A First Nations Woman's Fight to Be Heard
By Josie Faucher For years, I have documented experiences that I believe cannot be understood by looking at one police report, one incident, or one province in isolation. I have reported harassment, stalking, threats, surveillance and other conduct to police. I have preserved emails, telephone messages, photographs, reports, correspondence and other records. I have repeatedly attempted to obtain assistance and to have my concerns taken seriously. On August 4, 2023, an interaction with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in Prince Edward Island became a defining moment in that history. I say that what happened that day cannot be separated from what came before it. By that point, I had already reported harassment and stalking to the RCMP, including reports in August 2022. I had concerns about my safety and the safety of my family. I had attempted to use police and other institutional channels to resolve those concerns. Instead, I say that my history of reporting became part of the problem. This blog is my attempt to put the entire record into one place. It is not intended to replace evidence before a court or tribunal. It is not a finding that every allegation I have made has been proven. It is a record of what I experienced, what I reported, what I documented, what institutions said in response, and what I continue to seek answers about. My story did not begin with the traffic stop. Before August 4, 2023, I had already been reporting what I understood to be stalking, harassment, threats and cyber harassment. My records describe repeated concerns about unwanted contact, surveillance, intimidation and threats. I reported these concerns to police and attempted to obtain assistance. One of the reports identified in my human-rights materials was made to the RCMP in August 2022. I also documented concerns affecting my daughter. The significance of this history is not simply that I was frightened. It is that I say the RCMP already had knowledge of my concerns before the August 2023 encounter. That matters because when an institution already knows that a person believes she is being targeted, the meaning of subsequent interactions can be very different from the meaning of an isolated encounter. My position is that the August 4 interaction must therefore be examined against the history that preceded it. Over the years, I documented unwanted telephone calls, voice messages and other communications that I believed were connected to the harassment and stalking I was reporting. Some of my later records contain messages that I regarded as threatening because they appeared to reference my location or activities. For example, in correspondence from 2025, I recorded messages such as: “Nice location you're at. Come out at 11:30.” and: “Come out so I can see you.” I also recorded messages referring to places where I had been, including: “Norway Bay is not suitable for you...” and messages telling me: “Don't walk too close to the tree line…” These records are part of my broader documentation of what I experienced. I do not claim that a particular person is responsible for every communication merely because I received it. That is precisely why I have preserved the records and sought investigation. What I do say is that the communications contributed to an ongoing sense of being watched, followed and threatened. One of the most difficult parts of this history has been continuing to report what I believed was happening while also feeling that reporting itself was becoming part of the conflict. I contacted police because I wanted protection and an investigation. I documented my concerns because I wanted a record. I preserved messages because I wanted evidence. I contacted different police services when I moved between jurisdictions because I was trying to find somewhere where my concerns would be taken seriously. My records span Prince Edward Island, Ontario and Quebec. The result was not a simple resolution. Instead, I describe a continuing cycle: something happened ? I reported it ? I attempted to provide evidence ? I sought follow-up ? the problem continued ? I reported again. This history is central to understanding why I was concerned about personal safety and why I sometimes attempted to document interactions myself. On August 4, 2023, I was stopped by members of the RCMP in Prince Edward Island. The RCMP's records say the stop arose from an impaired-driving report. I do not dispute that police received a report. I dispute the characterization of me as someone who was simply refusing to cooperate. I was seat-belted and searching for my driver's licence and identification. My belongings were around me while I searched. My licence was ultimately returned to me by Sgt. Gunn. No impaired-driving charge was laid. During the interaction, I questioned why I had been stopped. I recall being told words to the effect of: “This is Canada, I don't need a reason.” What followed became the central event underlying my human-rights complaint. I live with documented physical and psychological disabilities, including spinal problems and trauma-related symptoms. During sudden and highly stressful encounters, I can experience involuntary physical symptoms, including shaking, muscle spasms, difficulty breathing, pain, disorientation and difficulty processing information. I say those symptoms were present during the August 4 encounter. The RCMP materials acknowledge that officers were aware of my PTSD. At one point, I say I was told: “Stop faking.” That statement has remained particularly significant to me. What I was experiencing as medical distress was, in my view, interpreted as deliberate resistance. The question before the human-rights process is not simply whether I was distressed. It is whether disability-related symptoms were understood and accommodated, or whether they contributed to the adverse treatment I experienced. I had been concerned about my safety before the encounter. I therefore attempted to document the interaction with my phone. My position has consistently been that the phone was not a weapon and was not used in a threatening manner. The RCMP disputes aspects of my account and maintains its own characterization of the interaction. The phone nevertheless became part of the escalation. For me, losing the phone also meant losing an important means of documenting what was happening. I say I was physically handled and removed from my vehicle while still seat-belted. I say I was subsequently handcuffed and placed in the rear of the police vehicle. I experienced pain and physical symptoms during and after the interaction. I later documented injuries and physical effects. The RCMP disputes my characterization of the force used and maintains that the force was necessary. This is therefore one of the areas where the competing accounts must be examined through the evidence. While I was in the back of the police vehicle, an RCMP officer made a radio transmission referring to: “the screaming female in the back of my car.” The RCMP acknowledges that the statement was made. I have never argued that my voice was perfectly calm. I acknowledge that I was distressed and that my voice was elevated. The issue, for me, is the context. I say the description reduced a complex medical and traumatic situation to the image of an angry or difficult woman. The human-rights complaint therefore examines this conduct in the context of sex, disability and the broader treatment I experienced. After the RCMP interaction, I was dropped off at an AA/recovery meeting at a church. The people at that church did not witness the RCMP interaction itself. Their potential evidence is different. They saw me afterward. They saw my condition. They heard what I said at the time, to the extent they remember it. They may be able to describe what I looked like, how I was behaving, whether I appeared injured or distressed, and whether my condition was different from what they normally knew. I am now reaching out to those people because firsthand observations matter. I am not asking them to decide whether the RCMP discriminated against me. I am asking them to tell the truth about what they personally saw and heard. I identify as a First Nations woman. My human-rights complaint includes national or ethnic origin as a protected ground. I have also described the interaction in the context of my Indigenous identity and the broader history of Indigenous women's experiences with policing. The National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls documented systemic concerns involving policing, dismissal of reports, stereotyping and failures to protect Indigenous women. I do not claim that those findings automatically prove what happened to me. I say they provide important context for examining my experience. During the August 4 interaction, I also disputed the characterization that I was a “Freeman.” I did not identify myself that way. I have tried to explain how my identity as a woman is connected to my own cultural understanding and identity. I also raised concerns about the use of my former surname, Robillard, rather than Josie Faucher, the name by which I identify and which the Commission later confirmed as my preferred name. These details may seem small when viewed separately. For me, they are part of a larger question: Was I being heard as the person I actually was, or was a narrative about me being created that I could not control? My complaint also raises religion as a protected ground. The August 4 incident occurred in the context of my attendance at a faith-based recovery meeting. My spiritual life and recovery practices are important parts of who I am. I have described concerns about the way my spiritual expression was interpreted and characterized. I believe religious and spiritual expression should not automatically be treated as suspicious simply because it may be unfamiliar to another person. My human-rights materials therefore consider religion alongside disability, sex and Indigenous identity rather than treating each part of my identity as completely separate. Following the August 4 incident, I filed a formal complaint. The RCMP subsequently produced an internal response. The RCMP's position differs significantly from mine. The RCMP says the traffic stop was initiated because of an impaired-driving report and that officers responded appropriately. The RCMP disputes my characterization of the physical interaction and maintains that the force used was necessary. The RCMP also disputes the connection between the conduct complained of and my protected characteristics. The RCMP acknowledges the “screaming female” radio statement but places it in the context of my elevated voice. These disagreements are now matters for the appropriate legal process. I pursued the matter through the Canadian Human Rights Commission. My complaint alleges discrimination in the provision of services contrary to section 5 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. The protected grounds identified in the complaint are: national or ethnic origin; religion; sex; andA personal record of policing, harassment, disability, identity, human rights and the search for accountability in Canada
Why I Am Telling This Story
PART I — BEFORE AUGUST 4, 2023
The Reporting
PART II — THE PATTERN I WAS TRYING TO REPORT
Harassment, Calls and Messages
PART III — WHEN REPORTING DOES NOT BRING RELIEF
Trying to Get Help
PART IV — AUGUST 4, 2023
The RCMP Stop
PART V — DISABILITY IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ENCOUNTER
What the Officers Saw Versus What I Was Experiencing
PART VI — THE PHONE
Why I Was Recording
PART VII — FORCE AND THE AFTERMATH
Being Removed From the Vehicle
PART VIII — “THE SCREAMING FEMALE”
PART IX — THE CHURCH
Where Witnesses Saw Me Afterward
PART X — FIRST NATIONS IDENTITY
Being Heard as an Indigenous Woman
PART XI — RELIGION, RECOVERY AND SPIRITUALITY
PART XII — WHAT HAPPENED AFTERWARD
The Official Story
PART XIII — THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMPLAINT
From Complaint to Tribunal
