for something,right?
Basically, this young guy wassaying, I I admit I'm guilty of
that.
But he's like, I'm not guiltyof what I'm being accused of
(23:04):
here.
And he says, and I'm not goingto agree to it.
And they said, if you agree toeverything, we'll let you out on
bail.
And he said, I'm not agreeingto those things.
And then eventually hisgirlfriend came forward and
said, or his ex-girlfriend andsaid, Yeah, I lied about those
charges, about thoseaccusations.
So she didn't want to appear asa witness because she had lied.
We are all vulnerable to thejustice system at every level.
(23:27):
If it doesn't work withintegrity, and if the employees
of that system don't behavethemselves, we're the ones who
pay the price.
That grandmother was suffering.
She wanted her grandson out ofjail.
Uh, a woman reached out to meabout her indigenous partner who
was languishing in jail.
A group of us end up working,starting to work together to
(23:47):
support him.
So, this, you know, when youtake this kind of action, you
don't know where it's going tolead, but you can end up having,
you know, impacts that you'rethat you don't expect you're
going to have, and it can bereally positive.
You know, I always say topeople, what's of interest to
you?
Like I have a personal rule.
If I'm gonna complain aboutsomething, I then have to do
(24:08):
something about it.
Speaker 00 (24:09):
So I I hold myself accountable to that.
So so I'm like, I have to becareful what I complain about
because then I expect myself to,whether it's environmental
pollution or injustice orwhatever.
So like, okay.
DanielaSM (24:21):
That's a that's a difficult one.
That's true.
It's easy to complain, but whatcan you do about it?
RuthvanVierzen (24:26):
Exactly.
And this is one of my petpeeves when people keep saying,
well, when is the governmentgoing to fix this?
When is the government going todo this?
And people are constantlylooking to the government to do
everything.
And I get it, we pay taxes andall of that, but the government
is not intended to be our keeperfor every single thing in our
lives.
We have to stop ceding controlto government institutions
(24:50):
because the more we do that, themore we're saying, I am not in
control of my own life and Ican't affect change.
When in fact, the very oppositeis true.
Government expects us to stepup.
And like we have to do ourcivic duty.
We are civilians in thiscountry, and we we have, I think
we have a responsibility to doour part and not just ask the
government to do everything.
And then on top of it, complainabout the taxes, right?
(25:12):
Like every time we want thegovernment to do something new,
there's a tax cost for themdoing that.
So is it something we can doourselves, right?
There is a cost to creatingthis commission, but if you
think of how much is paid out towrongly, because here we pay
out to wrongly convicted uhCanadians in millions of
dollars.
If we don't have to do that,and if we're not paying the
(25:35):
daily and yearly cost to housean innocent person in jail for
decades, that's all money savedbecause the commission builds in
accountability.
Uh, it keeps peopleaccountable.
So there's a lot of costsavings, and that all all the
cost savings came about becausea group of us said, you know, we
need to, we need to affectchange around this once and for
all.
DanielaSM (25:54):
Yes, when you talk about us expecting the
government to fix everything, Ifeel like sometimes it is a lack
of knowledge on how can I goabout it.
You know, like I have a lot ofquestions sometimes about the
municipality, and I just don'tknow uh when do they talk about
this?
Where can I go and listen toabout this case, you know?
And so I mentioned it to myhusband and I just forget about
it.
(26:14):
Obviously, it's supposed to bemy work to find out where you're
busy with your daily life andstuff, so it's easy to complain
than try to research morebecause I I'm sure that all this
that you did was a lot ofresearch.
RuthvanVierzen (26:26):
It it was.
Uh, thank God we live in a timethough where everything is at
our fingertips.
Um and my rule is if it's notat my fingertips, I'm on the
phone.
I pick up the phone.
I and you know, I I probablycall City Hall more than they
would like, but I don't carebecause they're it's like I'm
not a nuisance.
If I have a legitimate request,I'll call and find the
(26:47):
department I have to speak toand to get the answers that I
need.
And and we all have that at ourfingertips.
Go online, do the research, uh,and then pick up your phone if
if you still can't get theanswers.
Because all of these people,you know, we have to remember
there's they're civil servants.
Their job is to supportCanadians, whether municipally,
(27:08):
provincially, federally.
So I think as long as weapproach them with respect and a
genuine interest or concern,then I, you know, I think it's
very valid to pick up the phoneand call them.
It's come it's come up in ourcity because there's it, there's
been ongoing issues aroundtransparency in our
municipality.
There's concerns aboutaccessibility of the public to
go to meetings, like what you'resaying, right?
(27:29):
Like when is the meeting beingheld on that?
When is there a committeemeeting?
I find that they're they'regood about putting stuff online,
but I find with our new councilhere and mayor, it doesn't seem
to be as available.
Like they seem to be a littlebit more, I don't know,
secretive around how they'redoing things.
I don't that's my perceptionbased on like it used to be that
you could access all theirmeetings on cable and you can't
seem to do that anymore.
(27:50):
There, I think that there issuch a problem with lack of
transparency.
Like there's a tendency for uhpoliticians to underestimate the
intelligence of voters, right?
Of citizens, and to theirperil, because that's when they
get blindsided.
And and it and there is such alack of trust now, which is
(28:11):
really unfortunate, but theybreed that lack of trust because
of the lack of transparency andthings like that.
They're like, just be vague,just be vague, it'll go away.
And I always say to people, youknow, what's my secret weapon?
When when I'm really when Ireally believe in something,
what's my secret weapon forgetting uh for achieving a goal
or getting what I want?
It's because I'm persistent andI don't give up and I don't go
(28:34):
away.
And the number of times thatsomeone said to me, We really
just hoped you were gonna goaway.
And that and I've been told,like I've had, I've had people
in government say to me, Oh,well, usually a citizen will
email or or write us once orcall, and then they never do it
again.
And so it's easy to ignorethem.
And and that's really importantinformation for your listeners
(28:55):
to have.
They just know if they put ifthey put your information at the
bottom of the pile, you'relikely never gonna reach out and
then they can shred it in ayear or so.
DanielaSM (29:03):
Yes.
RuthvanVierzen (29:03):
If you truly believe in what you're going
for, keep asking.
Like the vague responses, it'sunacceptable.
Yes, it's absolutelyunacceptable.
And and I think it's up to usto push back and say, that was
vague and an insult to myintelligence.
Take another crack at youranswer, right?
DanielaSM (29:21):
Yes, that's good.
That's good.
You know what is it's funnybecause I am very persistent
too, and I don't go away.
That's sometimes I have gottenthings that way too, because I'm
thinking, no, I want you toanswer, even if it says no, I
want to know.
So we insist, and it's true.
I mean, otherwise people wouldjust forget about you.
RuthvanVierzen (29:37):
Absolutely, and you have a right to know.
We all have a right to knowabout things going on in public
office that directly affect us.
Like we're having a majorcontroversy in North Bay right
now.
Our mayor uh is under thespotlight because he used city
credit cards for personalexpenses, and it amounted to
(29:59):
like $23,000 at a municipallevel.
Like that might sound like asmall amount of money, but at
the municipal level, it's it'snot.
And it was like for things likedog food and cigarettes and
golf course memberships.
And this all came out at a timewhen they raised our taxes.
His answer was, I'm not in thewrong.
(30:19):
I didn't make any mistakes.
But now we have an integritycommissioner, and it's just been
this big thing.
And this is to my point, why dowe have such a lack of trust?
Because these stories keepcoming out about people who are
entrusted with the public trust.
They need to, they need to leadwith integrity, and and they're
consistently found to havetheir hand in the cookie jar.
(30:41):
And it puts the onus on us,then we do have to do the work
as citizens, right?
But maybe that's not such a badthing that we have to say, you
know what, we it's up to us tokeep vigilant and keep them
accountable because they clearlycan't do it on their own.
DanielaSM (30:53):
Exactly.
Very few people would takeaction like you.
The majority of the peoplewould just complain and
continue.
So, Ruth, going back to these,I want to know the moment.
How was the, you know, you youwere saying a little bit how was
the the excitement of when itwas approved, but after so many
years of you working for these,how was that moment when you you
(31:14):
got a letter or an email?
How was it?
RuthvanVierzen (31:17):
I got an email because I was on the the email
updates.
It was it's very difficult toexpress the incredible relief
that me and and many, many otherpeople, because this became a
very big movement of people.
There were so many peopleinvolved in this process by the
end who who spoke as witnesses,who went to Ottawa and spoke in
(31:41):
the Senate uh hearings, whichthat's a whole other thing.
I learned I had never watchedSenate hearings uh for a
particular issue.
Like sometimes I'll catch themon TV, but we have we have an
incredible democracy here.
And if you get involved insomething like this and you see
the process, I think Canadiansactually should be proud of the
(32:01):
how our democracy works.
And it may not be exciting, butwe really do our homework to
make sure that when a law ispassed, that it's that it
reflects the current times andand what Canadians are wanting.
So I got very involved in whatthere were extensive committee
hearings where witnesses cameforward and spoke to Senate
members about this issue.
(32:23):
Guy Paul Moran, he was wronglyconvicted back in the 80s.
He was exonerated, but he gavean incredible witness testimony
along with two indigenous menwho were also wrongly convicted.
James Lock here, David Lametti.
There were such impressivepeople who came forward as
witnesses.
So I really enjoyed listeningto those committee hearings.
The reason I'm telling you thatis because the clock was
(32:44):
ticking.
And we knew that Justin Trudeauthat an election was going to
be called.
And we were down to the finalweeks.
And what happens with a newbill is that there will be a
Senate committee ahead, there'sa Senate critic, and this person
is assigned to really evaluatea new piece of legislation very
carefully and to send it back tothe House of Commons to work
(33:07):
out the details, to improve it,to say this is problematic, you
got to fix it.
What was interesting is that inthis particular one, because
all of the stakeholders, eventhe Senate members, everyone was
saying, like they were beggingthem.
They were like, please do notsend this back to the House.
We don't have time.
There's going to be an electioncalled, and this will die.
(33:27):
And all of these years of workwill just be gone.
It'll evaporate.
I I'm guessing, I don't know,but I'm I don't think it did go
back.
I think they basically saidit's a good piece of
legislation.
We're going to work it out.
We're going to improve it as wego.
I was dreading it.
I and I'm listening to theseexperts saying, please, please
don't send it back to the Houseof Commons.
(33:48):
And um, you know, so it wasjust a waiting game.
And I was just dreading that itwas gonna get just, you know,
it was just gonna get lost.
So when I got the news, I was,I was, it was like, I think it
was, I'm thinking December, andit was like the best Christmas
present.
I was just like, this is thismade my year.
(34:08):
So all of that work, it we wedid it.
The sad thing is that David uhMilgard died in 2022.
He died very suddenly andunexpectedly.
And his mom had passed priorjust prior to that.
So it's it's actually the JoyceMilgard Law.
We wanted it named after them,and we didn't think it would
(34:29):
ever happen.
But to David Lametti's credit,he he said, We're gonna name it
the Joyce and David Milgard Law.
Uh, it's the Miscarriage ofJustice Commission.
So they didn't mess around.
They they acknowledged there'sa miscarriage of justice.
It it just there were all thesewonderful gifts around it.
I I was so thrilled, but alsosad.
It was bittersweet becauseDavid and Joyce weren't there.
(34:50):
I mean, they're they're therelike spiritually.
Uh I'm hoping smiling, but theylike they they made such
tremendous sacrifices fordecades.
It just would have been nice ifwe all could have celebrated
together with it around it.
But uh yeah, it was just a itwas euphoria.
I I was just and not because II'm like, oh, look what we did,
although we did achievesomething really important, it's
(35:12):
because look what we did forthe country for our fellow
Canadians, and that was alwaysthe case.
DanielaSM (35:18):
Yes, and I think that is uh a major achievement.
The satisfaction is isincredible because you work
really hard, you and your teamto do this.
So that's just incredible.
Wow.
Yeah.
You were having a job while youwere doing this, or this was
your only job?
RuthvanVierzen (35:34):
No, this was just uh I I did it around my I'm
self-employed, so I have someflexibility with my schedule,
but I was working like afterhours and and weekends, and and
it wasn't like it's not that itwas a you know, these things
they go in spurts.
So sometimes I'd be workinglike, you know, maybe a Saturday
writing letters or something,and then there'd we'd be waiting
(35:54):
and but it was over severalyears.
So that's the thing too.
I think when you take somethinglike this on, especially with
the government, you have to bein it for the it's like a long
game, and you have to be willingto just keep pushing, like we
were saying, keep following upand and keep prodding them and
don't go away until you it'slike it's like what happened in
Ontario with the green belt, youknow, when the government was
(36:17):
trying to uh develop protectedlands, Ontario citizens just
kept pushing, right, until theyget they gave in.
So that's what we need to do ascitizens.
I think it's our it's our duty.
DanielaSM (36:27):
Is there something that you need to do?
Keep pressing for Mark Carneyto to do something.
RuthvanVierzen (36:31):
Yes, and that's something I'm going to take on
now.
Um, I haven't been in touchwith my like fellow team members
in a while.
Just because he did hisinstructions to his cabinet
ministers differently than truethan Trudeau did.
So I'm not really clear whattheir priorities are.
So I'm I'm gonna reach out.
And and again, that's thethat's the kind of thing that
everyone should feel veryprepared and and open to doing
(36:54):
and not be anxious about callingon your whether it's your MP in
your local town or uh goingright to Parliament Hill.
They're civil servants, that'swhat they're there for, and they
do want to hear from Canadians.
Yeah, I'll I'll just reach out.
I'll I'll just make a phonecall and some inquiries and find
out what's happening.
Speaker 00 (37:13):
And I'll I'll do some updates on social media.
DanielaSM (37:15):
Yes.
So this is a story, but it'salso your story.
So after achieving this bigthing of this piece of
legislation, what else is therefor you?
Like, are you feeling like,okay, now I want to do more of
this or this was enough, or whatis it?
RuthvanVierzen (37:30):
So I I was working in this for a number of
years and helping other people.
I I have stepped back.
I've got some things that I'mI'm working on personally in in
my life on more of the creativeside.
The I'm the kind of personwhere if something comes up and
I feel really strongly about it,then I will get involved.
Something just came in my newsfeed this morning and
(37:50):
environmentally that's impactingour region.
I signed the petition.
Signing a petition, I think, isreally important, but I'm I
know that's something I'm gonnaget more involved in because
it's impacting, it's aboutchemical spraying in our region.
That hurts all of us, right?
So I I know I'm gonna getinvolved in that a little bit
more.
But I'm I'm more like ifsomething's really important to
me and impacts me, or or I canhelp others, I'll definitely get
(38:13):
involved.
DanielaSM (38:14):
And your friends and your group of people are very
similar to you?
Is that more than just a roof?
Um, like, oh, people who arepolitically or like active on on
stuff like this?
Yeah, and somebody who, youknow, you decide, okay, I really
care about this, I'm gonna dosomething about it.
I think that you are a rarecase, but you you let me know.
RuthvanVierzen (38:31):
Um, I don't I don't know.
I don't think so.
I I'm not sure.
Like I've I've had um, youknow, I I think about some of
the people I'm connected with onFacebook who we message once in
a while.
And I I think there are peopledoing their own things that are
that they're passionate about.
There's a group here that'svery focused on cleaning up our
city, and they've got a reallygood volunteer base now.
(38:51):
I see people doing likespecific things that they're
really passionate about.
Uh and and they're making areally big difference.
Like last year, my husband andI volunteered at this Christmas
dinner that goes on.
It's been happening for yearsand years and years to bring the
community together who they'repeople are gonna either be alone
for Christmas or they'rethey're underhoused.
And that was an amazing thingto be part of.
(39:12):
But that's we were justvolunteering there, but there's
a group of people and there's awoman heading that up.
She's headed up for years.
So I get very inspired bythings like that.
And we can all do that.
You know, it's find somethingthat is important to you that
you enjoy that and and seize it.
And and you know, if you're nothappy with something, it wait,
what's that thing?
Be the change you want to seein the world, right?
(39:34):
It's it's so true.
If we feel strongly enough,we'll muster up the courage and
and the commit the time to doingit.
Yes.
And if you don't, don'tcomplain about it.
Yes.
DanielaSM (39:46):
Exactly.
Wonderful.
Is there anything else that uhwe you think we didn't touch
enough or do you want tomention?
RuthvanVierzen (39:53):
Uh no, I do want to thank you again for the
opportunity to tell this story.
Uh I I was trying to share itin a way that was um, you know,
inspiring.
I don't I don't think it itwould overwhelm people to do
what we did as a group.
I do just want people to feelinspired.
If they see change that needsto be made in their community or
(40:15):
their country, just start andtrust, have faith that the
resources you need and thepeople you need are going to
fall into place, that that youwill get what you need to make
it happen.
And don't give up, bepersistent.
Yes, be persistent.
DanielaSM (40:28):
That's true.
That's true.
And no, I appreciate the story.
I didn't know anything aboutthis, so I am grateful for you
coming and sharing and in asimple way as I can understand
it and many others too.
Thank you so much for beinghere.
Thank you.
It's great to be here.
Thanks.
I hope you enjoyed thisconversation with Ruth as
matters as I did.
Her clarity, passion, and are abeautiful reminder that
(40:53):
standing up against injustice,no matter how complex, can lead
to a real change.
If this episode of TV, pleasewrite a comment and share it
with someone who could use areminder of the power of
determination and poverty,leading to ordinary magic spread
out of the court.
Join me next time for anotherstory conversation.
(41:14):
Thank you for listening.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!