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
Tag: First Nations
-
Bill S-2 – Family Homes on Reserves: Protection or Threat?
On Wednesday, September 28, 2011. Minister John Duncan introduced Bill S-2 An Act Respecting Family Homes Situated on First Nation Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights in or to Structures and Lands Situated on Those Reserves in the Senate where it had its First Reading. The short name for this proposed legislation is Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act. The full text can be found at this link: http://www.parl.gc.ca/content/hoc/Bills/411/Government/S-2/S-2_1/S-2_1.PDF As some of you may recall, this is the fourth attempt at passing federal legislation that would address what Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) is referring to as a ‘legislative gap’ in relation to how property gets divided upon the break up of a common law relationship or marriage. The previous bills, Bill C-8, Bill C-47 and Bill S-4 all died on the order paper, but not before Aboriginal organizations, First Nations, Indigenous women, and other groups like family law lawyers and the Canadian Bar Association all unanimously testified against the bills. Now, with a majority government, the Harper Conservatives plan to ram this legislation through Parliament against our will. INAC has again introduced this legislation without engaging in formal legal consultations with those First Nations whose constitutionally protected Aboriginal and Treaty rights may be negatively impacted. Given that this is national legislation that will apply to ALL First Nations and given that reserve lands are protected in the Indian Act, the Constitution Act, 1982, and various Treaties, land claims and self-government agreements, there is no doubt that this legislation requires formal legal consultation as envisioned in the Guerin, Delgamuukw, Haida, Taku and Mikisew decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada. The majority of my concerns in relation to this legislation were explained in earlier blogs in relation to the previous Bill S-4 by the same name. My previous blogs were entitled: Bill S-4: An Empty Shell of a Legislative Promise https://pampalmater.com/2010/06/bill-s-4-empty-shell-of-legislative.html Bill S-4: Backdoor Assimilation and Land Grab https://pampalmater.com/2010/06/bill-s-4-backdoor-assimilation-and-land.html Bill S-4: A Step Back in Time https://pampalmater.com/2010/06/bill-s-4-step-back-in-time.html Letter to editor of Globe & Mail re Bill S-4 https://pampalmater.com/2010/07/letter-to-editor-of-globe-mail-re-bill.html In these previous blogs, I explained the history, the development of the bill, my main concerns with it and my recommendations to amend it. These are the same concerns I brought forward when I testified as an independent expert witness before the Senate Standing Committee on Human Rights on June 7, 2010 in relation to Bill S-4. I am not sure if I will be called again to testify in relation to this ‘new’ bill, but I hope so. The following is a link to my official submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Human Rights in relation to Bill S-4: http://www.nonstatusindian.com/docs/Presentation2SenateCommittee-HumanRights.pdf I have read through the new bill in its entirety and while some amendments have been made, the core essence has remained and will have a significant impact not only on the nature and legal status of reserve lands generally, but specifically in relation to who can hold, occupy, use and benefit from reserve lands. Given that most First Nations have medium to high rates of out-marriage (marriages to non-Indians), the exclusive ‘benefit’ of reserve lands to which Indians are entitled could be significantly reduced, if not completely eliminated in some First Nations. If there is any right of First Nations men, women, and children that demands full and informed consultation, accommodation and consent, is that of their constitutionally and now internationally protected rights in their own reserve lands. The current lack of consultation is criminal and any attempt to pass this legislation will not only breach our treaties, land claims, and self-government agreements, but will create an additional significant and substantial harm to Indigenous women who have only asked for justice – not a loss of their collective Aboriginal rights. If Tom Flanagan’s and Manny Jules’ plan to privatize reserves does not eliminate our reserves, this bill surely will. Stand up, make your voice heard and protect what little land we have left for our future generations! For all you rabble fans, this blog and others can also be viewed on rabble.ca under blogs! http://rabble.ca/blogs
-
First Nations Sign Agreement with Federal and Provincial Governments in NB to Negotiate Self-Government
It was reported earlier this week that 10 out of 15 First Nations in NB signed an agreement with the federal and provincial governments to negotiate self-government. It was then subsequently reported that all 15 First Nations in NB have signed on. However, after speaking with several First Nations, I understand that only 10 First Nations signed, and only one was Maliseet. I don’t have an original signed copy, but I have been provided with the text by one of the First Nations. Many people have been emailing me and asking for a copy of the agreement which I have copied below. Please always refer to the original as the official document: MI’GMAG, WOLASTOQIYIK, NEW BRUNSWICK and CANADA UMBRELLA AGREEMENT -among- THE MI’GMAG AND WOLASTOQIYIK PEOPLES IN NEW BRUNSWICK, as represented by the Chiefs of the Mi’gmag and Wolastoqiyik First Nations in New Brunswick (“the Mi’gmag and Wolastoqiyik in New Brunswick”) -and- THE PROVINCE OF NEW BRUNSWICK, as represented by the Minister Responsible for the Aboriginal Affairs Secretariat of New Brunswick (“New Brunswick”) -and- THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA, as represented by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (“Canada”) Collectively referred to as “the Parties”: RECITALS: WHEREAS The Mi’gmag and Wolastoqiyik Peoples assert that they have used and occupied their Traditional Lands since time immemorial in accordance with principles of stewardship and responsibility given to them by the Creator; and The Parties wish to renew and strengthen their government-to-government-togovernment relationship; and The Parties are dedicated to the principles of good faith, openness, mutual honour and respect; and The Parties are committed to formal tripartite discussions in order to address outstanding issues among the Parties; and The Parties recognize that the Mi’gmag and Wolastoqiyik in New Brunswick have not enjoyed the same standard of living as other New Brunswickers; and The Parties have a shared desire to work in partnership with the shared goal of improving the quality of life outcomes of the Mi’gmag and Wolastoqiyik in New Brunswick; and Page 2 of 7 The Mi’gmag and Wolastoqiyik Peoples and the British Crown entered into sacred Treaties. Those Treaties established a relationship based on peace and friendship; and The Parties intend to negotiate and implement agreements on Aboriginal and Treaty rights, including the right to self-government. THEREFORE THE PARTIES HAVE REACHED THE FOLLOWING UNDERSTANDINGS: OBJECTIVE OF THE UMBRELLA AGREEMENT 1) This Umbrella Agreement is designed to guide tripartite discussions with the aim of concluding a Framework Agreement on inter-governmental relationships and Aboriginal and Treaty rights and the self-government of the Mi’gmag and Wolastoqiyik in New Brunswick. 2) The Parties have targeted December 31, 2012 as the date by which they wish to have negotiated a Framework Agreement. PROCESS 3) The Parties shall establish a Coordinating Committee comprised of representatives appointed by each of the Parties to oversee the work undertaken under this Umbrella Agreement. In particular, the Coordinating Committee shall: a) Identify the subject-matters that are to be addressed under a Framework Agreement, such as, but not limited to: i. Lands and Resources; ii. Governance and Jurisdiction; iii. Economy Development and Sustainability; iv. Health; v. Education; and vi. Social and Cultural Development; b) Negotiate a tripartite agreement on consultation; c) Identify whether a sub-committee for any agreed to subject-matter should be established; d) Develop terms of reference and strategic work plans for itself and any proposed sub-committee; e) Propose interim agreements on issues of concern to the Parties and develop methods for their implementation; f) Coordinate, monitor and evaluate progress made on the work undertaken under this Umbrella Agreement; g) Ensure that its representatives report on an ongoing basis, and at least quarterly, to their respective principals on work progress; and Page 3 of 7 h) Ensure that annual budgets, work plans and any reporting requirements related to funding agreements are completed and processed in a timely manner. 4) Upon consideration of an annual work plan and the funding resources available, Canada and New Brunswick will cost-share funding under this Umbrella Agreement. STATUS AND INTERPRETATION OF THE UMBRELLA AGREEMENT 5) Except for sections 5 to 14, this Umbrella Agreement and the work undertaken pursuant to this Umbrella Agreement do not create any legal obligations which are binding on the Parties unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Parties. 6) This Umbrella Agreement and the work undertaken pursuant to this Umbrella Agreement shall: a) be on a “without prejudice” basis with respect to the legal rights or positions of the Parties, including the Aboriginal and Treaty rights of the Mi’gmag and Wolastoqiyik in New Brunswick; b) be deemed not to create, define, alter or affect the legal rights or positions of the Parties, including the Aboriginal and Treaty rights of the Mi’gmag and Wolastoqiyik in New Brunswick; c) not be construed to be, or deemed to be, consultation for the purpose of justification by Canada or New Brunswick for the infringement of any Aboriginal or Treaty rights of the Mi’gmag and Wolastoqiyik in New Brunswick; and d) not preclude any other discussion or initiative between: i. the Mi’gmag and Wolastoqiyik in New Brunswick, or individual Mi’gmag and Wolastoqiyik First Nations and New Brunswick, or ii. the Mi’gmag and Wolastoqiyik in New Brunswick, or individual Mi’gmag and Wolastoqiyik First Nations and Canada on matters of mutual concern. 7) Except for the purpose of enforcing sections 5 to 14 or unless otherwise agreed in writing the Parties undertake not to tender or seek admission of this Umbrella Agreement or the content of meetings, discussions, negotiations, documents generated or positions taken in or during the process contemplated hereunder as evidence in a court of law or before any administrative or regulatory tribunal or board. This undertaking shall survive the termination of this Umbrella Agreement unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Parties. 8)
Notwithstanding any other provision of the Umbrella Agreement, any Party may refer to publicly and may lead evidence regarding the Parties, date of operation, existence and purpose of this Umbrella Agreement and the frequency of and participants in meetings held pursuant to its operation before a court, regulatory tribunal, board or similar body. Page 4 of 7 9) This Umbrella Agreement shall come into force and effect on the date of its signatures by Canada, New Brunswick, and the First Nations’ Chiefs in New Brunswick provided: a) A majority of the First Nation Chiefs in New Brunswick execute this Umbrella Agreement; and b) The Chiefs who execute this Umbrella Agreement are leaders of those First Nations whose members constitute at least fifty per cent plus one person (50% + 1) of the federally registered Indian population in New Brunswick. 10) Any New Brunswick Mi’gmag or Wolastoqiyik First Nation, as represented by its respective Chief, may upon three months written notice to all the Parties, hereto join, withdraw, or rejoin this Umbrella Agreement. 11) If one or more of the Mi’gmag or Wolastoqiyik First Nation(s), as represented by the respective Chief(s), decides to withdraw from this Umbrella Agreement pursuant to section 10, this Umbrella Agreement shall not automatically terminate. 12) If, at any time, the First Nation Parties to this Umbrella Agreement fall below the majority of Chiefs or the majority consists of Chiefs representing less than fifty per cent plus one person (50% + 1) of the federally registered Indian population in New Brunswick, the Parties will consider whether to terminate this Umbrella Agreement. 13) Notwithstanding section 12, Canada or New Brunswick may withdraw or rejoin this Umbrella Agreement upon three months written notice to all the Parties. 14) Notwithstanding sections 10 to 13, the agreements, understandings, undertakings and commitments set out in sections 5 to 9 all continue in effect unless the Parties otherwise agree in writing. Page 5 of 7 Signed at _______________, New Brunswick, the _______day of ___________, 2011. Representing the Mi’gmag and Wolastoqiyik in New Brunswick I am told that the last two pages are just the signature pages. A special thank you to my friends, family and colleagues in NB First Nation who help keep me informed on what is happening back home. It is hard being so far from home, but you all make it easier. Hope this helps. Please e-mail if you have any more questions. -
Ontario’s Invisible People – Where are Aboriginal Issues in the Ontario Election?
So in case you didn’t know, the Ontario provincial election is happening in 4 weeks on Thursday, October 6, 2011. There is lots of election activity happening in Ontario and lots of confusing political messages and attack ads on tv. Elections can be very confusing, especially to our younger population who may be voting for the first time. http://www.electionalmanac.com/canada/ontario/ The contenders for the top spot of Premier are: (1) Progressive Conservative Party’s Tim Hudak; (2) New Democrat Party’s Andrea Horwath; (3) Green Party’s Mike Schreiner; and (4) Liberal Party’s Dalton McGuinty. McGuinty is the current incumbent (i.e., he is currently in the position of Premier and hoping to be re-elected). You are entitled to vote in this upcoming election if: (1) you are at least 18 years old, (2) a Canadian citizen, (3) you reside in an electoral district and (4) have not already voted. This means that for those Aboriginal people in Ontario who want to, you can vote in this election. http://wemakevotingeasy.ca/en/who-can-vote.aspx However, if you do vote, I STRONGLY suggest that you read the election platforms (i.e., promises made by politicians about what they will do if elected) of each party beforehand. It is not because I believe that most contenders will fulfill all their election promises, but if they are not making ANY promises in relation to key issues that concern you, then this should act as a major red flag. As a Mi’kmaw woman who now lives in Ontario, my primary concern is for the First Nations living in Ontario and how their views, concerns, needs, rights and interests will be addressed by each party. I don’t vote in elections, so I won’t be voting, but I participate in other ways, like helping to inform others about who and what they are voting for – if they do. It is for this reason that I have gone through all of the election platforms, including the Liberal Plan which was just released today. The first thing that struck me was that not a SINGLE plan mentioned Aboriginal peoples at all. There was no mention of First Nations, Métis, Inuit, or their rights, interests or needs. The solitary reference to Aboriginal peoples was in the Conservative’s tough on crime section of their platform where they made a reference to “illegal” activity on reserves. Tim Hudak and the Conservative Party of Ontario’s election platform is called the “Changebook” and can be found here: http://www.ontariopc.com/changebook/ Andrea Horwath and the NDP’s election platform is called “The Plan for Affordable Change” and can be found at this link: http://ontariondp.com/en/policy Mike Schreiner and the Green Party’s election platform is called: “It’s Time: A five point plan for Ontario’s future” and can be viewed here: http://www.gpo.ca/sites/gpo.ca/files/gpo_platform_2011.pdf Dalton McGuinty and the Liberal Party’s plan was just released today and is called: “Forward Together” and can be accessed at this link: http://www.ontarioliberal.ca/OurPlan/pdf/platform_english.pdf In all of the platforms, there are lots of nice pictures of happy white people riding bikes, taking strolls in the forest, holding hands, or working hard mining, farming, or assembling vehicles. All of the contenders for Premier themselves are all white people. There is not a single picture of a First Nation community, celebration or leader in all of these platforms. It is like we do not exist in Ontario. The province of Ontario has the LARGEST population of Aboriginal peoples of all the other provinces and territories. There are almost 300,000 Aboriginal people living in Ontario, which means that 21% of all Aboriginal people live in Ontario. Even more astounding is that 80% of the Aboriginal population living in Ontario lives OFF-RESERVE. There are also 133 First Nations within Ontario, making it the province with the second highest number of First Nations after British Columbia. http://www.aboriginalaffairs.gov.on.ca/english/services/datasheets/aboriginal.asp So why have we become invisible to Ontarians? Is Pikangikum’s child suicide crisis not visible enough? http://netnewsledger.com/2011/09/01/pikangikum-first-nation-faces-suicide-epidemic/ Or what about Attawapiskat’s deplorable school conditions? http://www.canadiangeographic.ca/magazine/dec10/attawapiskat.asp Or how about the long, unresolved land claims in Six Nations? http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/caledonia-landclaim/ I am sure that most people remember the senseless murder of Dudley George at Ipperwash: http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/inquiries/ipperwash/report/vol_4/pdf/E_Vol_4_Full.pdf What about the First Nations that live in the Ring of Fire and their Aboriginal and treaty rights? http://www.northernontariobusiness.com/Industry-News/mining/First-Nation-pushes-back-against–Ring-of-Fire–mine,-rail-project-510.aspx I could literally go on and on about the numerous Aboriginal issues and concerns in Ontario, but that is not the purpose of this blog. My point is to highlight that our issues have been completely ignored in this election. The only party that took any notice of First Nations was the Conservative Party, but not in a good way. True to right-wing form, they only mention First Nations is in the crime section of their platform. (see page 33) There, the First Nation traditional tobacco growing, manufacturing, and trading activities are characterized as “illegal”, “criminal”, and “dangerous” because it is run by “organized crime that uses it to fund their drug and weapons trades”. The Conservatives racist attack on First Nations is bolstered by their view that “honest businesses who are robbed of revenue, and every Ontario family, as we lose at least $500 million each year in tax revenue.” We, as First Nations people are invisible when we are dying of starvation, our children kill themselves at alarming rates or our schools are condemned. However, if there is even the most remote chance that we might be able to benefit from using OUR land or OUR resources, then they crack down with all their police, military, and legislative might to ensure that we stay where we belong: living in extreme poverty on reserves out of the hearts and minds of “honest”, “hard-working” Canadians. Even the Liberal platform, which labels Dalton McGuinty as the “Education Premier” brags for pages about the education levels and achievements of Ontario residents. Sure, Ontario can boast about 85% graduation rates, 75% of students exceeding provincial testing standards, and how they have invested $4 billion in new classrooms, libraries, buildings and labs. I guess it would not look very good for the Liberals to talk about Aboriginal education statistics. They will fall back on the jurisdictional argument that Aboriginal people are federal jurisdiction. Well, in fact, as the province knows very well, the only Aboriginal group that is definitively federal jurisdiction is First Nations living on reserve. Given that 80% of Aboriginal live OFF-RESERVE, this means that Ontario has at least some role to play in ensuring that EVERYONE who lives in Ontario has access to all these wonderful educational benefits. None of these candidates deserve our vote, but they do deserve to called on their lack of honesty and failure to stand up for EVERYONE who lives in Ontario. Speak up and call them on it. I know I will!
-
Canada’s Genocide?: Death by Poverty in First Nations
I apologize to all my readers about not posting lately. There are so many issues that I want to deal with and that need more attention, like: the failure of BC to provide funding to Aboriginal women’s groups to be able to participate in the Pickton Inquiry; the Conservative government’s subversion of the specific lands claims process by offering take-it-or-leave-it offers; the expert First Nation panel which has been a fiasco from its troubled beginnings, or the Conservatives pattern of censoring information. All of these issues I have tweeted about, but are deserved of their own blogs. However, as one person I only have so much time to do more things than I could finish in a lifetime. Currently, I am working on a journal article that will be published this fall on the pre-mature deaths of First Nations caused by the crisis of poverty created and maintained by Canada. This article is taking me much longer to write than usual because of the subject matter. As I type the words on each page, my heart gets heavier and heavier until I cannot hold my feelings anymore and have to walk away from the paper. Sometimes, when I am referring to very specific examples, stories of specific communities and individuals, I can’t help but cry. I am not crying for me, but for our Indigenous brothers and sisters who are denied their very lives by all the discriminatory laws, policies, and barriers imposed on First Nations by Canada. Often times we hear these words so often from our leaders and various advocacy organizations that the public hears it only as rhetoric – an exaggeration of the actual situation in First Nations. Any publicity about a crisis in one of our communities is quickly downplayed by allegations of corruption or mis-spending in another. We are often blamed for the ill effects of colonization and systemic racism. Canada has perfected the ability to “defer, deflect and deny” the fact of First Nations dying by poverty. Creating these situations of life and death make “negotiations” about our Aboriginal and treaty rights and land claims much easier. We are so far from an equal bargaining position with Canada that any agreement arrived at today should be challenged as an imprudent bargain. This is what I am writing about in my article. This is the reason why I haven’t been able to post any blogs lately or update my website (which is in desperate need of an update). Here is an excerpt from my article that I am working on: However, it is not just the federal government’s own offices and agencies that have noted Canada’s lack of action on First Nation poverty and discrimination. The Ontario coroner’s report referred to earlier clearly linked the extreme poverty in Pikangikum First Nation to the high suicide rates among their children:
Pikangikum is an impoverished, isolated First Nations community where basic necessities of life are absent. Running water and indoor plumbing do not exist for most residents. Poverty, crowded substandard housing, gainful employment, food and water security are daily challenges. A lack of an integrated health care system, poor education by provincial standards and a largely absent community infrastructure are uniquely positioned against a backdrop of colonialism, racism, lack of implementation of self-determination and social exclusion. They all contribute to the troubled youth…[1]
What health care residents do receive is “fragmented, chaotic and uncoordinated” with “clear gaps in service”.[2] Their school burnt down in 2007 and has never been replaced despite empty promises by INAC to do so. The significant funding disparities that exist between First Nation and Canadian students means that the students who are the most disadvantaged and have the greatest needs, receive the least. A community of only 2400 people has 200 child welfare files open with 80 children in care. Due to the lack of housing and the high levels of overcrowding, these children are sent to foster homes far away from their communities. Should anyone be surprised by the fact that 16 children between the ages of 10-19 took their own lives between 2006 and 2008? Under the Criminal Code of Canada, section 318(2)(b) defines genocide as:
(2) In this section, “genocide” means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part any identifiable group, namely,
[1] Coroner report, at 93-94
[2] Ibid. at 95
[3] CCC section 318(2)(b)
As always, I welcome any comments or feedback you may have about any of my blogs. For the next little while however, there may be delays in my response so that I can finish this article.
-
INAC’s “Expert” Panel on First Nation Education – Big Bucks, Zero Results
Back in December of 2009, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) (as it then was) announced that it would be putting together an “expert” panel on First Nations education and that the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) would have some say over the mandate of the panel and the appointment of its members. The members of the panel were expected to be announced in early 2011 with a view to having a report in mid-2011. http://aptn.ca/pages/news/2010/12/09/govt-afn-launch-panel-to-study-education/ Up until this announcement, I had seen no call for proposals from INAC and no call from the AFN for educators to put their names forward for consideration. Then, on February 20, 2011 out of the blue, we see a notice posted on the MERX website that three individuals had already been chosen for the panel and were to be paid $200,000 EACH plus hst for a three month contract that was due to end July 31, 2011. http://www.merx.com/English/SUPPLIER_Menu.Asp?WCE=Show&TAB=1&PORTAL=MERX&State=7&id=214289&src=osr&FED_ONLY=0&ACTION=&rowcount=&lastpage=&MoreResults=&PUBSORT=0&CLOSESORT=0&hcode=gltUDmepFZnIFIhHGp3Jiw%3D%3D The contract was awarded without tender because INAC felt that no one else other than the three people chosen would be as “uniquely qualified” to conduct a national panel on First Nation education. The three chosen were: (1) David Hughes, CEO of Pathways to Education Canada, who was chosen to be the Chair of the panel, (2) George Lafonde, former Vice-Chief of Saskatoon Tribal Council; and (3) Caroline Krause, who described the present post-secondary funding system for First Nations as “corrupt” and thus offered her “unequivocal support” for Calvin Helin’s report “Free to Learn” which advocated for giving education funds directly to students and skip bands altogether. It is no surprise then, how she came to be regarded as an “expert” or chosen for this panel. http://www.macdonaldlaurier.ca/files/pdf/FreeToLearn.pdf This “blue ribbon” panel was to study the issue of First Nation education (once again) and come up with substantive recommendations. Their contracted mandate included the following: (1) They will be responsible to conduct face-to-face and online engagement activities across Canada to hear from First Nation leaders, parents, students, elders, teachers, provinces, and others with an interest and a view on how to enhance the education system and outcomes of First Nation learners at the elementary and secondary levels. (2) This will entail organizing and leading eight regional roundtables across Canada and one national roundtable and having key meetings with other stakeholders. (3) Based on work, the Panel will provide a summary following each roundtable, a progress report to the Minister of INAC and to the National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations mid-way through the process, and they will submit a final panel report with recommendations by July 31, 2011. The report was to be tabled at the AFN’s national assembly in July which is to be held in Moncton, NB this year. This panel received instant criticism from Chiefs all over the country but national Chief Shawn Atleo asked Chiefs to work with this panel despite their concerns. http://aptn.ca/pages/news/2011/03/03/blue-ribbon-education-panel-quietly-unveiled-draws-immediate-fire/ Despite ongoing concerns expressed by many Chiefs, the AFN stood by the Conservatives and encouraged chiefs to participate. Some chiefs were so upset with AFN that they wanted to meet without AFN present. http://aptn.ca/pages/news/2011/04/07/chief-wants-quebec-fn-gathering-without-afn/ Once can hardly blame their feelings given the lack of action on education – which has been a crisis issue since the 1950’s, if not earlier. Yet, we are already at June 23, 2011 and from what I understand, there has not been a single community meeting or engagement session held to discuss any of the important issues around First Nation education. This makes me wonder whether it is even possible for this expert panel to have a report by July 31, 2011 and if so, how such a rushed report would be worth the paper it is written on? Perhaps $200,000 per person was not enough financial incentive to have them conduct any of the work? This money will no doubt be added the the billions already spent on the bureacracy that “manages” First Nations. Then, last night on APTN National News, it was reported that David Hughes, the Chair of the expert panel had resigned. There was no information reported about whether he had been paid any of the $200,000 under the contract, whether and to what extent he had done any of the work or when he had resigned. Again, no announcement was made by either the AFN or INAC (now ANAC). Ironic that the very government who set up a panel that will make recommendations on how First Nations need to be more accountable with education funding is not very transparent or accountable with its own funds. http://aptn.ca/pages/news/ What should have been considered an embarrassing fiasco for both INAC and the AFN was turned into a National Aboriginal Day “announcement” that an expert panel on First Nations education was “set to begin”. In fact, it was reported that the panel might start as early as “this week”. Downplaying the resignation of the former Chair David Hughes, it was quietly noted that the new Chair is now Scott Haldane, the President of the YMCA. Atleo explained that the goal was to have a report sometime “this calendar year” and was promising real “action”. Is it just me, or are we all being presented with smoke and mirrors instead of seeing any real accountability by INAC or the AFN? It boggles my mind that the AFN would continue to prop up the Conservatives when clearly they are not taking any action on our critical issues. In fact, APTN reported that INAC was NOT committing to any action on education and Minister Duncan said INAC was not prepared to simply “write a blank cheque” to address funding inequities. I think it is time for the Conservatives to practice what they preach and start showing us some accountability. I also think its time for our real leaders to step up and start calling INAC on their sustained lack of action. Here are some of the questions I want answered: (1) Was any money paid out under the original MERX contract that was due to be completed on July 31, 2011? If so, how much? (2) Has a new contract and/or extension of the old contract been made with the current panelists? If so, what are the terms and how much is it for? (3) If there is a new contract and/or an extension of the old one, why would we enter into yet another contract and/or an extension of the current contract when the original objectives of the first contract were not completed? (4) What is the real reason why the former chair of the panel resigned? Who choose this Chair and why? (5) Did the AFN really have any say in the decision to create a panel, the madate of the panel and the membership? Really? Did Atleo choose another non-First Nations person as the chair? Finally, why is the AFN keeping us in the dark about this critical issue for our people and propping up the Conservatives instead of holding them to account? First Nation leaders are staring to speak up, grass roots citizens are expressing their concerns – is anyone listening? This situation is starting to look eerily familiar to the CAP-Brazeau affair. While that may have won Brazeau a Senate seat, it did little for the grass roots Aboriginal people who most needed someone to stand up for them. Trying to cover up a fiasco on First Nation education on National Aboriginal Day has to be one of the most insulting things INAC or the AFN could do to First Nations. I think we deserve a little better than that. At least the Auditor General thought so…… http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/docs/parl_oag_201106_04_e.pdf How many more studies do we need to be certain that there is an issue in First Nation education? How many more Auditor General’s have to confirm INAC funding inequities before funding is increased? How much more of this will we allow to happen before the real leaders step forward?
-
Shiny New Beads and Trinkets: Old Assimilation Policies Repackaged
There has been a great deal of publicity lately related to all the great work the Conservatives are doing in relation to Aboriginal peoples. Some media outlets have called this a “historic shift” and even gone so far as to characterize the plan as a “sweeping overhaul of reserve life”. http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-native-leaders-commit-to-sweeping-overhaul-of-reserve-life/article2053099/?service=mobile While there may be some useful tidbits in the plan, to call it historic or sweeping is misrepresenting what is actually taking place. One must keep in mind that this announcement coincided with the Auditor General’s damning report about Canada’s gross failure to address conditions of extreme poverty on reserve. In fact, according to Fraser, conditions have even become much worse. INAC has knowingly failed to address “inequities” in funding for post-secondary education, child and family services, housing and many other programs. http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/docs/parl_oag_201106_04_e.pdf Yet, all of this was overshadowed by a strategically-timed joint action plan – anything to take the public’s focus off of the stark reality. The fact that the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) took part in this duck and avoid maneuver leaves me questioning the AFN”s ability to effectively advocate on behalf of First Nations. Some have even questioned whether the AFN had any REAL input into the plan given how quickly it came out. Even if National Chief of AFN Shawn Atleo did have input, that begs the question as to why he would give his blessing to a plan that would leave out critical issues around funding, consultation, First Nation jurisdiction, treaty rights and land claims. All of these issues are significant to the grass roots people, yet nothing has been mentioned about any of them. Similarly, the planned First Nation – Crown Summit also excludes these critical issues – all with Atleo’s stamp of approval. Does any of this signal a significant shift by the Conservatives from their right-wing, pro-assimilation agenda? I would argue that all we are seeing are the same old deal – the exchange of shiny beads and trinkets for our acquiescence or agreement to forgo what makes us strong, independent Nations – our sovereignty, our land and our identity. What follows are some of the reasons why I believe this to be true: Early Indian Policy: Early Indian policy included various measures to control, divide and assimilate Indians to finally rid Canada of the “Indian problem”. These included: (1) Residential schools to remove culture, language and family and community ties from Indian children; (2) Indian Act provisions which removed Indian rights from Indian women; (3) Indian Act provisions which incorporated non-Indian women into communities; (4) Enfranchisement provisions which encouraged Indian men to give up their identities in exchange for education, employment and individual title to reserve lands; and (5) Indian Act provisions which prohibited lawyers from advocating for Indians in relation to their lands and treaties. (See: The Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, 1996) [RCAP] White Paper 1969: The plan argued that “Indian people must be persuaded” that this was the path to a better life: (1) Abolish the Indian Act; (2) End special recognition for First Nations; (3) Give them individual title to their lands (fee simple); (4) Funds for economic development; (5) Full integration into the cultural, social, political and economic life of Canada; and (6) Removal of constitutional responsibility of federal government for Indians. http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ai/arp/ls/pubs/cp1969/cp1969-eng.pdf We all know how First Nations across the country reacted to this policy – they forcefully rejected it and re-asserted their special status in Canada and their land and treaty rights. Harold Cardinal wrote what came to be known as the Red Paper outlining the special rights of Indians in Canada. While Canada backed off of this policy, very little changed in regards to addressing First Nation poverty and the resolution of their Aboriginal and treaty rights, land claims and self-government. RCAP provides a detailed history of the development of Indian policy over time and the rights held by First Nations. Their overall recommendation was to move forward with the resolution of land claims, recognition and implementation of treaties and the negotiation of self-government agreements. Canada’s delayed, non-committal response “Gathering Strength” came to be known as “Gathering Dust” for the lack of action on Canada’s part. Then along comes Tom Flanagan, who, in his book “First Nations? Second Thoughts” argued that since First Nations were “primitive”, “wasteful” and “destructive” that they should not be entitled to self-governing rights, special tax exemptions or federal funding. In his view, First Nations need to “evolve” and become more like other Canadians. This was pretty much the same message that he provided in his second book: “Beyond the Indian Act: Restoring Aboriginal Property Rights”. His plan involved the following: (1) “abandon” “primitive” “communist fantasies” about communal land; (2) implement a system of individual property rights (i.e., mortgage or sell to non-Indians); (2) repeal the Indian Act; (4) shut down the reserves; (3) encourage education and workforce participation; and (4) assimilate into the larger Canadian population. http://reviewcanada.ca/reviews/2010/04/01/opportunity-or-temptation/ This assimilation plan of Flanagan’s raised a great deal of controversy, but was not unique. Others, like Alan Cairns had also advocated for assimilation, albeit less overtly. Since then, many right-wingers have joined the call for the assimilation of First Nations including people like Frances Widdowson and Dale Gibson, to name a few. In fact, Gibson wrote a report entitled “A New Look at Canadian Indian Policy: Respect the Collective, Promote the Individual” which focuses on individual success and material wealth over communal interests. http://www.fraserinstitute.org/research-news/display.aspx?id=12783 Not surprising then, that Tom Flanagan became an advisor to Stephen Harper or that the Conservatives are now putting into place the gradual, assimilatory plan which focuses on individual wealth which has been advocated by folks like Flanagan and Gibson. Has anything changed since the early years of Indian policy-making? Does what the Conservatives propose now amount to a significant departure from the assimilatory agenda of the 1969 White Paper? I would argue that it does not. The following overview of the Conservative agenda seems only to confirm my original assessment: 2011 Conservative Election Platform: (1) Expand adult education in the north (no funding for k-12 or university); (2) Increase accountability of First Nations through legislation (no funding or recognition of jurisdiction); (3) Avoided dealing with reserve infrastructure like water and housing (but agreed to fix fuel tanks); (4) Avoided dealing with Aboriginal and treaty rights (but First Nations can sit on hunting advisory panel); (5) Avoided dealing with land claims (but will promote development of reserve lands through legislation). http://www.conservative.ca/media/ConservativePlatform2011_ENs.pdf Conservative – AFN Joint Action Plan: (1) Education = Joint Process on k-12 education (expert panel that still has not produced any reports); (2) Focus on “success of individuals” through education; (2) Increase First Nation accountability and transparency; (3) Task force to promote economic development to benefit “all Canadians”; (4) Improve relations. http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ai/mr/nr/m-a2011/cfnjap-eng.asp You will notice there are no funding commitments, measurables or key action words that commit to any specific action. It is important to note here that the AFN has publicly come out in support of this action plan. First Nation – Crown Summit: Then there is the promise of a First Nations-Crown Summit meeting that is supposed to take place this fall. I won’t hold my breath given that Harper has promised such a meeting with First Nation leaders twice in his five years as Prime Minister to no avail. What is being promised at this summit reads eerily like the election platform, joint action plan and other assimilatory policies of the past: (1) The agenda is “deliberately narrow” and will not revisit the substantive commitments in Kelowna; (2) The agenda includes education; (3) governance and (4) economic development. There is to be no discussion about treaties, land claims, self-government or the funding inequities in essential social services. http://www.stalbertgazette.com/article/GB/20110603/CP02/306039861/-1/sag0806/plans-for-first-nations-summit-with-harper-finally-begin-to-solidify&template=cpArt So, if you go back and look at the fundamental aspects of assimilation – being educated, economic development and turning reserves into individual parcels of land, you will see that not much has changed from the 1800’s to the 1969 White Paper, to what is now being advanced. The fact that the Conservatives have a majority in the House and Senate means that will be able to rush through any law or policy they choose. Having the AFN on side only helps the Conservatives legitimize the process. All of this brings me back to my original concern that the AFN is now so far away from what it was originally intended to be when it was the National Indian Brotherhood, that I am left wondering whether it has the capacity to think beyond the organization’s own priorities related to funding and staffing, and advocate on behalf of First Nations and their citizens. It seems to me that far too many people are worrying about their own jobs and making deals than they are about taking the risks inherent in standing up for that which our ancestors died to protect – our sovereignty, lands and identities. It’s about time we called the Conservatives on their deplorable record and highlight the facts brought forward by their own auditor general – that chronic and inequitable funding has made conditions on First Nations worse. We need to stand behind our treaties, protect our territories from further encroachment and go back to focusing on the needs of our future generations instead of focusing on ourselves. Any future “joint” plans MUST engage First Nations as a third order of government and as true partners and reflect the fundamentals of the treaty relationship, First Nations jurisdiction and the integrity of our territories. Don’t be fooled by shiny new beads and trinkets – it is really the same old assimilation policy of control and division repackaged with new titles like “Joint Action Plans”, “Expert Panels” and “Joint Processes” – other words for “we are buying into our assimilation”.
-
Secret Agent Harper: Conservative Spy Games in Indian Country
Ok, I have to admit that had anyone told me that the Conservative government’s first order of business would be to pay half a million dollars to hire private detectives to spy on First Nations, I might have viewed them with some level of skepticism. After all, I am not naive enough to think that the Conservatives are not doing things we don’t know about, however, what is being reported sounds more like the plot for a conspiracy theory movie than reality in a liberal democratic country like Canada. Yet, it appears to be true. The Conservatives put a contract out for tender to hire private detectives to investigate First Nation band elections and will pay up to $500,000. http://www.montrealgazette.com/life/Federal+government+hire+private+eyes+investigate+native+elections/4876903/story.html My mind is still spinning. Honestly, I thought their last contract for tender to make Metis people CSA approved was a little on the paternalistic, controlling side, but this goes to the very core of the relationship between First Nations and the Crown. Canada is still treating First Nations as though they are enemies of the state – forgetting of course that this is OUR land and that we have agreed to share the land on the basis of our treaties. Nothing in our treaties provided for Canada to divide, control and assimilate us and they certainly do not provide for espionage in our own communities. The Conservatives have made their move – they are challenging our inherent right to be self-determining and may even hire First Nations people to be the ones to engage in these activities. After all, so many of our people are living so far below the poverty line that Canada ranks well below not only developed countries but even some developing ones. Canada’s own Auditor General has criticized Canada for failing to address First Nation poverty. http://www.vancouversun.com/life/Fraser+parting+challenge/4866304/story.html Therefore, it would not be much of a shock for Canada to be able to find someone hungry enough to take one of these contracts. But have you noticed that any time the Conservatives get bad press for their abysmal failure with regard to First Nations, that all of sudden there is news about alleged corruption in First Nations? Time and time again, the Conservatives try to duck and avoid accountability for their lack of action by vilifying our people and turning Canadians against us. We are supposed to be rebuilding our relationship in a the post-apology era. Remember how Harper apologized on behalf of all Canadians for the assimilatory attitudes and ideology of cultural superiority towards First Nations? Canada continue to fail to live up to the honour of the crown and its fiduciary duty towards First Nations under the guise of empty apologies. http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ai/rqpi/apo/index-eng.asp We even get labelled as “insurgents” and “terrorists” if any of our impoverished conditions make it to the media. https://pampalmater.com/2011/05/from-savages-to-terrorists-justifying.html First Nations crisis in water becomes news, so we see allegations of lack of accountability in First Nations. Canada withdraws funding for Sisters in Spirit – more allegations of over-spending in First Nations. Now, Canada’s failure to address inequality in funding for First Nations is made public by their own Auditor General and surprise – we see a contract to hire PI’s (aka spies) to infiltrate our communities and look out for corruption in our elections. How hypocritical given the fact that the Conservatives were BOOTED from Parliament for lying – failing to be open, honest and accountable to the people. http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2011-03/26/c_13798642.htm Now, if they continue to act this way would it be acceptable for First Nations to infiltrate the federal bureaucracy and spy on them to see if they are acting corrupt? I dare say we would be jailed faster than we already are – and that is saying alot given that all of our people – men, women and youth are over-represented in jail as it is. It should be noted that this is NOT because we are more likely to be corrupt or criminal, but is in part a symptom not only of extreme poverty but also of ongoing discrimination in the entire justice system. http://www.oci-bec.gc.ca/rpt/annrpt/annrpt20052006info-eng.aspx It is bad enough that the Conservatives want to invade our private space online and “correct” our “misinformed” thoughts and conversations, but to seriously pay people to infiltrate our communities without our knowledge and consent to monitor our potential to engage in election corruption is taking their role too far. I can only assume that this contract is meant for some of Harper’s retired police officers who ran in the election and lost – seeing as all the Senate seats were given away to conservative losers already. http://www.nationalpost.com/m/blog.html?b=fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/05/18/scott-stinson-on-the-cabinet-i-was-a-sucker-for-believing-in-harper&s=Opinion You would never know that INAC was in a collaborative process with the Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nation Chiefs (APCFNC) and the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs (AMC) on electoral reforms under the Indian Act. I doubt very much they were apprised of this spy-for-hire contract. Time and again, the Conservatives criticize First Nations for being “overly aggressive” when dealing with the government, while at the same time stabs them in the back every single time First Nations do work with them. https://pampalmater.com/2011/03/no-natives-allowed-how-canada-breeds.html Our ancestors taught us to be proud of our identity and culture and to protect our communities. If we don’t stand up for ourselves now, what are we telling our children who will be watching and learning. If the suicide of our children is not enough to make us take notice, I am not sure what is. I don’t know about any of my readers, but the thought of Conservative spies crawling around any of the communities I love and cherish totally creeps me out. I think it is about time that ALL of our leaders stood up and said enough – regardless of where their national or regional organisations sit on the issue. If they wait for the women in our communities to do it – we will – but they might not like it when the power shifts permanently in our direction. UPDATE: No sooner did I post this blog, than the following article was posted which claims that documents from ATIP (Access to Information and Privacy) reveal that the Conservatives started their spying campaign against First Nations as soon as they came into power: http://www.mediacoop.ca/story/first-nations-under-surveillance/7434 I have not seen the actual documents, so I can speak to the veracity of this report – except to say, I may check my phone for bugs tonight…
-
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.