Warrior Life Studios

Pam Palmater

Tag: colonization

  • Justice system still not protecting Indigenous women and girls

    Justice system still not protecting Indigenous women and girls

    (Picture by Pam Palmater, Rally for Justice for Murdered and Missing Indigenous Women and Girls in Winnipeg)

    This article was originally published in The Lawyer’s Daily on May, 28, 2019.

    “Her life mattered. She was valued. She was important. She was loved.”

     R. v. Barton [2019] S.C.J. No. 33.

    Cindy Gladue was an Indigenous woman originally from Alberta, where she grew up with her four siblings and extended family. She was also the mother to three daughters and her family described her as both a loving mother and caring auntie. She had close friends and always dreamed about being the first in her family to go to university. Cindy Gladue loved and was loved. She did not deserve her violent death in 2011 nor the indignity done to her body after. 

    She is now one of the many thousands of murdered and missing Indigenous women and girls in Canada — a growing crisis that represents grave human rights violations. The trial of the man who admittedly committed this act of violence against Cindy is an example of how defective Canada’s justice system is when it comes to Indigenous women victims and how negligent Canada has been in ensuring the basic human rights of Indigenous women and girls are met.

    In this column, there will be no details about Cindy’s appearance, what she wore the night she was killed, where she was killed, whether she knew her killer, her level of education, her health status, or what she did for a living — because none of the facts is relevant to her death. Cindy is not to blame for her death. Cindy did not kill herself. Cindy did not engage in a dangerous knife fight or try to kill someone.

    Regardless of which version of the story is accepted by the next trial judge — that she was killed by a male trucker who violently cut an 11-cm gash in her vagina, or that she died from a tear from his violent, but unarmed interaction with her — she still died as a result. According to the SCC quoting from evidence at trial, the trucker then tried to hide evidence, change the crime scene and lie about his involvement. His name doesn’t deserve to be said aloud, nor does he get to hide behind any of the racist or sexist excuses he used at trial to defend himself. None of the evidence referred to at trial or the SCC indicates that he should be believed. Cindy’s life story does not get to be narrated by the man who admits to committing this violence against her.

    Sexualized violence against Indigenous women and girls in Canada has been allowed to continue in plain sight by government officials, police officers, lawyers and judges who have treated Indigenous women and girls as though they are less worthy of life. In fact, were it not for the lengthy and persistent advocacy of Indigenous women and their allies, Canadians would still be unaware of the crisis.

    However, awareness of the crisis only gets us so far. The court proceedings which followed Cindy’s death show just how deeply engrained racism and sexism against Indigenous women still is in Canadian society, especially the justice system. In R. v. Barton [2019] S.C.J. No. 33, Justice Michael Moldaver, writing for the majority, allowed the accused’s appeal in part and sent the matter back to trial, but only on the charge of the unlawful act of manslaughter. The dissent would have dismissed the accused’s appeal entirely. Justices Rosalie Silberman Abella and Andromache Karakatsanis writing for the dissent (Chief Justice Richard Wagner concurring) agreed with the Alberta Court of Appeal that the matter be ordered back for retrial on both charges of first-degree murder and manslaughter. 

    The majority made some important points about the extent to which racism is still widespread in the justice system. At para.199, the majority explained: “Furthermore, this Court has acknowledged on several occasions the detrimental effects of widespread racism against Indigenous people within our criminal justice system. For example, in Williams, this Court recognized that Indigenous people are the target of hurtful biases, stereotypes, and assumptions, including stereotypes about credibility, worthiness, and criminal propensity, to name just a few. … In short, when it comes to truth and reconciliation from a criminal justice system perspective, much-needed work remains to be done.”

    They went on to say that the criminal justice system and all of its participants must take reasonable steps to address these biases — especially against Indigenous women. To this end, they directed that, on a go forward basis, trial judges ought to provide express instruction to juries to counter the well-known prejudice against Indigenous women. While there is no set text, trial judges should instruct juries about Indigenous women and girls having been subjected to a long history of colonization and systemic racism and then dispel myths about Indigenous women and those who are exploited for sex. These stereotypes were outlined in para. 202:

              – Are not entitled to legal protections;

              – Not deserving of respect, humanity and dignity;

              – Are sexual objects for male gratification;

              – Are available for the taking and no consent needed;

              – Assume any risks associated with “sex work”;

              – Are less credible than other people.

    The majority further stressed that, as a matter of respect, both the Crown and the defence counsel should have referred to her as Ms. Gladue instead of “Native girl” during the trial. These are important points and the SCC made many important clarifications in the case in relation to the many problems surrounding sexual assault cases.

    However, there is a downside to the majority’s decision. Their logic and reasoning around the impact of racism and bias in this case did not follow through to their ultimate finding. The majority allowed the accused’s appeal in part, by limiting the charge for which the killer could be retried — manslaughter only. The dissent pointed out that racism doesn’t work that way and can’t be so easily compartmentalized. They explained that there was no “filter” on the victim’s prior sexual history and no warning by the judge to the jury to avoid making stereotypical assumptions about Indigenous women.

    They also argued that this created an image of Cindy “that was unfair and would have permeated the whole trial and the jury’s deliberations on both murder and manslaughter” (para. 214). The dissent further emphasized, “He [trial judge] provided no specific instructions crafted to confront the operative social and racial biases potentially at work. This rendered the whole trial unfair” (para. 215).

    While the dissent did go further than the majority, they too missed an important opportunity to speak to the indignity committed against Cindy’s body after her death when segments of her vagina were brought into court as an exhibit. Cindy was a life-giving mother of three girls. Her body and her life-giving parts had already suffered a gross violation which led to her death. There was no necessity — in an effort to prosecute her killer — to remove her life-giving parts and put them on display in a courtroom. They could have used the coroner’s testimony, animated illustrations of the extent of the cut or tear, and worst-case scenario, pictures. Putting her life-giving parts on display served to further dehumanize her before the judge and jury. 

    Even though the SCC made some important findings in this case, their caution that the justice system has a lot more work to do applies equally to them. We need more than the “important step forward” they commended themselves for — we need a wholescale change. That won’t happen if the highest court in the land cannot call out and end the kind of indignity committed against Cindy — which represents the many indignities committed against Indigenous women and girls since contact. 

    This article was originally published in The Lawyer’s Daily on May, 28, 2019 – link below:

    https://www.thelawyersdaily.ca/articles/12605/justice-system-still-not-protecting-indigenous-women-and-girls-pamela-palmater-?category=opinion

  • Reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples in Universities and Colleges

    Reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples in Universities and Colleges

    Reconciliation has become the buzz word of the decade ever since the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) of Canada published their report on residential schools in Canada.* The TRC, headed by (then) Justice Murray Sinclair, heard from residential school survivors, families and native communities from all over Canada about their experiences in residential schools and their lives afterwards. These schools lasted for over 100 years, with the last one only closing in 1996.

    Despite being called schools, residential schools were actually designed to separate native children from their parents, extended families and communities, for the express purposes of assimilating them into, what the TRC describes as “Euro-Christian society”. Thousands of children were starved, neglected, tortured, medically experimented on, mentally, physically and/or sexually abused or even murdered. Their experiences have had long-lasting, inter-generational impacts on many more thousands of children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

    The TRC offered 94 Calls to Action directed to the federal and provincial governments, churches, businesses, the media, the public at large and, specifically, universities and colleges. The report went well beyond just the 94 specific Calls to Action – it also talked about reconciliation with native peoples generally. However, as is the case with many Royal Commissions, Public Inquiries and other similar reports, many Canadians never read them. The failure to read the TRC report, didn’t stop people from taking the word “reconciliation” and literally applying it to everything they do that touches on native issues and calling it “reconciliation”. I think reconciliation has gone off track.

    To my mind, the word reconciliation should have substantive meaning; not just in the residential school context, but in the entire relationship between native peoples and the Crown. Firstly, it should be about exposing the whole truth of the genocide committed in Canada beyond residential schools. The TRC concluded that what happened in Canada was cultural genocide, but more than that, it was also physical and biological genocide. Canada needs to come to terms with that. It needs to come to terms with genocide in all of its forms, both historic and ongoing.

    Secondly, reconciliation is about Canada taking full responsibility for this genocide.There should be no diminishing the experiences of survivors; no making excuses; no trying to justify what happened; no using semantics to try to downplay the atrocities committed; and no denying any of the harms suffered by native peoples. In any discussion about reconciliation, we should be centering the voices of the survivors and not the perpetrators, just like the TRC did.

    Lastly, we can never get to real reconciliation without Canada making a real apology – not a court ordered apology, or carefully worded political apology approved by Justice lawyers. I mean a real apology where Canada:

    (a) accepts responsibility for all of its actions and consequences; 

    (b) promises never to do it again, and in fact, doesn’t do it again; 

    (c) makes full amends for ALL of the harms done – which may include compensation, but is not               limited to compensation.

    Canada, in general, seems think that a political apology, coupled with meager monetary compensation and some commemoration is enough to ask all of us to move forward. There is a real problem with moving forward when the whole truth has yet to be exposed. If moving forward means skipping over the rest of the truth and focusing on superficial acts, like renaming National Aboriginal Peoples’ Day to National Indigenous Peoples Day, then we are very far away from reconciliation.

    It is also incredible that Canada could even fathom moving forward when it has failed to stop the harms from continuing. For example, while the last residential school closed in 1996, this was followed by the 60’s scoop forced adoptions of native children into white families all over the world. That was then followed by the crisis of of over-representation in foster care. There are more native children stolen from their parents, families and communities today, than at the height of residential schools. In fact, the crisis of over-representation in foster care has even been acknowledged as a “humanitarian crisis” by federal officials. 

    When I say Canada, I want to be clear that I am talking about federal, provincial, territorial and municipal governments for sure; but also churches, Canadian citizens, mainstream media, corporations, businesses, universities and colleges. Every single person and institution in Canada has benefited from the genocide and dispossession committed against native peoples  – either directly or indirectly. That makes lots of people uncomfortable to hear, but it is the reality. Most people have long thought that the so-called “plight” of native peoples was the responsibility of government alone – often willfully blind to their own roles.

    Universities, colleges and training institutes in particular, have benefited directly from the dispossession of native peoples from their lands and sometimes benefited directly from Indian monies held in trust by the Crown. They have long excluded native peoples as faculty and administrators, while at the same time educating countless generations of Canadians and international students a sanitized version of both history and the present. Native voices and realities has been erased by universities for many decades. While it is very positive to see many universities and colleges embracing the TRC report and taking concrete steps to advance reconciliation, it has become very clear that there is a fundamental misunderstanding about what reconciliation really means in a university context.

    The TRC called on universities and colleges to undertake the following:

    Call to Action #16 – Create Aboriginal language degrees and diploma programs;

    Call to Action #24 – Medical and nursing schools to provide a mandatory course dealing with            Aboriginal health issues, which includes skills-based training in intercultural competency, conflict resolution, human rights, and anti-racism;

    Call to Action #28 – Law schools to provide a mandatory course in Aboriginal people and the law with required skills-based training in intercultural competency, conflict resolution, human rights, and anti-racism;

    Call to Action #65 – Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) and post-secondary institutions and educators establish a national research program with multi-year funding to advance understanding of reconciliation; and

    Call to Action #86 – Journalism programs and media schools provide mandatory education for all students on the history of Aboriginal peoples.

    However, it must be kept in mind that reconciliation goes well beyond those specific Calls to Action. Universities and colleges have a long way to go to address their role in the dispossession and oppression of native peoples – both historic and ongoing. However, I think this discussion needs to happen in reverse. Before I share some ideas about what universities should be doing to advance reconciliation, it may be more useful to look at some examples of what should NOT be considered reconciliation and why. 

    Not Reconciliation list:

    (1) Apologize for university’s past contribution to oppression of native peoples;

    (2) Give a land acknowledgement;

    (3) Senior administration or professors attend a First Nation community or pow-wow;

    (4) Hang native art on campus;

    (5) Change street names or building names on campus;

    (6) Partake in cultural sensitivity training or Aboriginal History 101;

    (7) Watch documentaries like Colonization Road;

    (8) Read Thomas King’s The Inconvenient Indian (I love this book);

    (9) Send a First Nation or organization an email asking what you can do to help;

    (10) Hire more native peoples to reflect our % of the population;

    (11) Have an elder open and close your conferences;

    (12) Nominate a native person for an award;

    (13) Invite native faculty to sit on committees or Senate;

    (14) Create an Aboriginal Advisory Committee on campus;

    (15) Send a happy National Aboriginal Day tweet or Facebook post;

    (16) Include First Nations in your research projects; and/or

    (17) Invite native speakers into your classrooms.

    There are many universities and colleges doing a number of the above items under the banner of reconciliation right now. Some may have even done some of these prior to the TRC report. However, I have seen a number of universities include some of these items in their reports on reconciliation. To my mind, none of these items fall under reconciliation. They are all important in different ways, and universities, should be doing these things, but they are not reconciliation.

    Why not?  Because most of the items on the above list should already be done in universities and colleges as a matter of law – as per federal and provincial human rights laws; employment laws; non-discrimination laws; equality laws; and campus commitments to diversity, equity and inclusion. Universities don’t get to pat themselves on the back for doing what they should have been doing all along under the law. Furthermore, some of the actions noted above should be happening as a matter of academic practice. If you teach about native issues, it should be a given that native voices and content are centered. It’s a matter of professional ethics and academic standards that faculty learn about the subjects they teach – or ought to be teaching. 

    The following represents a few things that universities should be doing under the banner of real reconciliation:

    Real Reconciliation:

    (1) Ensure that you hire native faculty and staff that reflects plus 20% extra hires to build institutional capacity; provide support for new hires; and to make amends for having excluded native peoples for all these years;

    (2) There should be proportional (20%) native hires in ALL faculties and departments, especially politics, law, science, engineering, medicine and business (in addition to social work, midwifery & native studies);

    (3) Do NOT ever hire just one native faculty member at a time. That is an incredibly unfair burden to that faculty member as everyone, even with the best of intentions, will want their advice, guidance, ideas and participation of that one faculty member on every committee, project and initiative;

    (4) When you hire, you must develop workloads and expectations around the fact that many First Nation hires will have community-based expectations/obligations that should be accommodated.

    It is their connection to their First Nations, their knowledge exchange and community-based work that often informs who they are, how they teach and what they teach.That unique knowledge and experience comes with commitments to their home communities which takes time and energy and should be accommodated and counted.

    (5) Don’t stop at recruitment and hiring of native faculty and staff. Think about what your institution does to KEEP them there, i.e., professional supports, active mentorship, recognition, research dollars, promotions, pay levels, leadership opportunities, advanced training and skill development and flexible or alternative work arrangements.  (6) Keep current commitments to native faculty and staff. For example, if you have a Chair in Traditional Native Medicine, make sure that Chair is made permanent, funded from core university dollars and not dependent on external funders (i.e., supported only if the funds are available). Making reconciliation initiatives dependent on the goodwill of corporate funders puts them all at risk given the fact that native peoples are largely discriminated against in the corporate world. Universities must engage in real sacrifices – of power and wealth – in order to engage in real reconciliation. That means the university itself must dedicate and protect the funds for reconciliation initiatives – includes faculty, staff, chairs, research and projects.

    (7) Real reconciliation is about more than who teaches, it also requires that native peoples also be represented in the governance and senior administration of universities and colleges – as Presidents, Provosts, Chancellors and on boards of governors. They must be part of the decision-making mechanisms throughout the institution – including in the unions, committees and Senate, on all issues, but especially those that impact native peoples specifically.

    (8) Native peoples need to be the ones deciding how targeted native research funding is distributed; who gets research chairs in native issues; and how academic success is measured – that means including the community-based work and advocacy that is an inherent part of the lived personal and professional realities of many native peoples.

    (9) First Nations and Inuit communities need to have a direct line of input into university programs, curricula, research and governance that impact them and their students. It is not good enough to have one native faculty or several native staff members speak for diverse Nations. The relationship needs to include voices inside and outside the institution.

    (10) Every university and college sits on native territory should reflect local native languages, cultures and symbols throughout the campus, in ways that are directed by native peoples (with a focus on local native communities) and respectful of their cultures. It is not good enough to have just one dedicated “native” area – like a statue, park bench or student centre. Our presence must be reflected throughout the campus(es).

    (11) The benefit and privilege of a university education and research needs to be fully shared with local First Nations, with more focus on open access to information and publications and translation of research in accessible formats for community use.

    (12) Universities need to think about education beyond tuition-paying students and include strategic partnerships and alliances with native communities to help fill research, policy and/or technical gaps that exist due to chronic under-funding and failure to implement treaties, by building these requirements into courses and research or special projects.  (13) Universities could help make amends for past harms. Take for example, the crisis of disappearing native languages. Universities and colleges in partnership with native communities, elders and languages speakers, could help prevent native languages from extinction. Together, they could develop comprehensive k-12 education, as well as community-based native language instruction, to try to undo the devastating impacts of Canada’s assimilatory policies and the university’s roles in it.

    (14) Universities need to ensure that their reconciliation plans are co-developed by native communities and experts – which may include faculty, but also those external to the university that are not at any risk of retaliation or ostracization. Without native peoples directing the path forward, universities risk of forging ahead with superficial plans, or replicating the status quo. (15) Universities must also focus on the recruitment, retention and support of native students towards academic success. This includes not only a welcoming atmosphere, various student supports like housing and grants, but also native faculty advisors, native courses, and special research projects and other opportunities.  (16) Universities must take active measures against the growing trend of rushing to hire “self-identified” native peoples who are not native, not connected to community and have no lived experience as a native person. Universities are being flooded with those making false claims and universities commit further harms to actual native people by taking no action to prevent it from happening.  When frauds take our places in universities as students, staff or faculty, our voices are once again erased and our identities over-shadowed by white ethnicity shoppers whose only claim to Indigeneity is ancestry.com or some distant relative from 400 years ago. At best, these frauds skew our numbers and taint our research, and at worst, they proactively work against real native peoples.

    (17) Universities must find ways to prevent Deans from using the same old racist tactics, like using so-called “merit” versus “diversity” as a way to keep native people out of universities. This perception of merit is very biased and often used in racist ways to discriminate against native peoples. It has been used to keep women out of the boardroom and with lower salaries. It has also been used by non-native Deans to keep native peoples out of tenure-track positions. Even after the TRC report, I have still seen Deans revert to this racist form of excluding native peoples – as if their traditional Indigenous knowledges, their professional experiences, their community-based work are not valued the same as a non-native’s traditional educational background as “merit”.

    There is a lot to do and it will require a fundamental shift in both thinking and practice. It will require real changes – a transfer of both power and wealth. This requires that universities make sacrifices to make space for native peoples – not simply Indigenize here and there. Universities can’t simply tweak their current structures and expect substantive results.  Clearly there is a great deal that university can and should be doing. This blog is already too long to include a much longer list. I truly believe that some of this will happen in short term, and some of it will take a little longer. But without real native people at the helm – directing the path – it runs the risk of preserving the same status quo or worse. I believe that we are at a turning point.  The TRC has helped jump start both conversation and action at the university and college level. We just need to ensure the way forward is co-developed by native peoples and communities, together with universities and colleges. We have a real opportunity to make lasting, impactful changes. Let’s move beyond the superficial and engage in real, transformative reconciliation now – which will mean doing things as they haven’t been done before. We’re ready academia – are you?

    For those who prefer audio, here is a link to my Warrior Life podcast based on this blog: https://soundcloud.com/pampalmater/indigenous-reconciliation-in-university-and-colleges For those who want more information, here is a link to my Woodrow Lloyd Lecture on Reconciliation at the University of Regina in 2018: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89s3l2mYGWg&list=PLDnK0xT7aXRBut5qi5rlJrDQWpS-Pxu1v&index=2&t=3083s

    *This blog is based on a much longer speech that I delivered in Halifax for the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives in 2018.

  • Saskatchewan: The Land of Living Skies and Lethal Racism

    Saskatchewan is known as the “land of the living skies” for its breathtakingly colourful northern lights. It is also one of the most beautiful prairie-provinces in Canada, with stunning purple sand beaches and the incredible Sahara-like Athabasca Sand Dunes that stretch for nearly 100 kilometres. The province also boasts over 100,000 lakes and rivers, making it nearly 12% water. The diverse Indigenous Nations which have thrived on these territories since time immemorial have tied their customs, practices and traditions, and even their traditional Indigenous knowledge systems to the life-giving resources from these rich lands, waters and eco-systems. The very land that has sustained the Nehiyaw, Anishinabe and other Nations for thousands of years is firmly rooted in their identity as individuals, families, and Nations. Sadly, Saskatchewan is also well-known as one of the most racist provinces in Canada. With colonization and the clearing of the plains, came brutal acts of genocide, land dispossession and violent racism against First Nations – a legacy that has and continues to be a lethal reality for First Nations.

    Saskatchewan is the home to farmer Gerald Stanley, who shot and killed an unarmed First Nation youth, Colten Boushie, in cold blood in 2016, but was found not guilty by an all-white jury two years later – a result that shocked the nation. But it’s not just white farmers killing Indigenous peoples – 62.5% of people who died from police encounters in Saskatchewan were Indigenous, despite being only 11% of the population. But this should not come as a shock to anyone. It wasn’t that long ago in 2004 that the Neil Stonechild Inquiry exposed the Saskatchewan police practice known as “Starlight Tours” to the world. Starlight Tours occur when police officers detain Indigenous youth, drive them out of town and leave them stranded in sub-zero temperatures causing their deaths. While this racist practice was well-known by First Nations as common practice, Canada had a hard time accepting the persistence, prevalence and lethal nature of racism in this country. Meanwhile, the rate of murdered and missing Indigenous women and girls continued to climb.

    In 2014, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) released a report on the “known” cases of murdered and missing Indigenous women and girls in Canada which showed that Indigenous women and girls make up only 2.5% of the Canadian population, but 16% of the murder victims in Canada. However, Saskatchewan had the highest provincial rates – 55% of all murders of women were Indigenous. This unique intersection of racism and misogyny creates a situation where sexualized violence is perpetrated against Indigenous women and girls at alarming rates with relative impunity, and by all walks of society. While it is true that domestic violence is part of the issue, many of the murders and acts of sexualized violence were committed by society – doctors, lawyers, teachers, judges, social workers, foster parents and even police officers. Human Rights Watch released a report about police officers in Saskatchewan who commit sexualized violence against Indigenous women and girls in their custody, including sexual harassment, assault, invasive strip searches by male officers, and groping.

    Racialized violence, abuse and neglect of First Nations is so ingrained in Saskatchewan that it is not only reflected in societal attitudes, but those of its governing bodies and agencies. Nowhere are the socio-economic conditions worse for First Nations than in the sister provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan. More than 80% of all children in care in Saskatchewan are Indigenous – second only to Manitoba’s 90% – primarily due to discriminatory agency practices or conditions of poverty from chronic and discriminatory government under-funding of core social services. Racism has a multiplier effect where not only are Indigenous children wrongly apprehended, but because of that race-based apprehension, they are less likely to get a high school education, and more likely to end up in youth corrections. More than 2/3 of all Indigenous peoples in prison were in the child welfare system. It should be no surprise then that Indigenous foster girls are also over-represented in murdered, missing, and sex trafficked and those exploited in the child porn industry. Human traffickers know exactly where to get them – foster and group homes.

    These multiple, over-lapping crises rooted in racism and violence against Indigenous peoples is getting worse. The Supreme Court of Canada, the federal Office of the Correctional Investigator, the Auditor General, child welfare advocates, and numerous United Nations human rights bodies, together with countless research findings, commissions, inquiries and coroner’s reports all point to continued failures by federal and provincial governments to take concrete action to stem or reverse these crises. This failure, which is nothing less than colossal in Saskatchewan, sends the very toxic message to society that Indigenous lives have less value. Despite all the symbolism in a post-TRC report Canada, provinces like Saskatchewan have made very few substantive changes that have addressed any of these issues. All the political meetings, negotiation tables, and other so-called partnership initiatives haven’t stopped the suffering of the people – instead conditions are getting worse.

    This is the reason that Idle No More was born. Not only did this organic social movement grew from Indigenous grassroots community members – it was inspired by federal and provincial government inaction on these social issues and their constant breach of our Aboriginal and treaty rights. Omnibus bills to remove protections for the many lakes and rivers which make up Saskatchewan, together with provincial leases, permits and other authorities for corporations to continue to steal from Indigenous lands helped inspire a Saskatchewan born, nationwide movement to demand action. Idle No More wasn’t the first public show of protest over racial injustice, and it won’t be the last. First Nation family members of lost loved ones organized the Justice for Our Stolen Children Camp to again raise awareness and demand action. Their message was simple – the gross injustices committed against First Nations peoples in the name of racism and misogyny, like poverty, homelessness, over-incarceration, over-representation of our children in foster care and murdered and missing Indigenous women and girls – are all getting worse, not better.

    It would appear that Saskatchewan’s Premier is wholly detached from the problem. His focus seems to be on maximizing extraction of resources from First Nation lands; ignoring Aboriginal, treaty and lands rights; and clearing the legal playing field for more violence. In his recent Throne Speech, Moe announced that he will pass “trespass” legislation to allow more policing in “rural” areas. His focus is on the property rights of rural farmers without any mention for the safety of rural First Nation communities. We all know what this means. More laws to protect farmers who may hurt or kill other First Nations youth. His plan is eerily similar in nature to the bills proposed in the United States by certain states, to protect those (white people) who run over protesters with their cars, for example. Then add to Moe’s trespassing legislation, the fact that he is planning to arm conservation officers with AR-15 type carbine rifles! The very same conservation officers, who have recently been authorized to enter reserves through an MOU with the Federation of Sovereign Indigenous Nations (FSIN).

    There is a political storm brewing in Saskatchewan that further risks the lives of First Nations people. Trespass legislation and semi-automatic weapons are the not answer. Land and resource transfers back to First Nations, ending discriminatory practices, implementing treaty rights – all of those would contribute to justice for First Nations. Pumping more weapons into First Nation territory will only lead to more deaths.

    It is long past the time that the province of Saskatchewan take real steps to stem the race-based violence and deaths of First Nations from whose lands and waters every single resident of Saskatchewan benefits.

  • October 7th Day of Action, The Royal Proclamation and Idle No More: Wading Through the Hype

    Today is a day which will challenge Indigenous peoples and Canadians in the ongoing and very uncomfortable decolonization process. Will people celebrate Oct.7, 2013 as the 250th year since the issuance of The Royal Proclamation of 1763? Or will Canadians and Indigenous peoples see beyond the government hype and propaganda that comes with celebrating the War of 1812 or the Royal Proclamation? Will most Canadians even know what the Royal Proclamation is or that it is a constitutionally-protected document? What is it that Idle No More activists all over the country are calling for – a celebration of the Royal Proclamation or something else? http://www.idlenomore.ca/idlenomore_global_day_of_action_oct7proclaim In summary, the Royal Proclamation was issued in 1763 by King George III after the British Crown acquired lands claimed by the French in North America. It was intended to encourage settlement of North America by the British, even over lands formerly claimed as French. It was also intended to transition Indigenous peoples from French allegiances to British sovereignty. It further purported to establish reserved lands for Indigenous peoples in which they could  to hunt and fish. Yet, these “protected” lands were still to be made available for settlement, so long as it was done according to the rules set out in the Proclamation. While some argue that the Proclamation recognized Nationhood status of Indigenous peoples; partially protected Indigenous lands; and partially recognized Indigenous land rights; there are others who point out that Indigenous peoples were already living as strong, independent sovereign Nations prior to contact and did not need a British edict to declare partial recognition of land rights. The very essence of sovereignty is that it is lived, asserted, protected and defended every day – it cannot be granted or gifted by another sovereign. If there was any question about whether we should be celebrating the Royal Proclamation, one need only refer to how the federal Minister of Indian Affairs Bernard Valcourt has been re-writing history. http://news.morningstar.com/all/canada-news-wire/20131007C7734/statement-by-the-honourable-bernard-valcourt-on-the-250th-anniversary-of-the-royal-proclamation-of-1763.aspx Valcourt’s statement suggests that the Royal Proclamation was the beginning of the treaty process in Canada – which is false. The Mi’kmaw, Maliseet and Passmaquoddy were negotiating treaties in 1726, 1752,  and 1760 etc. There is nothing about the Royal Proclamation that indicates that it is a mutually-agreed upon document signed by Indigenous Nations and Britain. Even Valcourt acknowledges that it was a unilaterally-imposed document where Britain purported to set out how the relationship would work with Indigenous Nations – with no input from Indigenous Nations. It is in fact, just a pronouncement that Britain violated more times than it followed. Valcourt is also wrong when he states that it was the Royal Proclamation that led to the inclusion of section 35 in the Constitution Act, 1982. To the contrary, it was the efforts of Indigenous activists to try to find ways to protect our inherent rights. Sadly, section 35 turned out to be as much protection as the Royal Proclamation where Canada breaches it more than honours it. Section 35 has turned out to be a an empty shell of a constitutional promise which is used by Canada to deny First Nation rights under the guise of “consultation”. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is clear that the legal standard is “free, informed and prior consent”  – not just a watered-down duty to talk and impose whatever laws or policies that suits government agendas. So why then would we either celebrate the Royal Proclamation or base any of our resistance activities around it? Our resistance comes from our responsibility as Indigenous peoples to live, assert and defend our sovereignty and to protect the lands and waters we rely on to sustain our Nations and future generations. We should focus our symbols, inspiration, actions and rallying cries around our brave ancestors, their heroic efforts to protect our rights and the incredible inner strength of our peoples to resist and survive – despite everything that was done to us by the colonizers. There are no more powerful people than ours. To have survived scalpings, biological warfare (smallpox blankets), forced sterilizations of our women, deaths and torture in residential schools, the theft of tens of thousands of our babies from our families, the over-imprisonment of our men and women, the hundreds of murdered, missing and traded Indigenous women, and the pre-mature deaths of our peoples from contaminated water, lack of food, over-crowded housing and poor health – is a testament to our strength. Our culture and identity has the power to sustain us in difficult times and in my opinion, this is the core around which we should rise up and defend our lands, waters and peoples. The sooner we stop orienting ourselves around the laws, policies and media releases of the Canadian government, the stronger we will be in our resistance. Canada requires our participation in their processes to validate their ongoing oppression of our people – we can choose to withdraw and demand better. Harper should not assume that because there are no flashy media events happening every day that First Nations are not acting. Every social movement goes through phases and whether you call it Idle No More, Indigenous Nationhood Movement, or general resistance, Indigenous peoples are making plans, strategizing, asserting and defending their sovereignty. Those actions are sometimes hard to see amongst the sea of political media releases, government propaganda, commentator rhetoric and co-opted organizations. That being said, we still have true leaders, wise elders, strong grassroots peoples and our ancestors who are walking with us. Despite all the challenges, this movement will just continue to grow, expose the uncomfortable truths and force the fundamental change that is needed to keep the status quo from killing our people. http://pi.library.yorku.ca/ojs/index.php/crsp/article/viewFile/35220/32057 Canadians will benefit from this process of decolonization too because the most valuable resources in the future will be farmable land and drinkable water and First Nations are on the front lines protecting them. Canadians have the power to help First Nations make life better for all of us – it’s as easy and making the choice.

  • Harper Solicits Research to Blame First Nations for Murdered, Missing and Traded Indigenous Women

    Canada’s shameful colonial history as it relates to Indigenous peoples and women specifically is not well known by the public at large. The most horrific of Canada’s abuses against Indigenous peoples are not taught in schools. Even public discussion around issues like genocide have been censored by successive federal governments, and most notably by Harper’s Conservatives. Recently, the new Canadian Museum for Human Rights refused to use the term “genocide” to describe Canada’s laws, policies and actions towards Indigenous peoples which led to millions of deaths. The reason?: because that term was not acceptable to the federal government and the museum is after all, a Crown corporation. http://indigenousnationhood.blogspot.ca/2013/07/human-rights-museum-or-harper.html Aside from the fact that this museum will be used as a propaganda tool for Canada vis-à-vis the international community, Harper’s Conservatives are also paying for targeted research to back up their propaganda as it relates to murdered, missing and traded Indigenous women. This is not the first time that Harper has paid for counter information and propaganda material as it relates to Indigenous peoples, and it likely won’t be the last. However, this instance of soliciting targeted research to help the government blame Indigenous peoples for their own victimization and oppression is particularly reprehensible given the massive loss of life involved over time. http://indigenousnationhood.blogspot.ca/2011/06/secret-agent-harper-conservative-spy.html The issue of murdered and missing Indigenous women was made very public by the Native Women’s Association of Canada (NWAC) several years ago through their dedicated research, community engagement and advocacy efforts. Even the United Nations took notice and starting commenting on Canada’s obligation to address this serious issue. Yet, in typical Harper-Conservative style, once the issue became a hot topic in the media, they cut critical funding to NWAC’s Sisters in Spirit program which was the heart of their research and advocacy into murdered and missing Indigenous women. http://indigenousnationhood.blogspot.ca/2010/11/neanderthal-politics-shame-on.html To further complicate the matter, any attempts for a national inquiry into the issue has been thwarted by the federal government, despite support for such an inquiry by the provinces and territories. One need only look at the fiasco of the Pickton Inquiry in British Columbia to understand how little governments in Canada value the lives of Indigenous women, their families and communities. The inquiry was headed by Wally Oppal, the same man who previously denied the claims of Indigenous women who were forcibly sterilized against their knowledge and consent. The inquiry seemed more interested in insulating the RCMP from investigation and prosecution than it was about hearing the stories of Indigenous women. http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/pamela-palmater/2011/10/murdered-missing-and-still-excluded-indigenous-women-fight-eq Now, the Canadian public has to deal with a new chapter to this story – the sale of Indigenous women into the sex trades. The CBC recently reported that current research shows that Indigenous women, girls and babies in Canada were taken onto US ships to be sold into the sex trade. While this is not new information for Indigenous peoples, it is something that Canada has refused to recognize in the past. The research also shows that Indigenous women are brought onto these boats never to be seen from again. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/thunder-bay/story/2013/08/21/tby-first-nations-women-human-trafficking-ships-united-states.html The issue of murdered and missing Indigenous women has now expanded to murdered, missing and traded women. One might have expected a reaction from both the Canadian government and the Assembly of First Nations (AFN). Yet, the day after the story hit the news, the AFN was tweeting about local competitions and the federal government was essentially silent. I say essentially, because while all of this was taking place, the federal government put together a Request for Proposals on MERX (#275751) to solicit research to blame the families and communities of Indigenous women for being sold into the sex trade. https://www.merx.com/English/SUPPLIER_Menu.asp?WCE=Show&TAB=1&PORTAL=MERX&State=7&id=275751&src=osr&FED_ONLY=0&ACTION=&rowcount=&lastpage=&MoreResults=&PUBSORT=2&CLOSESORT=0&IS_SME=Y&hcode=%2f6A6jdkNJoHoufgILSp4Xg%3d%3d Instead of making a call for true academic research into the actual causes and conditions around Indigenous women, girls and babies being sold into the sex trade, the federal government solicited research to prove: (1) the involvement of family members in their victimization; (2) the level to which domestic violence is linked to the sale of Indigenous women into the sex trade; and (3) even where they are investigating gang involvement, it is within the context of family involvement of the trade of Indigenous women. The parameters of the research excludes looking into federal and/or provincial laws and policies towards Indigenous peoples; funding mechanisms which prejudice them and maintain them in the very poverty the research identifies; and negative societal attitudes formed due to government positions vis-à-vis Indigenous women like: – rapes and abuse in residential schools; – forced sterilizations; – the theft of thousands of Indigenous children into foster care; – the over-representation of Indigenous women in jails; – and the many generations of Indigenous women losing their Indian status and membership and being kicked off reserves by federal law. The research also leaves out a critical aspect of this research which is federal and provincial enforcement laws, policies and actions or lack thereof in regards to the reports of murdered, missing and traded Indigenous women, girls and babies. The epic failure of police to follow up on reports and do proper investigations related to these issues have led some experts to conclude that this could have prevented and addressed murdered, missing and traded Indigenous women. Of even greater concern are the allegations that have surfaced in the media in relation to RCMP members sexually assaulting Indigenous women and girls. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2013/02/12/bc-human-rights-watch-abuse-report.html This MERX Request for Proposals is offensive and should be retracted and re-issued in a more academically-sound manner which looks to get at the full truth, versus a federally-approved pre-determined outcome. It’s time Canada opened up the books, and shed light on the real atrocities in this country so that we can all move forward and address them.

  • Harper’s Indigenous Manifesto: Erasing Indigenous Peoples from Canada

    Early Indian policy was designed to accomplish two main policy objectives: (1) acquire Indigenous lands and resources, and (2) reduce financial responsibility to Indigenous peoples. The primary way in which these two objectives were to be achieved was through the physical, legal, social and spiritual elimination of Indigenous peoples. I say “elimination” because that is the word which best describes government intentions. Most people today use the term “assimilation” but to my mind, this word is much too soft to describe the design and impact of government policies on Indigenous peoples in Canada. To some readers, the term “elimination” may seem a little harsh, somewhat of an exaggeration, or perhaps rhetoric blown out of proportion which forgets the good intentions governments, churches and traders had for Indigenous peoples. I beg to differ – not because I fall into any externally imposed category of left-wing, liberal, radical or “nutbar”. I beg to differ because the facts – the brutal, uncomfortable facts tell us a much different story. My biggest concern is not that the colonization project devastated Indigenous peoples, because the historical record clearly shows it did; it is that the colonization and devastation of Indigenous peoples continues, albeit couched in softer terminology. Today, the few history books that have been amended to include mention of Indigenous peoples speak of the tragic loss of Indigenous cultures over time. They speak of this “loss” as a romantic part of our history where the strong, noble Indian chief on his horse looks across the horizon and realizes that the ways of his people are fading away with the coming of European trains, traders and technologies. This sort of representation may even invoke feelings of melancholy in Canadians who long for the simplicity of the old days. But it belies the truth about Canada and its direct and intentional “obliteration” of Indigenous peoples, cultures and territories. If the term “elimination” does not make some readers uncomfortable, surely the term “obliteration” will. The purposeful destruction of a people implies the kind of ill-intent, even malice upon which a country like Canada could surely never have been built? Terms like those imply that perhaps what happened to Indigenous peoples was not simply “progress”, “civilization” or a “good policy gone wrong” – no, this falls in the realm of a word that usually upsets the majority of readers: genocide. Many people do not understand the legal definition of genocide, nor are they aware of how genocide is considered internationally. Many are of the misunderstanding that genocide is the mass murder of millions of people all in one shot – something akin to the holocaust. In fact, genocide is defined in the United Nations Convention on Genocide as follows: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

    That is the definition. In Canada and the United States, settler governments have committed genocide against Indigenous peoples, not under just one category, but under every single category noted above. We all know it, but the reality stands in such stark contrast to the mythology created by government about what Canada stands for, that many people resort to denial. Indigenous peoples who have raised the subject have been referred to as “nutbars”, “whackos”, “conspiracy theorists”, “radicals” and “terrorists”. The issue of genocide is radical – not because it is not true, but because it stands so far outside the realm of humanity and human rights that the tendency is to save the term for only the most obvious, horrific, well-known instances of genocide committed in places far away from Canada. http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/pamela-palmater/2011/11/unbelievable-undeniable-genocide-canada The term genocide is usually saved for instances where the victims are considered to be humans – and Indigenous peoples have long been characterized as non-humans for centuries. Aside from the historical depictions of Indigenous peoples as “savages”, “heathens” or “pagans”, they have also been treated by governments as “dangerous and sub-human”. The myth of Indigenous peoples being sub-human allowed governments to steal Indigenous lands under the legal fiction of “terra nullius” (lands belonging to no one). They knew better of course, but it allowed them to justify not only the theft of lands from Indigenous peoples, but the brutal acts of genocide which were committed upon them. The fact that early governments sent small-pox infested blankets to Indigenous communities knowing it would nearly wipe them all out, is a historical fact. These were not the actions of a few bad apples, or something that happened in the stone age. This has been acknowledged as modern “biological warfare” by publications in the Journal of the American Medical Association. The scalping laws in Nova Scotia were deliberate acts of murder which decimated the Mi’kmaw Nation population by almost 80%. The forced surgical sterilization of Indigenous women against their will, and often without their knowledge or consent, destroyed Indigenous peoples in a very physical way. The government and church-run residential schools knowingly created conditions that led to the mass deaths of the Indigenous children who attended – upwards of 40% never made it out alive. Incredibly, not only did government officials know that Indigenous children were dying and even “acknowledged” the high rates of deaths and their causes, but this was part of the overall objective: “But this alone does not justify a change in the policy of this Department, which is geared towards the final solution of our Indian problem.” (SI Indian Affairs, Duncan Campbell Scott) Why do I bring all this uncomfortableness up in my blog? Why am I asking readers to face the brutal reality that is Canada? It is because genocidal acts against Indigenous peoples continue to this day, hidden in government policies which purport to be in the best interests of Indigenous peoples. It is because every government (Libs and Cons) has had a hand in continuing the situation, but mostly because this Harper government has ramped up efforts to eliminate Indigenous peoples. In my opinion, the Harper Indigenous Manifesto is about erasing Indigenous peoples from Canada socially, culturally, legally and physically. What used to be forced sterilizations to prevent child births and control Indigenous populations is now pre-mature deaths from the extreme poverty directly linked to chronic, purposeful under-funding, over-prescription of addictive drugs, and lack of housing, water and sanitation. What used to be residential schools became the 60’s scoop and is now child and family services removing our children from our communities at alarming rates. What used to be European/western education forced on our children through residential schools, is now the provincial school systems, which for the most part, teach the same western ideologies, histories, sciences and politics to our children and specifically exclude our traditional Indigenous knowledges, languages and cultures. What used to be scalping laws, are now starlight tours, murdered and missing Indigenous women by the hundreds, and quelling land claims with brute military and police force. What used to be laws against Indigenous peoples leaving their reserves are now laws which take away rights when one leaves the reserve (taxes, governance, jurisdiction, trade, identity). What used to be laws against Indigenous peoples gathering in one place is now CSIS, RCMP, DND and INAC putting us on terrorist watch lists, monitoring our movements, and over-incarcerating our men, women and youth at increasing rates. What used to be laws against Indigenous peoples hiring lawyers to advocate on their behalf, are now devasting funding cuts to local, regional and provincial First Nation political organizations. All coming at a time when Harper wants chaos, confusion, and lack of political capacity to ensure there is little resistance to his comprehensive Indian Act-based legislative agenda. He hopes to strike fear and confusion in chiefs so that they don’t know whether to stay quiet and hope it doesn’t get worse, or take action. Either way, funding cuts will be imposed on local First Nations as well. This is not about whether regional political organizations are doing a good job or not – this is about Harper fulfilling the original intentions of Indian policy (1) accessing Indigenous lands and resources and (2) reducing financial obligations to Indigenous peoples. He just happens to see striking at political organizations as the best way to isolate individual First Nations, already overwhelmed with issues, so they are easier to bully into submission. The Assembly of First Nations (AFN) either does not have the capacity or inclination to take these issues on. Regardless of the reasons, it is clear that local community members are going to be looking to their local First Nation governments to take action. In the same vein, First Nation leaders will be looking for assistance from their treaty, regional and provincial organizations. The days of waiting for the AFN to do something are over. If these funding cuts are ok, so will be the ones that come to individual First Nations, then will come the eventual constitutional changes, the accelerated extinguishment of Aboriginal and treaty rights, and the division and sale of the rest of our lands. If Canadians think that this does not concern them – they should think again. As your “Canada” slowly becomes a dictatorship led by a rogue Prime Minister who is obsessed with power, Canadian laws, rules, and regulations are breached with impunity. Everything from elections, ethics, budgets, and legislation are manipulated without regard for the rule of law. The damage done by these renegade Conservatives is already so severe that analysts feel it will take years to undo the harm. In standing beside Indigenous peoples to oppose these destructive policies, Canadians would be living up to the spirit and intent of the treaties and, in so doing, protecting their own futures. Economic reports have already shown that the costs of maintaining Indigenous peoples in poverty is higher than the solutions. Those same studies show that the costs of delaying the resolution of land claims and treaty implemention for example, are higher than if those claims were resolved equitably. Even the most basic math shows that it costs more to keep an Indigenous person in a federal prison for one year ($100,000) than it does to pay for a 4-year university degree ($60,000). If you think for a minute that once Harper is done erasing Indigenous peoples, that he won’t come after women, children, the impoverished, the remaining pristine environmental areas, water basins and sanctuaries all in the name of wealth and power, think again. There is no room for justice, diversity or freedom in a dictator’s view of the world. We are all compelled to act. Our reasons do not have to be the same. I can be a Mi’kmaw citizen and someone else can be a Canadian citizen, but still have a mutual interest in protecting the environment. Whether someone votes in federal and provincial elections, or like me, does not vote in elections – we all still share the desire to protect our waterways. One can be Maliseet and someone else French, but still feel it important protect our cultures for future generations. I have no intention of letting Harper erase me, my family, my home community or Mi’kmaw Nation. Let’s put our heads together about a plan of action. Extra sources: http://pi.library.yorku.ca/ojs/index.php/crsp/article/viewFile/35220/32057 http://www.oba.org/en/pdf/sec_news_sept11_c3_palm.pdf http://lawandstyle.ca/opinion_first_nations_fiasco/ http://fusemagazine.org/2012/07/35-3_palmate

  • Low Blows, Threats and Sideswipes – Nothing Can Silence Grassroots First Nations

    Welal’in, Woliwon, Nia:wen, Chi Miigwetch, and thank you to all the First Nations people who took the time to write me letters, call me, come visit me in person, or who sent e-mails, Tweets and/or commented on my blog posts, news articles and media. I know how crazy politics makes people feel; how confusing the many conflicting reports, positions and media stories can be; and how hopeless it might feel when you think no one hears your voice. I lived my whole life as an Indigenous women, a Mi’kmaw, on the outside. I was denied my Indian status for 40 years because of the gender of my grandmother. I was denied band membership for 40 years because my band didn’t want to include my family, or families like us. I was denied a voice at the local, regional, provincial, and national First Nation political levels. I know, however, that this is a function of colonization and Canada’s control over our communities. Because of this exclusion, I was never able to take my Mi’kmaw identity or that of my children’s for granted. I was always at risk of losing it forever due to some new law, regulation or band rule that could exclude us for any number of reasons. I therefore followed the lead of my brothers and sisters and exercised my voice in whatever  venue I could to stand up for our traditional Indigenous identities. This included off-reserve Aboriginal organizations, native friendship centres, Aboriginal women’s groups and First Nations organizations. In the past, I have been kicked out of First Nation political meetings for being too young, for being a woman, for being a non-status Indian, for living off-reserve, or for allegedly not knowing anything about politics. You name it and I have experienced it. I have been forced to sit at the back of the room (if allowed in at all) and have been called every name in the book. This was all because I was exercising my voice – something my father told me was critically important to the well-being of the Mi’kmaq and for all Indigenous peoples. Nevertheless, this used to really hurt me – a sort of hurt that I can’t even explain. It hurt my spirit but I could also feel it deep inside my chest, like a painful pressure that would not go away. It didn’t matter how many times my family explained that these people were just angry, disillusioned, hurting or bitter, every single rejection of my identity or my voice created a scar on my heart. I didn’t fully understand the concept of colonization at the time. What I found very confusing was that as I got more involved in Indigenous issues and exercised my voice in a variety of forums, provincial and federal government officials as well as lawyers would treat me the same way that some First Nations politicians did. I was told I could not attend meetings where we were negotiating fishing rights or employment programs for off-reserve Aboriginal peoples because I was too young, I was not really an Indian, I was not an elected official, I had no “expertise”, I had no education, I was not a lawyer and so on and so on. There were times when the words used around the table were so vicious, that it took everything in me not to cry. I used to think that crying would somehow disqualify me from any hope of ever having a real voice in the political, legal, cultural and social issues affecting the Mi’kmaw Nation. I thought that crying would prove that Indigenous women should not be around the table talking politics. I used to wonder if my family encouraged me to attend meetings, protests and all those hard negotiations when I was little just to help me develop a tough outer shell. Its hard to say now, but I will admit, that although I did not cry at the negotiating table, I was crying on the inside. It seemed like I was not man enough, old enough, educated enough or Indian enough for any of the players around the table. This might explain my ongoing obsession with politics, law and getting an education. I figured maybe they would all run out of reasons if I just addressed them all. At the time, I was still thinking that it was my many deficiencies that were at fault. I was raised to believe that my purpose in life was to live an honourable life as a Mi’kmaw and do everything in my power to protect that way of life for future generations. I don’t know any other way of being or thinking in this world. People can say I have no right to speak because I am an Indigenous woman but I will still speak. Some might say, my opinions don’t count because I am not a Chief, but I will still share them. Some might even say that there is no room in First Nations politics for critique, but I will still offer it. Regardless of how many low blows, threats or cowardly sideswipes people might take at me, I have no choice but to keep exercising my voice. How could I possibly back down when I am so fortunate as to have a warm house, clean running water, healthy food to eat and a good paying job? What excuse could I use to stop advocating on behalf of our grassroots people given that I am so lucky to have both a traditional education (Mi’kmaw teachings) and a formal one (university). Not all of our people are so lucky – many of them don’t even have enough hope to survive until tomorrow. I have seen the toll this takes on family members, friends and community members when all hope is lost – depression, addiction, violence, and even suicide. I don’t have the luxury of fading into the background because some Senator, MP, Chief or right-wing lunatic wants to threaten me into silence. What kind of warrior would I be if I did that? If my ancestors can survive scalping laws, residential schools and forced sterilizations, I can survive a little political heat. One of the benefits of my education is that I have also come to learn that we all suffer from being colonized and that some of us are not as far along the road to decolonizing. Every time someone tells me I am only a section 6(2) Indian and not a real Indian (like presumably a section 6(1)(a) Indian) – I know that is colonization talking. I know that those who exclude off-reserve members, discriminate against Indigenous women or prioritize individual wealth over communal well-being, often don’t realize how deeply embedded colonial thinking can be. Decolonization is so important in order to get the colonizer out of our heads once and for all and to build our resistance to Canada’s never-ending attempts to assimilate us legally, politically, culturally and spiritually. Take for example the fact that Canada always demands that we, as Indigenous peoples, speak with “one voice”. This is part of their racializing us into one generic category of “Indian”. The legal and political category of Indian ignores our very diverse Indigenous Nations, territories, knowledges, languages, cultures, beliefs and practices. We have lived on Turtle Island since time immemorial and never did we ever speak with one voice. We had strategic alliances between individuals Nations when it was mutually beneficial and at other times we went to war to defend our peoples and our territories. The Mohawks have their own voice, as do the Mi’kmaq, the Cree and many others. I haven’t studied or researched one Indigenous Nation yet that did not allow their citizens to be included in the decision-making process, to speak their minds, and have their voices heard and incorporated – all in different ways. Traditionally, some Indigenous Nations were so committed to the principle of exercising the voice of the people and respecting the different political visions and objectives that an entire community could separate into two, to allow both groups to pursue their own objectives, but still within the larger Nation. So when I hear our own people demanding that we all speak with one voice, I shiver at the thought of how we might unify ourselves into oblivion instead of protecting our inherent differences which make us who were are as Indigenous Nations. I know that it was Canada that imposed these discriminatory laws and concepts on us, excluded our women, changed our leadership to be top down and male-dominated, but we have a choice. We can open our eyes and make the changes we want for our peoples. It won’t be easy and the government backlash might even seem intolerable at times, but we have an obligation to give a voice back to our grassroots Indigenous peoples. Our ancestors did not give up their lives so that a few hundred Indigenous peoples could speak for the rest of us. Every single Indigenous person in every Indigenous Nation deserves to be heard. They are entitled to express their pain and frustration at slow progress and entitled to be critical about the current political relationship that is simply not working. They don’t need to have Phd’s, law degrees or be officially appointed as “critics” to do so. Grassroots Indigenous peoples hold all the power and yet their views and critiques are often ignored or downplayed. We expect them to be there when our leaders call for a day of action or to stop a pipeline or halt mining – but how often do leaders take the time to listen to them? What about all of our children trapped in the child welfare system, our men and women caught in the prison system or lost on streets in major cities? How many of our leaders have visited a homeless shelter for Native men and heard their stories of pain and their desires to make their communities better? Instead, our grassroots get to see some of their leaders from afar, addressing government officials or corporate Canada in fancy dinners or speaking events. Over time, I have noticed that many First Nations leaders have come to see the colonization project for the destructive force that it is, and some of those same chiefs that kicked me out of meetings when I was younger are now my good friends. I have also had the privilege of working with many, many First Nations communities and leaders on issues of critical importance to our peoples and have developed great working relationships. They have come to realize that we are on this journey together and all I am trying to do is help and be a part of the solution. Sadly, there remain some on the national political scene who have not moved on and still treat Indigenous women and grassroots peoples like our opinions don’t count. So, my best advice to those individuals who seek to deny me exercising my voice or would deny the voices of other grassroots Indigenous peoples, you can stop with all the insults, taunts, cowardly sideswipes and threats – because the power of the people is where it is at and the sooner you get on board, the faster we can get on with resisting Canada’s aggressive assimilatory attacks and re-asserting our sovereignty together.

  • UNIMAGINABLE, BUT UNDENIABLE: GENOCIDE IN CANADA

    I am moved to write this blog because of Minister Duncan’s outrageous remarks that residential schools were NOT cultural genocide. This has led to discussions about whether or not the murder, torture and abuse of Indigenous peoples in this country “qualifies” as genocide, given the more recent, and much more distant atrocities committed in countries like Rwanda. Rwanda gained international attention because upwards of 800,000 people died in less than a year by brutal means. The Srebenica genocide resulted in the murder of approximately 8,000 Bosnian men and women in 1995. The holocaust of millions of Jewish people is likely the most famous of all. These events all took place far away from our shores in North America and allowed Canadians and Americans to point across the sea and shake their heads in horror and disgust. North Americans have been able to rewrite their own histories so that they don’t have to face the atrocities committed here at home. They have the benefit of majority power which means that their teachers speak of peace and friendship with the Indians, their priests speak of saving Indians, and their politicians speak of things like reconciliation. Meanwhile, the horrors committed against our peoples, which resulted in the largest genocide in the planet’s history is a story that never gets told. As a lawyer, a professor and someone who does alot of public speaking about issues impacting our peoples, I am often faced with the question of whether genocide really happened here in North America (a place we call Turtle Island and includes Canada and the United States). When I answer unequivocally yes, the first reaction is usually – “You can’t seriously compare colonization with the vicious murders in Rwanda”? I agree – there is is no comparison. It was a different place, at a different time, with different methods and results. What I am saying is that what happened to our people on Turtle Island fits EVERY criteria of the international definition of genocide. In 1948, after the atrocities committed against the Jewish people in WWII, the United Nations passed the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. http://www.un.org/millennium/law/iv-1.htm The Convention declared that genocide was a crime in international law regardless of whether it was committed during a time of peace or war. Any punishment is NOT limited by time or place and there is no immunity for public bodies, government officials or individuals. They defined genocide as follows: “The Convention defines genocide as any of a number of acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group: – killing the members of the group; – causing serious bodily harm or mental harm to members of the group; – deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; – imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and – forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.” That is not my definition – that is the definition by international law standards for which ALL nations are bound and Canada and the United States are no exceptions. Canada signed this Convention on November 28, 1949. The United States signed on December 11, 1948. Thus, in order for an act to be considered genocide, it does not require that all components be present, nor does it require that the entire group be eliminated. However, in both Canada’s case and that of the United States, ALL components of genocide are present. Specifically here in Canada: (1) killing members of the group – the deliberate infecting of blankets with small pox and sending them to reserves; – the enacting of scalping laws which encouraged settlers to kill and scalp Indians for a monetary reward; – the deliberate infecting of Indigenous children with infectious diseases in residential schools which led to their deaths; – the deliberate abuse, torture, starvation, and denial of medical care to Indigenous children forced to live at residential schools which resulted in as many as 40% dying in those schools; – the killing of our people by police and military through starlight tours, tazering, severe beatings, and by unjustified shootings; – the killing of our people resulted in severely reduced populations, and some Nations completely wiped out; – in the US, some groups were exterminated by up to 98%; (2) causing serious bodily harm or mental harm to the members of the group; – think of the torture and abuse inflicted on Indigenous children in residential schools like sexual abuse, rape, sodomy, solitary confinement, denial of food and medical care, and severe beatings for speaking one’s language, etc; – imagine the mental harm to Indigenous families and communities when their children were forcibly removed from them and left to die in residential schools; – even when residential schools were starting to close, social workers in the 1960’s onward stole children and placed them out for adoption in non-Indigenous families; – the torture and abuse of Indigenous peoples in order to force them to sign treaties and agreements; – the loss of language, culture, traditions, practices, way of life, beliefs, world views, customs; – the imposed divisions in families, communities and Nations through the Indian Act (3) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; – think of the deliberate and chronic underfunding of essential social services on reserve like housing, water, food, sewer and other programs fundamental to the well-being of a people like education and health; – the theft of all the lands and resources of Indigenous peoples and their subsequent confinement to small reserves where the law prevented them from leaving and providing for their families and so were left to starve on the rations provided by Canada; – or the relocations of Indigenous communities from resource rich areas to swamp lands where they could not provide for themselves; – Indian Affairs who divided large nations into small communities, located them physically away from one another, – the Indian Act led to the physical separation of Indigenous women and children from their communities through the Act’s assimilatory registration provisions; (4) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; – the forced sterilizations of Indigenous women and men, most notably in Alberta and British Columbia; – the Indian Act’s discriminatory registration provisions which prevent the descendants of Indigenous women who married non-Indian men to be recognized as members of their community thus keeping their births from being recognized as part of the group; – the discriminatory INAC policy which prevents the children of unwed mothers from registering their children as Indians and part of their communities (unstated and unknown paternity); (5) forcibly transferring children of the group to another group – the long history of residential schools which had an express stated purpose – “to KILL the Indian in the child” and to ensure that there were no more Indians in Canada; – the 60’s scoop which saw the mass removal of Indigenous children from their homes and adopted permanently into non-Indigenous homes; – the prevention of children from being members in their communities due to the discriminatory Indian Act registration provisions; – the current high rate of children removed from their families which out numbers residential schools and 60’s scoop combined. Unfortunately, I could provide many more examples, but there is no need to do so when what is listed above more than meets the definition of genocide. So, when the Minister of Indian Affairs says that residential schools were NOT a form of cultural genocide, he is not only undoing what good the public residential schools apology did, but he is denying all of the horrors committed by Canada on our peoples – in essence, he is denying our lived realities. Watch the clips of Minister Duncan on APTN’s InFocus show that we just did on Nov.4, 2011 on the issue of assimilation and genocide in Canada: Part 1 of APTN InFocus: http://aptn.ca/pages/news/2011/11/04/november-4th-part-1/ Part 2: http://aptn.ca/pages/news/2011/11/04/november-4th-%e2%80%93-part-2/ I find it hard to believe that while the Truth and Reconciliation Commission is going around Canada, that the Minister of Indian Affairs would be so disrespectful. Not only were residential schools “lethal” for some languages, cultures and family relations, it was literally “lethal” for almost half the children that attended. How much more lethal would he want it to be? 60%, 70%, 80%? The Prime Minister should immediately remove Minister Duncan from his position. That won’t happen of course, because the Conservative government STILL has a policy objective of assimilating Indians. The Indian Act’s registration provisions are modern day evidence of that. I invite you all to watch the documentary entitled: The Canary Effect. It is only one hour long, but is very difficult to watch. It hurts the spirit in so many ways and I imagine will be difficult for uninformed non-Indigenous people to accept. While it relates primarily to genocide against our Indigenous peoples in the United States, much of what is said applies equally in Canada. http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/canary-effect/ We are in the fight of our lives and we need to turn the tide of this war around. We have to stop blaming ourselves and believing the lies that we were told. We are not inferior, we are not genetically pre-disposed to dysfunction, our men are not better than our women, and we certainly did not EVER consent to genocide against our people. All the dysfunction, addictions, ill health, suicides, male domination and violence is all the result of what Canada did to us. We are not each others’ enemies. We have to forgive ourselves for being colonized – none of that is who we really are as Indigenous peoples. Our people are beautiful, proud, strong, and resilient. We honour our ancestors by surviving. Now we have to honour our future generations by thriving. Our children carry our ancestors in their hearts and minds. They carry the strength, honour and passion of our ancestors in their blood. Our generation must find a way, despite all the barriers in our way, to love, support and nurture our children so that we can rise up and take back our sovereignty, our honour, and our future. Our children will still go through the pain of knowing what has been done and is currently done to our people by Canada, and all the dysfunction that it has created, but maybe they will finally know where to direct the anger and stop turning it inward and hurting themselves. That anger can be focused into passion which can then be channelled into action for our people.  Our future depends on our children loving themselves and having hope. We can’t ever let them lose that. Canada may want us to disappear, but we don’t have to let it happen. All my relations… P.S. In case you want to express your concern to Minister Duncan, his e-mail is john.duncan@parl.gc.ca