*Mr. Romeo Saganash (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Welcome and thank you to both of our witnesses this morning. I want to start with Ms. Palmater. I’ve been in this business for more than 30 years as well. I’ve been called many names, too. All of our protests and challenges posed by aboriginal peoples in this country are always related to the economy of this country: resource development is, of course, an important aspect to all of that. The far-reaching proposed provisions in Bill C-51 are therefore somewhat a direct threat to section 35 rights. National Chief Bellegarde recommended that we scrap this bill. You say that this bill must be withdrawn because it’s not fixable. I happen to agree with that. For 150 years in the history of this country, governments have always been adversaries to aboriginal peoples in this country. We both know that. What we’ve always considered as rights issues have always been viewed or treated as police issues or law and order issues, on the other hand—by successive provincial, federal, and municipal governments, I might add. Will this proposed legislation make matters worse or better for indigenous peoples in this country, and why? Dr. Pamela Palmater: Thank you for your question. It’s an important one because, as I stated, it doesn’t just impact indigenous peoples, it impacts the rest of Canada: environmentalists, unions, women’s groups, children’s advocates. We have to get real about what is the clear and present danger here. How many Canadians on Canadian soil have died from acts of terrorism? Compare that with how many thousands of murdered and missing indigenous women and girls there are. Where is the Bill C-51 to protect them? How many husbands have killed their wives? How many serial killers have we had? Yet we’re focusing on Bill C-51. The problem is this bill isn’t really about terrorism. If you do an analysis of this omnibus bill, the focus is, just as you’ve said, less about being anti-terrorism and more about protecting the status quo in terms of power relations and economic relations. This new national security law focuses on threats to sovereignty, territorial integrity, diplomatic relations—of all things—economic stability, critical infrastructure. All of these things are an essential part of the daily lives of Canadians and first nations. Passing this bill for any activity, any person, any purpose that threatens national security so defined as financial stability and territorial integrity, makes us all suspects. Canada won’t even have to pass this bill, the terrorists will have won. What is terrorism? Fundamentally it’s the denial of life, liberty, and security of the person. If Canada goes ahead and takes those rights away, terrorists just have to sit back, job done. We worked far too hard in our treaty negotiations. We worked far too hard in the development of the charter, and the Constitution, and all of the international laws that protect core, fundamental human rights, to allow that to happen because we want to protect some corporate economic interests. Mr. Romeo Saganash: Given that your access to information request has shown that you’ve already been surveilled for perfectly legal civic actions, is it reasonable to assume—let me put it that way—that if this law is passed, this legislation is passed, you could be viewed as a terrorist for the same lawful activities? Dr. Pamela Palmater: Bill C-51, as currently written, would capture everything under Idle No More. Imagine, Grand Chief Matthew Coon Come of the Grand Council of the Crees offered a quote for my submission as well that said that had their activities been done today as opposed to back then, there wouldn’t be the negotiation of the the James Bay Agreement, they would all be in jail. The Idle No More movement, which was a historical coming together of first nations and Canadians peacefully dancing and singing and drumming, would now all be monitored—if it isn’t already, as the media has indicated that we are clearly monitored—and perhaps arbitrarily detained. All of these things are very frightening for this country. Keep in mind that the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples protects us, grants us, and recognizes under international customary law that we can act autonomously, that we can occupy our lands. Under the Department of National Defence’s manual, occupying our lands, advocating for autonomy, and advocating for political rights is described as “insurgency” alongside jihadists. It is no comfort that there is a proviso saying that lawful activity, lawful dissent, lawful protest, lawful art—whatever that is—won’t be captured by this bill, because the second we do a round dance in the street without a permit, it very quickly becomes unlawful. We have to remember that I already went over all of the very validly enacted laws that Canada has had that have ended up in the killing, murder, rape, violence, sterilization, and scalping of our people. Those were valid laws. The only way to protect ourselves was to act unlawfully in resistance. What we’re saying now is that the clear and present danger to first nations and Canadians is in the environmental destruction and the contamination of our water, and that we have a right to defend our life, liberty, and security to protect our future generations. Under this bill that will all be captured as a threat to national security and/or terrorism. The Chair: Thank you very much. Your time is up, Mr. Saganash. … Hon. Diane Ablonczy: Okay, thank you very much. I just wanted to give Ms. Palmater time to put her legal training to work. And her activist knowledge and just to help us to understand how you feel that Section 2 Activities might impact you. The Chair: Ms. Palmater, we’ve already expired the time but I will certainly give you an opportunity to just briefly to respond to that if you wish. Dr. Pamela Palmater: Thank you for asking because as you probably know I was a lawyer for Justice Canada and worked on legislation and have taken training in legislative interpretation and regulatory drafting. Which is why I was quite shocked that this legislation ever made it here. The Justice Canada lawyers, that I know would never have said that this is any where near constitutional. The problems are that little list that you just read, is just a list. It’s just an example, some examples of what would be threats to national security. There is no limit on the threat to national security. That “any activity”, means any activity. My problem is under the Bill, who gets to decide? Clearly, it’s Canada and independent law enforcement officers. What’s happening here is there is an infinite number of offences that are created, it’s not knowable. And we have a right as citizens to basic tenet of law. We have a right as citizens to know the offence for which we’re being charged, to be able to predict it in the future. We know we aren’t allowed to steal things, so we don’t steal things, or we know there’s consequences. Under this Bill, it’s literally anything. And that’s a problem in law, basically, and it’s certainly doesn’t correspond, it would never survive a Constitutional or Charter challenge, and I think that the former Supreme Court Justices have been pretty specific about that. Thank you. The Chair: Excuse me, Mr. Palmater, you are well over the time. Thank you very much. We will now go to Mr. Easter, please. Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Thank you Mr. Chairman. Thank you to both witnesses for your presentation today. And also for both your efforts out there beyond your appearance at the community, one on policing and one of legitimate public dissent, that profiles issues. I think that both are important in a democracy. First starting with you Ms. Palmater. You’ve mentioned the need for special first nations advocate. And I’m making an assumption here, I expect that relates to the section in the Bill where CSIS can apply for a warrant to do certain things. I take from your comments you’re suggesting that if the Bill goes through, there needs to be an amendment in that area that would allow for special advocates, in this case, first nations, that would be able to, I guess, provide the other side of the argument, before a judge in terms of whether or not a warrant is granted. Am I correct in that? Do you want to expand on that a little bit? Dr. Pamela Palmater: Sure, just to be clear, I’m saying there is no way to save this bill at all. Hon. Wayne Easter: I understand that. Dr. Pamela Palmater: My recommendations were how to address the problem right now. We have a crisis right now, first nations being targeted by police officers and the government at large. If this bill were to pass and they added this provision of a special first nations advocate for all of these core processes, that wouldn’t stop first nations from being targeted to begin with. That’s like trying to provide compensation to murdered indigenous women after they’ve already been murdered. It’s too little, too late. So I don’t think it would be effective to counter all of the rights violations that are currently under Bill C-51. Hon. Wayne Easter: Coming back to the request. One of the problems with the current bill where CSIS goes to a judge, the Minister of Justice called this judicial oversight. It’s not. It’s traditional authority to allow CSIS to do certain things. There are some that feel you need the balance before that judge that makes that decision. That’s what I’m trying to target on. Would there be better balance if you had a special advocate with first nations expertise where CSIS was asking a judge for that warrant to do certain things? Dr. Pamela Palmater: I think it would be more balanced than the current unbalance that there is in the bill keeping in mind that this bill also turns the justice system on its head and how our constitution works. That in fact, judges are, their role is to uphold the constitution and charter rights and not to find ways to get around them. So really asking them to undo all of their training or how we govern ourselves, even with the first nation advocate isn’t going to really address the core problem. Hon. Wayne Easter: I hear what you’re saying. Thank you. *Taken from Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security Committee Meeting March 24, 2015 – Evidence #57 – Unedited Transcript Copy provided by House of Commons Canada.
Tag: PM Harper
-
Transcript of my Testimony on Bill C-51 Anti-Terrorism Act – March 24 2015
Dr. Pamela Palmater (Chair in Indigenous Governance, Ryerson University, Department of Politics & Public Administration, As an Individual)* Thank you for inviting me here today to speak. I want to first acknowledge that we’re on the traditional territory of the Algonquin Nation and that’s not just the polite acknowledgement. That’s the very reason why all of you get to sit here today. Were it not for the cooperation, generosity, kindness, and political alliances, Canada wouldn’t be what it is. Were it not for the peace treaties between our nations that are now constitutionally protected and form part of the foundational aspect of Canada, none of us would be sitting here today. I think that goes to the very heart of Bill C-51 and why I am opposed to it. Canada has placed Bill C-51 before indigenous peoples without any information, analysis, details on how it will impact our nations, any consultation, information or consent from our part. It is a gross violation of our nations to nation relationship. I don’t have time to go through all of the technical legal details and problems with this bill except to say that I echo all of the concerns that have already been brought and will be brought by the thousands of lawyers in this country, security experts, former prime ministers and former Supreme Court of Canada justices. My main concern is how this bill will impact me, my family and indigenous peoples all over Canada and our treaty partners, other Canadians. Canada has a long history of criminalizing every aspect of indigenous identity. From the scalping bounties in 1949, which nearly wiped out my Mi’kmaq Nation, to the Indian Act, which has outlawed our culture, our right to educate our own children, and even excluded indigenous women from our communities. Every aspect of our identity has been criminalized, both historically and continues into present day. In every single instance, we’ve had to resist all of these laws, keeping in mind these were all validly enacted laws. It was legal to take Mi’kmaq scalps; it was legal to confine us to reserves; it was legal to deny us legal representation. All of these things were law in Canada. We had to be criminals as in, we had to break the law in order to preserve our lives, our physical security, and our identities. We are being faced with this very problem again with Bill C-51. Over the years, these laws have morphed into provincial and municipal regulations that deal with even our traditional means of providing subsistence—hunting, fishing, gathering have all been so criminalized for indigenous peoples that we end up skulking around in the forest just to be able to provide food for our families. Every single court case that has been won at the Supreme Court of Canada has been a battle between indigenous peoples trying to live their lives and exercise their rights and identities facing some kind of criminal or regulatory charge. In every single instance, we have been labelled as criminals, treated as criminals, and one need only look at the current prison population to understand that this is still the case; not just the case, but as Howard Sapers, from the Office of the Correctional Investigator, has indicated, a “national crisis and embarrassment.” And why? Not because we’re actually terrorists; not because we’re more culturally predisposed to being criminals, but as a direct result of Canada’s discriminatory laws and policies. There have been endless justice inquiries, which have pointed to the infection in our Canadian justice system of racism. The Donald Marshall wrongful prosecution inquiry, the Manitoba justice inquiry, the Ipperwash Inquiry, say that every aspect of our justice system, from the arresting officers, to the lawyers, to the judges, to the prison systems, overtly and systemically discriminate against indigenous peoples. That’s our current reality. Bill C-51 proposes to take that to the last and final step. All we have left now, as indigenous peoples are our thoughts. Our private thoughts will now be criminalized. It will now be possible to be considered a terrorist for storing alleged terrorist propaganda on our own personal computers. My declaration of sovereignty, and I’m going to say it before Bill C-51 passes, I’m part of the sovereign Mi’kmaq Nation. That kind of material on my computer could be considered terrorism, a threat to national security because it’s a threat to Canada’s sovereignty. Welcome to the new terrorist. My name is Pam Palmater. I’m a lawyer, I’m a professor, I’m a mom, and I’m a social justice activist. I’ve won numerous awards for my work in social justice, women’s equality, and children’s rights but depending on whose radicalized view you speak of I have also been called a radical, bad Indian, eco-terrorist, enemy of the people, top-five-to-fear Canadian, dangerous militant, and Waco extremist. My biggest concern isn’t how I’m presented in the media or by government officials, I’m stronger than that. My biggest concern concern is how this impacts me right now, the level of government surveillance for a law-abiding, peaceful, social justice activist, who’s never been arrested or convicted of any crime. In my ATIP to CSIS they explain that they have a right to prevent subversive and hostile activities against the Canadian state which is why they have a file on me. However they don’t offer me the courtesy of saying why I would be considered subversive or hostile, in fact everything I do couldn’t be more public. In my ATIP to Indian Affairs they would not confirm that they monitor me. However they said they do conduct an analysis of me and my activities because I’m an active voice. That analysis comprised 750 pages of documents which tracked all of my whereabouts, what provinces I was travelling to, where I was speaking, and the dates and times. However they could not provide my security file because it was destroyed. When I attend gatherings, rallies, protests, or public and private events I often cannot make cell phone calls, send texts, or access my social media, my bank cards, or my credit cards. I can be at an Idle No More rally or protest and text my children but I cannot communicate with the very chief who has the same protest. This causes me great concern for my safety. How am I supposed to help ensure the comfort and safety of the people at rallies and myself if I can’t communicate with anyone…and I don’t have to remind this committee the staggering statistics and vulnerabilities of indigenous women in this country. I contacted the RCMP as well. They never responded to my ATIP, however individual RCMP officers at various events have confirmed that they were there to monitor me. At numerous protests I have been informed by RCMP and provincial police that I had to keep my protest peaceful. Sometimes they didn’t identify themselves. At speaking engagements the host first nation would demand that any undercover RCMP, or Ontario, or other police officers identify themselves and in many cases they did. What’s more concerning is the number of government officials that follow me around from speaking engagement to speaking engagement and often identify themselves when called upon to do so. Probably the most shocking is when I travel internationally in countries like Samoa, Peru, England, and Switzerland only to be informed by local authorities that Canadian officials are there to monitor me. That’s very frightening in a country where I have committed no crime, but to advocate peacefully on behalf of my people. In the Prairie provinces the RCMP are very active. They will often call ahead to the University of First Nations where I’m speaking and ask them to identify what my target will be or where I plan my protest. This isn’t just a problem for me. We’ve all heard about Cindy Blackstock and others. Skipping of course to what my recommendations are because I can see that I’m out of time. Bill C-51 must be withdrawn there is no way to fix it. There must be proper public information consultation, specific consultation for indigenous peoples, and a proper parliamentary study. Directing Justice Canada to rubber stamp the bill is compliant even if it has a 95% chance of being overturned in court is not democratic. We need an independent review body to report on the ongoing surveillance of indigenous peoples that will take complaints, do proper investigations, and offer redress. Finally, we’re in desperate need of a special first nation advocate to be appointed for any and all court processes in all provinces and territories whenever applications are made in secret for court warrants. This person would be an amicus, a friend of the court who would be independent and can speak to all of the various constitutional and indigenous rights at stake. This is absolutely essential especially if Bill C-51 is to be passed. The Chair: Fine thank you very much, Ms. Palmater. *Taken from: Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security Committee Meeting March 24, 2015 – Evidence #57 – Unedited Transcript Copy provided by House of Commons Canada.
-
First Nations Controlled, First Nations Education Act: Standardizing “the Indian in the child”
On February 7, 2014, Assembly of First Nations (AFN) National Chief Shawn Atleo stood with Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC) Bernard Valcourt and announced a “historic deal” on First Nations education. They announced that the federal government would change the name of education legislation to First Nations Control of First Nations Education Act, together with $1.9 billion in future monies.
Since then, First Nations have been trying to figure out on what authority AFN made this deal on our behalf, and what exactly this deal entails. Every time that NC Atleo or Harper speaks, it becomes more and more apparent that Atleo and Harper are NOT of the same mind in terms of what this “deal” entails. In case anyone had any doubt about the fragile, if non-existent agreement between AFN and Harper, one need only refer to the letter from AFN dated Feb.28, 2014 requesting clarifications from the Harper government about what the deal means.
You don’t have to hire a lawyer to know that you never ever commit to a deal without knowing what the deal is – i.e., get the details in writing. Atleo’s letter asks critical questions like:
– Is Canada committed to working with First Nations?;
– Will Canada “engage” or “collaborate” with First Nations on legislative drafting?;
– Will existing agreements and MOUs be honoured by Canada?;
– Is the funding new funding?; and
– Is the funding secure?
It is almost unbelievable that the AFN would be asking these critical questions AFTER the deal has already been made and announced. What’s worse is that the AFN is asking these questions AFTER Atleo’s many media appearances and their FAQ Sheet which purports to answer these questions. How can the AFN assure First Nations that they will get to “inform” the legislative drafting process and then a few weeks later, ask the federal government if they will work with First Nations on the legislation?
The joint Atleo-Harper announcement on February 7, 2014 and all the media statements by both parties in the days and weeks that followed is a clear indication that there is no common understanding. Here is a summary of how each side interpreted the “historic deal” (that has no written commitments):
What AFN/Atleo Said
What Harper/Valcourt Said
Respects & recognizes rights, title & treaties
Not about rights, it’s about social development
Incorporates reciprocal accountability
Ensures transparent & accountable
First Nations
No federal oversight
Feds will provide the standards, reporting and other oversight mechanisms to “ensure” First Nations meet “new” standards
Statutory guarantee of funding to address “real costs” of education
4.5% cap on funding
(versus 6% pop growth)
Funding is guaranteed
Funding will be for “willing partners”
AFN will “inform” legislative process
Feds will draft legislation and regulations
Limited “enabling” legislation
Full “comprehensive” education legislation
New deal for First Nations
What’s best for Canada
Allows for diversity
Same standards for all First Nations
If this is THE deal (historic, but unwritten); which promises First Nation control (federal control of First Nations); and capped funding (future monies less than what is needed to take on new responsibilities); and a new relationship (where we voluntarily give up our treaty right to education) – then NO DEAL.
But we already told Atleo NO DEAL. We told him during Idle No More, we told him when the Chiefs marched on Parliament against legislation, and we told him when Ontario, Quebec and Saskatchewan pulled out of National Panel on Education. Atleo needs to start listening.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qnt7HsXLFL8
It’s not hard – the problem has been identified in 100 studies: lack of real First Nation control, lack of funding and lack of culture and language in schools. The solutions have already been identified as well: First Nation control, adequate funding and culture and language. Legislation has never been required to do the right thing. It’s an Aboriginal, inherent and treaty right that is protected in Canadian and international law. The government doesn’t need legislation to respect the rule of law.
http://www.chiefs-of-ontario.org/sites/default/files/files/OCOFOV%20Education%20Report%202012.pdf
No amount of political spin can hide the swindle of the century – legislating the future of our Nations out of existence by standardizing “the Indian in the child” to be like every other Canadian.
#NoFNEA
#NoFNCFNEA
-
The Emperor’s New Clothes: First Nation CONTROL of First Nation Education Act?
Today Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC) Bernard Valcourt and National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) Shawn Atleo announced “re-tooled” education legislation. It should be pointed out that despite all the hype leading up to this announcement, there is no actual legislation to scrutinize. So, what did First Nations get from this announcement?
http://www.pm.gc.ca/eng/news/2014/02/07/first-nations-control-first-nations-education-act
The Prime Minister explained that this legislation is an agreement between Shawn Atleo of the AFN and Harper’s government. For Harper, this is about filling the labour shortage with Canada’s fastest growing population – First Nations – not about addressing socio-economic conditions imposed on First Nations through Canada’s archaic funding formulas which purposefully and chronically under-fund First Nations in comparison to provincial residents.
http://pi.library.yorku.ca/ojs/index.php/crsp/article/viewFile/35220/32057
He also referenced the many employers who sat in the audience ready to hire and train high school students. We all know from past announcements this means hiring First Nations to be the pick and shovel labourers for mining companies and other extractive industries. This is about creating a new kind of dependence for First Nations – dependence on labour jobs from extractive industries to undermine attempts by their leaders to defend their territories and the resources on them.
Minister Valcourt also stated that they are looking at this legislation through an “economic lens” and not a treaty or inherent right lens. Therefore, the inherent right to be self-determining and exercise our own jurisdiction over education does not play into this legislation. He reconfirmed that Atleo was instrumental in the agreement which will ensure “stable and predictable oversight” by the federal government. He further noted that this legislation is about “Canada”. The Conservative government is not hiding their intentions here: it is assimilation into the body politic as they have stated over and over again.
During the brief question period, Harper confirmed that the legislation was about the deal he struck with Atleo – uniform standards, curriculum and accountability. Atleo didn’t really say much of anything to add to the announcement. It looked more like a political endorsement of the Harper Government for their 2015 election than anything else. One lone woman stood up and stated that AFN and Harper did not consult with all First Nations and that she stood as a Treaty 6 person in objection to the legislation. The protestors on the ground were not permitted inside, so we could not hear their voices.
Here’s a quick look at today’s “promises”:
(1) There will be legislation, with a new name, but not shared today;
(2) The regulations will be drafted later;
(3) The focus of the legislation will be on provincial training, provincial rules, provincial certification, provincial curriculum and provincial standards (emphasis on provincial);
(4) The legislation will impose “transparency and accountability” on First Nations as opposed to give First Nations any real control;
(6) The funding will not be based on need or in line with the treaty right to education. Instead, an “elevator” (a.k.a. “cap”) will be placed at 4.5%; and
(7) There is nothing to address the funding crisis in First Nation post-secondary education.
It should be noted that nowhere in the announcement was there any description of whether this funding was “new funding” in addition to the current core funding; whether it is re-purposed monies from education or other programs that have been cut; or how this funding will be accessed by “non-willing partners” – i.e., those First Nations who reject the legislation.
This appears to be more about deflecting the nasty publicity around the increasing litigation and human rights claims being brought by First Nations in relation to discriminatory funding in areas like education, housing and child and family services. The future funding promised after Harper’s term could evaporate as easily as the Kelowna Accord did when the Liberal term ended. A promise about future money, doesn’t educate First Nations kids now.
None of it is really new. This announcement is just re-packaging of old promises that have taken years to come to fruition:
(1) Election platform – promised adult education and skills training (note announcement yesterday on skills);
(2) AFN-Harper Joint Action Plan – promised national panel on education
(3) Crown-First Nation Gathering – promised national panel
Then came the national panel to which AFN agreed, despite the objections of about half the First Nations in Canada. Saskatchewan, Ontario and Quebec pulled out of the national panel process and submitted their own reports in an unprecedented protest against AFN’s unilateral actions.
http://www.chiefs-of-ontario.org/sites/default/files/files/OCOFOV%20Education%20Report%202012.pdf
This was followed by numerous AFN resolutions from the Chiefs in Assembly telling Atleo NOT to talk education legislation with Harper. And most will not forget Idle No More’s rallying cry against the suite of legislation intended to be imposed on First Nations. AFN heard them and proceeded anyway. Atleo said he “respected their views” and proceeded anyway. This led to a large number of First Nations wanting to pull out of the AFN and set up their Treaty Alliance to protect their treaties. All this and Atleo still forges this deal with Harper.
The promise of future funding is being used as a carrot to gain support for legislation that has not even been shared with First Nations yet. They are hoping that we are desperate enough to support this plan before we can see the army inside the Trojan Horse.
This is really about tricking First Nations into voluntarily turning their treaty right to fully-funded education into a program privilege that is subject to federal legislation, control and budgets. Even without treaties, First Nations have internationally protected rights to be self-determining, they have specific jurisdiction over their own education and a right to funded education.
This proposed legislation is meant to strike down any attempts at litigation against discriminatory funding – which they likely wish they could do with Cindy Blackstock’s case against discriminatory funding in Child and Family Services.
This is just another delay tactic. While we sit in meetings, the natural resources are removed from our territories. While we negotiate announcements, Justice Canada drafts the details of our surrender.
Had the Emperor actually looked at what his tailor had sewn for him, he’d have realized that he wasn’t wearing any clothes, despite the fact that people he trusted told him how wonderful he looked.
It’s always our choice. We can choose to say no. Canada does not need legislation to properly fund education. Remember what was promised today: nothing. But we stand to lose a great deal in supporting this legislation. Recognize First Nation jurisdiction over education. Implement the treaty right to education. Properly fund First Nation education. Say no to FNCFNEA.
-
Sun Media or Hate Media – Racism for Sale
I am caught right now between heeding or ignoring the usual advice about fanatics and their rantings. Most people figure it is better to ignore the hateful, ignorant ravings of people who spread nasty hate messages against other groups of people like Indigenous peoples or people from other cultures. I used to think that was good advice, because who wants to give those unstable few a bigger platform for their disturbed ideas. But then it hit me that this advice usually comes from the majority population, who, for the most part, are not the ones directly impacted by the end result of hate propaganda. It also hit me that in this age of social media and kids using the internet at younger and younger ages, that these very public media outlets have the ability to influence and brainwash our youth. Thus, even though there are far too many fanatical groups, commentators and media outlets to monitor (nor would I want to), there are some articles that require a response. Sun Media, which should rename itself Hate Media recently published a racist article related to the upcoming Assembly of First Nations election. While the Toronto Sun may or may not have written the article itself, it made the decision to publish it. Hate crimes are punishable in Canada – but at the very least they should not be able to profit from their hatred. http://www.torontosun.com/2012/06/25/compromise-is-chief-priority “Compromise… is the route Shawn Atleo has been following” The article appears to support Shawn Atleo as the “compromising” candidate and thus the one who should be elected. This group is supported by Senator Patrick Brazeau who openly endorsed Shawn Atleo as the only candidate that the Harper Conservatives could work with. My issue is not whether or not the right wing contingency in Canada supports Shawn Atleo, my issue is with how they talk about our people and the hatred they invite into our communities by virtue of their propaganda, racism and misinformation. “Despite billions in taxpayer welfare…” Every aspect of the way this article is written is meant to promote hatred against First Nations people. It is the tone, the implication, the words and even the facts that are left out that can influence and encourage non-First Nation people to see us in a stereotypical light and treat us with both disdain and lack of compassion. How does this happen? Since contact, the colonizing governments have tried to portray us as less than human. This allowed them to justify in law both the theft of our lands and the control of our people – as if we were incapable of managing our own affairs. This could not be farther from the truth of course, as we have literally tens of thousands of years of having lived quite well with our own complex governments, laws and justice systems. We also had extensive and profitable trade networks, strong militaries and political skills in alliances and treaty making. We had our own cultures, traditions, languages, practices and beliefs to fill our spirits, teach us how to live up to our responsibilities and to keep us connected to the land, sky, water, people and animals. The ways of our diverse peoples were and are beautiful. Our ways and our peoples were attacked by those colonizing governments in very direct violent ways (scalping laws, forced sterilizations, military assaults, abuse and murder of our children in residential schools) and we were attacked in less direct but harmful ways (Indian Act, Indian agents, federal and provincial laws outlawing our subsistence activities, ignoring treaties etc). Many people are of the understanding that all of this is history – but the ongoing colonization of our people continues – they just use different names for it. Today we have theft of children by provincial agencies, the over-representation of our people in jails, murdered and missing First Nation women, and the pre-mature deaths of our people through chronic and severe under-funding of essential programs and services. http://pi.library.yorku.ca/ojs/index.php/crsp/article/view/35220 “It [Harper] makes a historic apology… and can’t win for losing” Take for example, the Toronto Sun article claims the apology was historic. Yet, the Prime Minister forgot the other half of the apology. Every child knows that you can’t apologize without also making amends for your offense. The Prime Minister apologized for the assimilatory foundations upon which residential schools policies were based yet, promptly after the apology funding was cut for Indigenous languages. Our children are still stolen by from our communities by child welfare agencies at rates HIGHER than during the residential school era. What has changed in terms of what the majority of our children learn in provincial schools? Harper hasn`t lost anything – but we have. “It fronts a reconcilation commission” Even the words used to describe the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) make suttle negative associations. The Toronto Sun seems to imply that out of the goodness of the Prime Minister’s heart, a Truth and Reconciliation was funded. I think the author is forgetting that all of this came about because of the litigation against Canada. These are the facts that ought to be on the table if we are to have a responsible discussion about any of these issues. Since it is unlikely that these people will stop their campaign to turn public opinion and policy makers against us, we need to occupy the space of educator. The Assembly of First Nations needs to take a stronger public education role in making sure the facts are accessible and that forums are created for informed and fact-based discussions versus allowing the old uneducated right-wing hate debate to dominate. “Unreasonable demands from aboriginal ‘leadership’ in cesspool reserves” It is one thing for us to all have different perspectives, beliefs and interpretations of what we see, hear and experience, but it is quite another to promote blatantly racist and uninformed statements about us. Our youth need to know that the very foundation of race as a biological determinant of personality, intelligence or capacity was discounted both in science and fact decades ago. It is impossible to look at the end result of devastating and often lethal colonial policies forced on our people and imply that we want any of this or that our choices put us where we are today. How dare they call Attawapiskat a “cesspool” reserve when they know the facts – that many of those residents live in poverty not because they want or choose to, but because of the chronic underfunding of our communities and the government’s refusal to share what is ours – the land and resources. Yet, there is no mention of the mining company which overloaded the reserve’s underfunded infrastructure and flooded their sewage station and caused back-ups in some of their houses. Where was the amends for that? “An idiot… and fool” I don’t care who you are, what your background is or what your political stripes are – no one gets to talk about our people this way. We have our strengths and weaknesses like any other collective in the world, but we did not ask for any of this. We are tasked with managing the dysfunction that Canada created and fights hard to maintain today. Our people have tried against all odds to work with Canada. We have survived everything that has been thrown at us – from scalpings to sterilizations to complete control and impoverishment. And we still sing, we still dance, and we still celebrate who we are as the FIRST PEOPLES of this land – like the Mi’kmaq, Cree, Mohawk, and Maliseet. Despite generations of brainwashing we still fight to protect our ways and our people. None of us are disposable. We are all human beings and if Canada is embarassed by our living conditions they need to do something about it. If they are not, then they need to step aside and let a legitimate government take charge – one that puts the well-being of the people first. Name-calling by Conservative Ministers, Senators or their right-wing media outlets will never cover up their culpability. “Compromise is chief priority” We made our compromises when we signed treaties. Those deals are now internationally and constitutionally protected. Those treaties need to be recognized and implemented. Some right-wingers say that treaty implementation is an old argument and that I should give it up. Senator Brazeau said that his government would `never`recognize treaties – important insight on the kind of government we are dealing with and the positions we need to take. Even those non-treaty Nations made their compromises years ago when they agreed to share, not give up their lands and resources. To ask us to compromise again is to ask us to give up what little we have left. We stand on the strength of our original and prior sovereignty – we need to assert it, live it and protect it. There is no compromise to be had on our sovereignty. “bangs war drums and blows smoke“ I hope for the sake of our children and their children and their children forever, that we always hear the beat of the drum and honour the pipe ceremonies. Our ways connect us to our ancestors – many of whom gave up their lives to protect our lands. I am proud to be part of those traditions and hope we never compromise on our sovereignty,our treaties, our traditions or the well-being of our people.