With the warming of the days that comes with summer and the positive effect a little vacation and relaxation has on many of us, I had hoped that the red necks would be able to take some time off as well. Yet, this latest advertisement for Eska Water is another testament to the fact that racism in Canada is an ongoing problem that doesn’t just surface when there is tension or disagreement – but is, in fact, so embedded in some parts of the population that they themselves don’t even recognize it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfNDFdZVDE8 Some of you may think that I am being too harsh and that none of the folks as Eaux Vives Canada Inc ever “intended” for anyone to take offence. http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/canada/native-group-wants-racist-water-ad-pulled-58789.html Some of you might also feel that if any of us don’t like the ad, we should simply refrain from watching it. Alternatively, it has been suggested that anyone who is offended by the ad should take solice in the fact that the ad was intended to be “funny” and not meant to represent any particular group. Eaux Vives Canada has explained that they had no indication that anything in the ad might cause a problem – nothing to make them “suspect” an issue. In fact, Eaux Vives conducted a focus group of the local population and received “all positive feedback”. They admit, however, that there may not have been any First Nations people included in that sample. http://www.ctv.ca/generic/generated/static/business/article2089081.html Eaux Vives Canada Inc is responsible for approving such an ad, so this reflects very poorly on their company, including those in the senior-most positions who make the decisions. However, one should also shine the spotlight on the ad’s creators – KBS & P which stands for Kirshenbaum Bond Senecal and Partners. http://www.kbsp.com/ They are owned by MDC Partners Inc. A company that specializes in marketing. http://www.mdc-partners.com/#/agency/mdc_partners/2/about You’ll notice that KBS & P’s bigger clients include Coke, Levis, North Face and Victoria’s Secret. They work in the big leagues, so to speak, and either know better or should have known better. Further, for anyone who does any kind of advertising – be it print, television or online media – they all know or should know, the laws relating to discrimination, racism, hate crimes and limitations on free speech. Its not like these companies do not have access to legal advisors, community relations experts and senior management-types to appropriately review and approve public ads. Afterall, these ads don’t just sell products, they reflect on the character or lack thereof of the company and it’s leaders. That is why when the company’s spokesperson, Gilles Corriveau said to the media that the company had “no intention to hurt people”, he made the company look even worse. Anyone who studies anti-discrimination law knows that it is NOT the intention that counts – but the effect that it has on the person or groups offended. But more than that, big companies like Eska Water, KBS & P or MDC Partners cannot plead ignorance when they ALL have the resources, capacity and experience to know better. I might also ad that there are no shortage of people that work in the area of human rights, anti-discrimination, anti-racism, and First Nations issues. Any number of people, groups, organizations or universities could have been consulted to provide input on any number of ads that has the potential to impact certain groups in society. Let’s pretend no such experts or advisors exist, is there any excuse for not googling the issue of racism in the media and making sure that your company is adequately aware of the issue? I googled the issue just now and tons of sources came up. Even the first source that popped up would have made the company think twice – had they taken the time to read it: http://www.usask.ca/education/coursework/802papers/crawford/jamesc.html The issue, sadly, is much deeper than that. The company itself indicated that it may have failed to include First Nations people in their focus sample, which amounts to more than a mere oversight – some might even call it incompetent. There is no doubt that the company was trying to portray an Indigenous group, whether or not it was a fictional one. In so doing, they used stereotypes about what Indigenous people look and act like – neither of which were presented with accuracy, thoughtfulness or dignity. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSggKIAShbM Indigenous people in Canada and indeed all over the world must fight the colonially-imposed requirement to be “authentic” or “pure” Indians. The stereotype includes the requirement to live and behave as this did at some arbitrary and distant point in pre-contact times. Real Indians wear feathers, paint their bodies and carry around spears, arrows and other weapons. Real Indians are primitive and fierce and seek only to make war with non-Indians. These stereotypes are not just promoted in the media, but are also promoted by right-wing academics and governments. https://pampalmater.com/2011/03/no-natives-allowed-how-canada-breeds.html In the Eaux Vives Eska water ad, we see the age-old stereotype of purity. The mixing of orange juice with water is portrayed as being an offence to maintaining the purity of the water. Colonial governments have been obsessed with defining Indigenous peoples in terms of “purity” both legally and politically. Even Canada, through the Indian Act and other laws and policies, tries to exclude from legal recognition any Indigenous person who is not a “pure” Indian – i.e., someone who is mixed Indian and non-Indian (water and orange juice). http://www.vueweekly.com/front/story/blood_challenge/ This means that the public at large is constantly bombarded by these types messages and no consistent education about Indigenous realities in Canada. Even the omission of positive images of Indigenous peoples in the media serves to reinforce negative stereotypes. How often do you see an Indigenous woman consulted as a legal or political expert on the news, in the papers or in advertisements of any kind? What about Indigenous men as business analysts, foreign affairs experts or champions of human rights? We are led to believe that Aboriginal women are all victims of violence and Aboriginal men all corrupt leaders or criminals. It is simply not enough to say, if you don’t like the commercial don’t watch it. Even if we could be with out children and youth 24-hours a day, the fact is they will eventually be exposed to these sorts of ads. However, what is worse is that Canadians will be exposed to these kinds of ads and thus these old stereotypes will continue to be reinforced and played out in relations between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples in Canada. Consider the situation where racist jokes are told to co-workers but not the Indigenous person in an office. This still has the effect of creating a hostile work environment for the Indigenous person. I would argue that ads like Eska Water helps create a hostile country for Indigenous peoples where we are seen as the savage terrorists as opposed to the First Peoples. https://pampalmater.com/2011/05/from-savages-to-terrorists-justifying.html We as Indigenous people already know, that none of these stereotypes reflect our wonderfully diverse and rich realities, ways of being and relations. We do indeed have many social issues created and perpetuated by colonial governments, like the inequities in funding for essential services, Canada’s failure to live up to treaty and self-government obligations, the theft of our lands and the failure to share our resources with us – like water. Over 50% of First Nations in Canada have unsafe drinking water according to the Auditor General. http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/docs/parl_oag_201106_04_e.pdf The very least Eaux Vives Canada should have done was issue an IMMEDIATE apology. The hiring of a public relations firm shows more concern for minimizing loss of profit than for the humanity of others. They don’t need a meeting with First Nations leaders to know that the right thing to do is to pull the ad. What an insult for Eaux Vives Canada to make such a mockery of Indigenous peoples and profit from OUR water sources while First Nations are denied access to this and other basic necessities of life. This water ad serves, ironically, to highlight the problem in ideology (racist ad) and in practice (lack of clean water for First Nations). Racism has been ongoing in Canada for over 500 years since contact. It is time to acknowledge the problem and work towards addressing it.
Tag: discrimination
-
From Savages to Terrorists: Justifying Genocide of First Nations
I am moved to write this blog because a couple of my readers/listeners/followers have contacted me about comments I made a while back on Facebook where I was critical of the US using the codename “Geronimo” in the assassination of Bin Laden. I was critical about First Nations being publicly characterized as terrorists and some members of the public thought I was over-exaggerating the situation. In my view, this is a direct association between the world’s most notorious terrorist and an Indigenous hero. In their views, no one had really compared Indigenous peoples to terrorists and my alleged exaggeration would only cause more harm than good. I respect the fact that these individuals shared their viewpoints as it is only through this discussion and debate that these issues can be resolved. However, in this instance, the facts do not support their allegation. In fact, there is more than enough evidence which demonstrates a far-reaching pattern of racism and public vilifying of Indigenous peoples in Canada and even the United States. The terminology, description, and context used by government officials, politicians, academics, and others to describe Indigenous peoples is little more than propaganda used to justify the ongoing genocide in our Nations. Public outcries against Indigenous gangs, criminals, corrupt leaders and “terrorists” do not serve to improve relations between our peoples or undo the harms inflicted by the settler society, but instead act as a distraction from the crisis in First Nations poverty and the ongoing theft of our lands and resources and denial of our sovereignty. The characterization of our peoples as terrorists reinforces the notion of us vs. them and helps provide excuses for society to walk by our homeless, jail our youth, remove our children, murder our women, disempower and vilify our men, and support governments which provide funds for other countries while our communities lack drinking water, sewage, food, fire protection and schools – the basic necessities of life. Sadly, some of our own even partake in promoting the negative stereotypes against our people. As a lawyer, I fully realize that despite the fact that this is just a blog – which has no real rules, my readers will expect links to articles, documents, and reports which back up my argument. For those of you who doubt that First Nations have ever been called terrorists, I refer you to the following selected examples. Of course, these are only a few examples as there are far too many to include here and after a while it hurts my heart to read too much of this. (1) Tom Flanagan As you all likely know, Tom Flanagan is no fan of First Nations and in fact has strenuously advocated for their assimilation for years saying that “it has to happen”. His books, First Nations? Second Thoughts and Beyond the Indian Act: Restoring Aboriginal Property Rights have portrayed First Nations as “primitive”, “communists”, and “corrupt” and have also set their complex traditional property issues within the context of studies of “chimpanzees”. Here is the link to the book review I did of Beyond the Indian Act: http://reviewcanada.ca/reviews/2010/04/01/opportunity-or-temptation/ Flanagan, who is a political scientist who has focused on western political issues and First Nations, is now apparently a “security” expert and has authored a paper for the Canadian Defense and Foreign Affairs Institute in 2009 entitled “Resource Industries and Security Issues in Northern Alberta”. http://www.cdfai.org/PDF/Resource%20Industries%20and%20Security%20Issues%20in%20Northern%20Alberta.pdf In this paper, Flanagan argues that due to the “rapid expansion of natural-resource industries in northern Alberta, accompanied by growing environmentalist and aboriginal-rights movements” that “violent resistance to industrial development” is very possible from specific individuals like “saboteurs”, “eco-terrorists” and “First Nations”. While Flanagan explains that his paper could not deal with “Islamic terrorists” the focus of his paper was primarily on “security threats”. Some of the examples he used were the “Lubicon Cree”, the “Woodland Cree”, and “warrior societies” like the “Mohawks in Ontario and Quebec”. Flanagan creates fear in his argument that an “apocalyptic scenario” of “nightmare” proportions would arise if Indigenous warrior societies and eco-terrorists joined forces:
“A nightmare scenario from the standpoint of resource industries in northern Alberta would be a linkage between warrior societies and eco-terrorists. Members of warrior societies would brandish firearms and take public possession of geographical sites, while eco-terrorists would operate clandestinely, firebombing targets over a wide range of territory. The two processes could energize each other, leading in the extreme case to loss of life and a shutdown of industry over a wide area. But this apocalyptic scenario is unlikely to happen because the members of warrior societies and environmental activists are different types of people with different objectives. It would be difficult for them to maintain coordinated action for very long.”
But, then again, this is just his “expert” opinion. Does it really matter? I think most educated people would see Flanagan’s unsupported claims for what they are. However, one can’t ignore his political influence – having been Prime Minister Harper’s right hand man or his influence on an uneducated public. http://www.walrusmagazine.com/articles/the-man-behind-stephen-harper-tom-flanagan/ Sadly, his books, presentations and backroom influence will likely continue to promote the view of Indigenous peoples as terrorists for the sole purpose of justifying assimilatory state actions and laws. (2) Christy Blatchford Some of you may know Christie Blatchford, the “journalist” who wrote the book: Helpless in Caledonia: Caledonia’s Nightmare of Fear and Anarchy and How the Law Failed Us All about the situation in Caledonia. Her book portrays the Six Nations land claims as an unimportant issue as compared to what she calls the “lawlessness” in Caledonia. https://pampalmater.com/2011/01/update-tvo-agenda-botches-show-on.html She also appeared on TVO’s The Agenda to speak about her book and compared her coverage of the protests at Caledonia to the terrorist activities at “ground zero” in New York. http://www.tvo.org/cfmx/tvoorg/theagenda/index.cfm?page_id=7&bpn=779932&ts=2011-01-14 Just the fact that she held her book signing in Caledonia and brought “protection” with her perpetuated the stereotypical view that Indigenous peoples are inherently dangerous thugs and terrorists ready to strike at a moment’s notice. She got even more publicity for herself by bringing police to her book signing at a local university. http://www.totalwomanshow.com/News/Local/article/827023 (3) Canadian Military Then there is the Canadian military who have listed Mohawks as a threat to national security alongside terrorists like “communists”, “anarchists”, “Hezbollah”, “Tamils”, “Mexican Indians”, and “Northern Ireland’s paramilitary groups”. They specifically noted that: “The rise of radical Native American organizations, such as the Mohawk Warrior Society, can be viewed as insurgencies”. The manual defines an “insurgency” as “a manifestation of war and that “The military’s counter-insurgency actions “seeks not only to defeat the insurgents themselves, but the root causes of, and support for, the insurgency”. The manual itself can be accessed at this link: http://ceasefireinsider.files.wordpress.com/2007/04/counter-insurgency-operations-manual.pdf The military said in 2010 that they would apologize to the Mohawks, but no apology has been forthcoming: http://video.ca.msn.com/watch/video/military-apologizing-to-mohawks/16ahlo0dq http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Military+apologize+Mohawk+Warriors/4015748/story.html However, the Canadian military is not alone in its depiction of Indigenous peoples as terrorists. APTN was provided with copies of US State Department cables from Wikileaks where the US described “Indigenous terrorist groups” in Canada. APTN explains: “The cables, sent from the US embassy in Ottawa, and entitled Security Environmental Profile Response for Mission Canada, appear to be part of regular updates on the situation in the country.” http://aptn.ca/pages/news/2011/04/30/u-s-considers-native-canadian-groups-as-possible-terror-threats-embassy-cables/ (4) RCMP We also know that the anti-terrorism unit of the RCMP has been over-zealous in its monitoring of Indigenous peoples. If the RCMP did not consider Indigenous peoples to be terrorists, its anti-terrorism unit would not be actively monitoring Indigenous peoples. The unit has been known to use excessive force on Indigenous peoples alleged to be involved in “Native Issues”: http://www.turtleisland.org/news/wcw1.pdf In addition, in a confidential report written by the RCMP’s criminal intelligence unit, they argue that our Indigenous youth are a threat to to civil society alleging that “street gangs and violent activity” will continue to increase and that “organized crime” is especially a part of Mohawk communities. I received this information from an ATIP request in 2008. However, the RCMP did recognize that the Aboriginal populations are “marginalised”, have a “diminishing quality of life”, that the crimes committed by Aboriginal peoples are symptoms of “poverty” and “will only get worse” unless such poverty is addressed. They also highlight the Indian Act’s role in their destitution: “Many Aboriginal people find themselves limited in education and employment opportunities because of the social order created by the Indian Act”. So, if we know the causes of these situations, why doesn’t Canada go to war against poverty in our communities – instead of against us? Instead, the military, RCMP and sister enforcement agencies like DFO (Fisheries and Oceans) have intervened time and again to deny our rights at Kahnesatake, Burnt Church, Gustefsen Lake, Ipperwash, and other Indigenous territories. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsvG4KpFHOA First Nations are not the Terrorists: Historically, First Nations were viewed as “primitive” and “savages”. Even today, academics like Flanagan continue to promote that view of us. It is no longer acceptable to call us savages, so the new word is terrorist – a word used to justify a whole series of unjustified enforcement and military actions against our people. As far as the military is concerned, they are at “war” with us. Far worse, is the justification it gives Canadians to ignore the crisis of poverty in our communities and the ongoing discrimination faced by our people – men who are over-incarcerated, children who are removed from their families at epidemic proportions, or women who are murdered at alarming rates. It should be kept in mind that the Criminal Code of Canada prohibits acts of genocide which is defined not only as the direct killing of an identifiable group of people, but the creating of conditions that lead to their early deaths. In fact, if one were to tally the casualties of war, I think we would see that we are the ones who have suffered and continue to suffer. The fact that our struggles to survive and preserve our lands, resources, cultures, languages and histories for our future generations are considered as acts of “war”, “insurgency” or “terrorism” is more than mere discrimination – it is propaganda designed to justify the continued assimilation and genocide of our people. http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/aaron_huey.html Here is an excerpt from a memorial posted on Daniel Paul’s website related Native Americans: “Today I remember: The thousands of Cherokee, Creek, Choctaw, Seminole & Chickasaw People who suffered untold agony during the forced removal from their homelands in the 1830’s. Innocent men, women and little children perished in concentration camps or froze and starved to death on the Trail Where They Cried. The 90 women and children who died in the Bear River Massacre in southeastern Idaho. The 200 Cheyenne men, women and children who were slain at Sand Creek in eastern Colorado by the US Cavalry led by Col John Chivington, a Methodist minister who ordered his men to “Kill and scalp all, big and little; nits make lice.” The 200 murdered Blackfeet women and children who died at Maries River in northern Montana and the other 140 People who were left to freeze to death in the January cold. The 103 Cheyenne women and children who were butchered on the Washita River in western Oklahoma. The 200 to 300 Sioux who were slaughtered under a flag of truce at Wounded Knee, South Dakota. The 500 Sauk and Fox Indians led by Black Hawk who were massacred by militia forces while trying to negotiate a surrender. The Yuki’s and other tribes of Indians in California whose populations declined from 11,000 to less than 1000 because white men wanted the land to search for gold. Organized Indian hunts were held on Sundays and our People were killed for sport. The little children who were kidnapped from their homes and forced to attend BIA schools. Many of them died alone and lie in unmarked graves. From the small pox, measles, typhoid, cholera, diphtheria, TB, and VD epidemics brought to us by the white invaders to the continued genocide still being waged against us, we know about terrorism. And I remember.” We can never truly address the problem until Canada admits that it has one. Sadly, Prime Minister Harper’s statement that there was no colonisation in Canada does not give me much hope. http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/derrick/2009/09/harper-denial-g20-canada-has-no-history-colonialism Geronimo was a hero, not a terrorist. Many of our leaders who fought to protect our lands and our Nations and who signed treaties were also heros – not terrorists. How quickly the settlers forget that it was they who invaded our territories and killed our people. Many have asked about the solution. I don’t think there is one solutions. A complex mix of tactics are required. While we fight Canada on the political and legal front, we must also ensure we protect what we have left. It is therefore incumbent upon all of us to love and protect our people – regardless of how our actions are labelled. We are not the terrorists.
-
Bill C-3 Creates More Discrimination than it Remedies
As with all my blogs, the contents are my own personal views and should never be taken as legal advice. In my last blog, I provided some of my concerns with regards to Bill C-3 Gender Equity in Indian Registration Act which was introduced on March 11, 2010. The purpose of this blog will be to review Bill C-3 in much more detail. However, readers should be aware that this Bill is not yet law and must go through several more stages before it even has a chance at being law. First it is introduced in the House of Commons and given its first reading, which is really just a presentation of the Bill – like what Minister Strahl did with Bill C-3. It must then go through a second reading (where the principle of the Bill is debated) and then referred to committee for study. It is at this stage that the committee will hear witnesses and comments about each section of the Bill. The next stage is the report stage where amendments can be made and then this is followed by the third and final reading. If the Bill is passed by the House of Commons then it is sent to Senate where the process is repeated. Assuming that it passes through the Senate, then the Governor General can give the Bill “Royal Assent” and will become law on the day of assent unless the Bill says otherwise. There is still some time before this Bill becomes law, so it is very important that we all submit our comments and views about it to our Members of Parliament (MPs), Senators, Minister Strahl, our Aboriginal representative organizations, Liberal Aboriginal Affairs Critic, Todd Russell, and any other group or organization that you feel will bring the message forward on your behalf. I have already sent my letter to Minister Strahl and this blog will provide a brief overview of some of my comments/concerns. First of all, my providing comments to the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) does not equate with acceptance or agreement with Bill C-3 or its amendments. It is my opinion that Canada does NOT have the jurisdiction to determine our identities – legally, culturally, politically or otherwise. However, I realize that practically speaking, the Indian Act will be amended whether I agree or not and I would rather have my input into those changes than not. That being said, I do not condone such a limited amendment as that presented in Bill C-3 which clearly does NOT address all of the blatant gender discrimination in the status provisions of the Indian Act. This problem is only transported into the band membership rules as a result. In numerous discussions with other lawyers and community members, I have identified at least three very specific problems with the proposed amendments: (1) Section 6(1)(c.1)(iii) contains awkward, confusing wording that creates a great deal of uncertainty and ambiguity about what this section is meant to accomplish; (2) Section 6(1)(c.1)(iv) contains new, additional criteria that is discriminatory, illogical, counter to how status is normally transmitted, and completely unnecessary in order to effect a proper gender equity remedy; and (3) Section 9 contains an overly broad, offensive and unjust insulation from liability for Canada and the bands, for Canada’s role in creating and perpetuating gender discrimination against Indian women who married out and their descendants. I will deal with each of the above concerns separately and summarize my recommendations at the end. (1) Section 6(1)(c.1)(iii) specifically provides as follows: (iii) was born on or after the day on which the marriage referred to in subparagraph (i) occurred and, unless the person’s parents married each other prior to April 17, 1985, was born prior to that date, and… This section is awkwardly worded and as such creates a great deal of uncertainty about its potential application. What was Canada’s intention with this section? Where did this wording come from? I would recommend that section 6(1)(c.1)(iii) be amended for greater clarity with an explanatory note that very clearly specifies what it is meant to accomplish and how. (2) Section 6(1)(c.1)(iv) provides as follows: (iv) had or adopted a child, on or after September 4, 1951, with a person who was not entitled to be registered on the day on which the child was born or adopted; This section has the effect of creating a new way to determine entitlement to registration and, as a result, creates a new form of discrimination as between the siblings of the Indian women who married out. What this additional criterion does is determine entitlement to registration based on the status or lack thereof of the applicant’s children. Status has always been determined based on the entitlement of one’s parents, i.e. parents transmit their status to their children – not vice versa. This is both illogical and discriminatory. It is illogical because it does not reflect either the trial court’s or the Court of Appeal’s decision in McIvor. It is discriminatory because it creates new, inequitable distinctions between the sibling children of Indian women who married out. The problem can be seen in the following way: (1) If the children of Indian women who married out have Non-Status Indian children (or disentitled children), their children can only be registered under section 6(2) and cannot share in the same identity as their parent; will not be able to transmit status to their children in their own right; and will be excluded from membership in bands that exclude section 6(2) Indians or their equivalent. Despite the fact that the section 6(2) parent will become a section 6(1)(c.1) Indian and therefore have a higher chance of becoming a band member, they suffer in the sense that they can’t pass on equal identity and rights to their children and therefore their children have a higher chance of not being accepted in their community. (2) On the other hand, if the section 6(2) parent had status Indian children, then these section 6(1) Indian children have a higher chance of becoming band members than their section 6(2) parent who will remain as a section 6(2) Indian. In this way, the section 6(2) Indian parent will personally suffer for having had status Indian children, because they will not receive the Bill C-3 gender equity remedy solely because their children are status Indians. The descendants of Indian women who married out seem to be punished time and again for not being able to manage the Indian Act’s entitlement formula that is really designed to disentitle people. This is beyond unjust – it violates our inherent right to our Aboriginal identities and to be self-determining in our own individual and collective lives. Canada is once again interfering with the most private and intimate part of our lives – how and when and with whom we decide to have relations – in order to limit and/or reduce the status Indian population. Section 6(1)(c.1)(iv) ignores the gender discrimination imposed on the children of Indian women who married out and suggests that this discrimination skipped a generation and fell solely on the grandchildren and, as a result, only the grandchildren are entitled to a remedy. What could possibly be the purpose of this section, but to limit as much as possible, the number of status Indians who will be entitled to band membership and to limit the overall number of Indians in the future? I would recommend that section 6(1)(c.1)(iv) be deleted in its entirety. It is not necessary to achieve gender equity as a result of the McIvor case. (3) Section 9 provides as follows: 9. For greater certainty, no person or body has a right to claim or receive any compensation, damages or indemnity from Her Majesty in right of Canada, any employee or agent of Her Majesty, or a council of a band for anything done or omitted to be done in good faith in the exercise of theirpowers or the performance of their duties, only because (a) a person was not registered, or did not have their name entered in a Band List, immediately before the day on which this Act comes into force; and (b) one of the person’s parents is entitled to be registered under paragraph 6(1)(c.1) of the Indian Act, as enacted by subsection 2(3). This section is an insult to Indian women and their descendants all over this country. Not only was Canada forced to make amendments to address gender inequality after fighting against the McIvor case for over 20 years; and not only has Canada proposed a very minimalist amendment; now Canada wants to ensure that it does not have to compensate the victims of gender discrimination? When Bill C-31 was amended to reinstate Indian women who had married out, Canada denied compensation to Indian women who married out on the basis that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was not in effect pre-85 and it argued that it could not be held liable for laws that were not in effect at the time. However, the Charter has been in force for many decades since 1985 and Canada cannot now say they can’t be held liable for discriminatory actions that took place well after the Charter was in force. To do otherwise is to perpetuate the very negative stereotypes against Indian women that McIvor (and others) fought against – that they are less worthy, less Aboriginal, and less able to transmit their Aboriginality to their children simply by virtue of being Aboriginal women. Furthermore, findings of discrimination are based on effect, not on intention, and those victims that have suffered due to this discrimination deserve to be compensated – no less so that the victims of residential schools. Prime Minister Harper acknowledged that the assimilatory foundation upon which the residential school policy was designed was wrong; he apologized to the victims on behalf of all Canadians; and ensured that the victims were compensated. Aside from the physical aspect of residential schools, Indian status has had the same harmful effects on Indians and especially Indian women, as residential schools. By discriminating against Indian women and their descendants, they have suffered separation from their communities, family divisions, loss of identity, culture, language and dignity. Furthermore, their continued lack of access to federal programs and services have greatly affect their quality of life and their overall chances in life. By denying compensation to Indian women and their descendants for the same types of harms as were suffered in residential schools, Canada sends the message that Aboriginal women are somehow not deserved of redress or compensation for the harms suffered from gender discrimination created by Canada under the Indian Act. If there was any doubt as to the continued discrimination against Indian women, even in this amendment meant to address gender inequity, one need only refer to the privileged and protected positions of status of Indian men and their non-Indian wives and descendants. Throughout this process, non-Indians have been and continue to be protected under the Indian Act simply because of their association with Indian men. Non-Indian women who married Indian men gained status and benefits and non-Indian children were adopted and gained status. Not only did these non-Indians gain status, they were entitled to all the benefits, rights and interests that go with that status, including band membership, reserve residency, voting and running in band elections and a share of treaty and land claim benefits. The preservation of their status is guaranteed at every turn, where Indian women and their descendants must continually fight for it. Yet, non-status Indian children who are Aboriginal by birth, identity and culture, were excluded on the basis of gender discrimination which was known by Canada to be discriminatory and which has since been found to be discriminatory. Even with this minimalistic and highly problematic Bill C-3, there still won’t be gender equality between Indian men and women. The majority of parents struggling with poor socio-economic conditions in Aboriginal communities are single Indian mothers. The majority of off-reserve Aboriginal people suffering from poor socio-economic conditions are the descendants of Indian women who married out. Canada has publically stated that access to educational opportunities is the key to improving life for Aboriginal peoples. How many Indian women and their descendants could have gone to university to make a better life for themselves, their children, their families and communities had they been registered? I would recommend that section 9 either be deleted in its entirety or amended to provide limited protections for the bands and only in relation to the determination of status. Summary of Recommendations: (1) Section 6(1)(c.1)(iii) should be amended for greater clarity with an explanatory note as to what it is meant to accomplish; (2) Section 6(1)(c.1)(iv) should be deleted in its entirety; and (3) Section 9 should either be deleted in its entirety, or amended to provide limited protection for the bands in regards to status only. I hope that you will all consider my comments and offer your own feedback to our elected leaders so that gender discrimination is not perpetuated, but is finally addressed.