Warrior Life Studios

Pam Palmater

Tag: Stephen Harper

  • Genocide or Mass Murder – Canadian and Church Officials Must be Held to Account

    What happened in residential schools was not “cultural genocide”. It wasn’t “language genocide”. And it wasn’t “almost genocide”. What happened in residential schools was genocide. Canadian officials targeted Indians for assimilation and elimination purely for economic and political reasons. Scalping bounties on certain Indigenous Nations are indicative of such a lethal mentality.

    Canada wasn’t killing Indians because of our cultures; it was killing Indians to get rid of the “Indian problem” as Indian Affairs officials kept referring to it. Commentators often refer to Duncan Campbell Scott’s quote regarding Indian policy in Canada as proof that the intention was assimilation and not elimination.

    Scott was the deputy superintendent general for the Department of Indian Affairs from 1913 to 1932, who explained in 1920:

     “I want to get rid of the Indian problem. […] Our objective is to continue until there is not a single Indian in Canada that has not been absorbed into the body politic and there is no Indian question and no Indian Department”.

    However, there is more to the story than this. In 1907, Dr. Peter Bryce, the Chief Medical Officer for the federal government, wrote a report on the conditions in residential schools that detailed the astounding number of deaths of Indian children in those schools.(1)

    The government’s own lawyer also warned Canadian officials in 1907:

    “Doing nothing to obviate the preventable causes of death, brings the Department within unpleasant nearness to the charge of manslaughter.”(2)

    Yet, there was no shock and alarm at the time nor did anyone from Indian Affairs come up with an emergency action plan to protect Indigenous children whom Scott referred to as “inmates”.

    Surprisingly, the deaths of Indigenous children appeared to be in line with the objective of the policy.

    In 1910, Scott explained in a letter he wrote to one of his Indian Agents:

    “Indian children… die at a much higher rate [in residential schools] than in their villages. But this alone does not justify a change in the policy of this Department, which is geared towards a final solution of our Indian problem”.

    Residential schools were never a well-intended policy “gone wrong” as claimed by former Minister of Indian Affairs, John Duncan. They were death camps for nearly half of all the “inmates” who entered some of those schools. The tiny hand-cuffs and the electric chairs speak of horrors completely unrelated to “education”.

    These children didn’t die from smallpox or some other series of unfortunate and unpreventable events in those schools. Many of these children were starved, tortured, beaten, raped, and murdered. Nutritional tests and medical experimentations were done on these children only to be denied to benefit of the very medicines created at the expense of their suffering. This sounds eerily familiar to horrors inflicted on other populations around the world.

    Survivor stories of frequent rapes, forced abortions, and unmarked graves stand in stark contradiction to any notion of a benign education policy – especially once government, church and law enforcement officials became aware of what was happening. Why else did these schools have graveyards instead of playgrounds?

    It is too easy for politicians to claim “cultural genocide” now, when they are well aware that cultural genocide was specifically left out of the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.(3)

    Much of the debate has focused on whether or not Canada “intended” to kill Indians. According to international legal experts, leaders can be held accountable if they knew or should have known about the actions and failed to prevent them. Direct evidence of intent is not necessary but can be inferred from circumstantial evidence. The few excerpts above prove that Canadian officials knew not only of the poor conditions in residential schools, but the large number of deaths that were occurring, and that they could be held accountable for “manslaughter”.

    Genocide, by the UN definition, is said to include:

    –        “Killing members of the group;

    –        Causing serious bodily 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.”(4)

    Many have argued that the totality of Canada’s actions towards Indigenous peoples amounted to genocide. In other words, Canadian officials have been guilty of some or all of the above genocidal acts.

    What is particularly striking is the genocidal act of deliberately creating the conditions of life meant to bring about the destruction of the group in whole or in part. The following acts have been found to be genocidal:

    –        “subjecting the group to a subsistence diet;

    –        systematic expulsion from homes;

    –        denial of right to medical services;

    –        creation of circumstances that would lead to a slow death, such as lack of proper housing, clothing and hygiene or excessive work or physical exertion; and

    –        rape.”(5)

    Think of the historic and ongoing conditions of many First Nations who were prohibited from leaving the reserve by law and given only minimal rations; or the Inuit and First Nations who were forcibly relocated from their homelands. There is also a direct link between Canada’s purposeful chronic underfunding of essential human services for First Nations (housing, water, sanitation) and their pre-mature deaths. In residential schools, children were starved, denied medical care, and many suffered slow deaths.(6)

    Genocide is the material destruction of a group – even if not all members of the group are destroyed. There is no set number of people that must be killed for the crime of genocide to occur. It does not need to mimic the worst holocaust to ne genocide. It must be a substantial part of the group. There is also no need for a government plan or policy to exist in order to find genocide. Even without a finding of genocide, the officials could still be charged with crimes against humanity or related crimes.(7)

    Given the significant death tolls, it does not matter whether the courts have accepted the claim of genocide, whether lawyers agree with the claim, or whether communications specialists think it might be too harsh a term to present to the Canadian public. What happened in residential schools were criminal acts back then, just as they are now. All of the people who had the power to stop these deaths (RCMP, Indian Affairs and the churches), not only knew about the deaths –  but refused to act. At the very least, that is criminal negligence causing death.(8)

    We will never get to reconciliation unless we know the truth – all of it. So far, we have only scratched the surface.

    Residential schools can’t be looked at in isolation. Indian policy included the forced sterilizations of Indigenous women and little girls. Forced sterilizations were never about our cultures – it was about eliminating our populations.(9)

    We are not over-represented in prisons, in child and family services and as murdered and missing Indigenous women and girls because of our cultures.

    We are targeted because we are Indians. Indigenous Nations stand in the way of unfettered land and water use, resource extraction and industrial development – i.e. complete environmental destruction in the name of corporate profit.

    Justice Murray Sinclair and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) team have done the impossible – they succeeded in ensuring the voices of survivors were heard, that the atrocities committed in residential schools were documented, and that the truth be told. So far we have only seen the Executive Summary – the final report, which will be many thousands of pages long, will no doubt shed light on even more disturbing details.(10)

    In addition to the incredible emotional and psychological toll this must have taken on Justice Sinclair and his team, they stood strong in the face of the most aggressive anti-First Nation government Canada has been in years. They, together with the survivors, are true heroes.

    But we can’t expect the TRC to carry this burden alone. Nor is this story complete.

    The TRC went as far as it could to address the issue of genocide in the face of various legal considerations and consistent political denial that these schools were anything other than well-intended educational institutes.

    It’s on the rest of us to stand up for the truth and ensure Canadians know everything that happened in the schools covered in this report and the ones not yet exposed.

    Canada tried in various ways to eliminate our cultures – through residential schools and outlawing our ceremonies and practices in the Indian Act. This is all true.

    But Canada also created the conditions which led to our deaths by the thousands inside and outside residential schools. This is also true and this is genocide.

    Once we can put the truth in the table, then we can talk about reconciliation. We need to act on the TRC recommendations related to truth-seeking: a national inquiry on murdered and missing Indigenous women and girls, an investigation into the over-representation of Indigenous peoples in prison, and immediate action and reporting on the over-representation of Indigenous children in foster care.

    The Indian day school class action has just been accepted by the courts and that will likely also reveal similar abuses suffered by Indian children in even more schools.(11)

    We must focus on getting all the facts so we can finally see justice for Indigenous peoples and true reconciliation. A determination that Canada did not commit genocide does not put an end to the story. It’s only just the beginning and it’s not going to be as easy as saying sorry. Canadian and Church officials who committed such horrific crimes upon Indigenous peoples need to be brought to justice.

    The mass murder or manslaughter of our people requires criminal prosecution – just like it would anywhere else in the world. Canada doesn’t receive a “Get out of Jail free” card simply because it hid its atrocities so well. Real reconciliation requires justice.

    Selected Sources: (1) Dr. Peter Bryce, “A Story of a National Crime: An Appeal for Justice to the Indians of Canada” https://ia802705.us.archive.org/20/items/storyofnationalc00brycuoft/storyofnationalc00brycuoft_bw.pdf (2) CBC News, “Truth and Reconciliation Commission: By the Numbers” http://www.cbc.ca/news/aboriginal/truth-and-reconciliation-commission-by-the-numbers-1.3096185 (3) The National Post,  “Canada was ready to abandon 1948 accord if UN didn’t remove ‘cultural genocide’ ban, records reveal” http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canada-threatened-to-abandon-1948-accord-if-un-didnt-remove-cultural-genocide-ban-records-reveal (4) UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%2078/volume-78-I-1021-English.pdf

    (5) Module 6: Genocide (International Criminal Law Services, European Union) pg. 26 International Criminal Law & Practice Training Materials Genocide

    (6) P. Palmater, Stretched Beyond Human Limits: Death by Poverty in First Nations

    http://crsp.journals.yorku.ca/index.php/crsp/article/view/35220/32057

    (7) Module 6: Genocide (see above)

    (8) P. Palmater, Genocide, Indian Policy and Legislated Elimination of Indians in Canada

    http://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/aps/article/view/22225

    (9) Karen Stote, An Act of Genocide: Colonialism and the Sterilization of Aboriginal Women

    https://fernwoodpublishing.ca/book/an-act-of-genocide

    (10) Honouring the Truth, Reconciling for the Future: Summary of the Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada

    http://www.trc.ca/websites/trcinstitution/File/2015/Findings/Exec_Summary_2015_05_31_web_o.pdf

    (11) CTV News, Federal appeal court gives OK on hearing First Nations Day-School Suit

    http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/federal-appeal-court-gives-ok-on-hearing-first-nations-day-school-suit-1.1713809

    PLEASE SEE: Related videos on my Youtube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfFeKGf51lo&t=202s

  • #StayUnited against #FNCFNEA

    Since the time I was small, I have always been told by Chiefs, politicians and elders about the importance of our unity – unity within our Mi’kmaw families, our communities and Nation. Leaders even spoke about the importance of inter-tribal or inter-nation unity. I come from a territory where the Wabanaki Confederacy, a political allegiance of multiple Nations, built upon our Nations’ diverse backgrounds for common purposes. The relationships which came from this confederacy have lasted until present day.

    At the same time, my elders were careful to explain that unity is not about sameness. Unity is a type of bond or treaty amongst Indigenous Nations which celebrates the different strengths, histories, cultures, insights and skills of each Nation and brings them together to make the whole stronger. Unity is a celebration or embracing of those differences to make the treaty group stronger in defending its sovereignty, territories or peoples. It is not an agreement on all issues at all times. Nor is unity about each Nation conforming to one way of thinking or acting. Diverse Nations inherently have different needs, outlooks, priorities and ways of accomplishing their goals.

    Several long-time leaders also told me that unity for the sake of unity can cause more harm than good. Unity for the sake of unity denies the very differences we celebrate as Nations and shuts out the voices of caution, overlooked facts, multiple perspectives and potential outcomes. Sometimes these lone voices are mischaracterized as oppositional, trouble-making, politicking or disloyal. Consensus building takes a great deal of effort and time; so when these brave voices speak out against the consensus, sometimes its hard not to lose patience or be frustrated.

    Yet, elders have told me that those voices which delay consensus for a time are sometimes the most loyal citizens – citizens who care so deeply about their community or Nation that they risk ridicule and exclusion to raise potential threats to the collective. They may not always deliver the message as we’d like or even have all the facts, but that is what consensus building is about – providing everyone with all the facts, potential outcomes and perspectives so that when a decision is made, everyone understands and accepts its – even if not in total agreement. I believe the future of our Nations depends on the consideration and inclusion of all voices.

    The biggest impact on our ability as Indigenous Nations to maintain our unity in times of need is the impact of colonization. Generations of colonial ideologies, residential schools, Indian Act restrictions, federal divide-and-conquer tactics, and systems of government-imposed rewards and punishments have impaired our ability to see unity as we once did. Canada has divided us into good Indians and bad Indians – those who comply versus those who resist. In so doing, the hard work of unity-building within Nations is impaired because the focus is on one-size-fits-all Indians. In fact, pan-Indianness is so ingrained that we often criticize ourselves for not being unified as “Indians” when we should be unified in resisting pan-Indianness.

    Our unity as Nations is like a treaty – a coming together of certain Nations at certain times to assert or defend certain causes. We can be united to defend our right to control education but different in how we want to assert that control (depending on each Nation’s priorities and needs). Sometimes our unity is based on historical relations, regional similarities or broad national interests. Our unity is no less powerful because the Mohawks educate one way and the Cree another. The similarity is in the assertion of sovereignty and jurisdiction over our right to control our own education systems, methods, content and outcomes.

    With regards to Prime Minister Harper and National Chief Shawn Atleo’s education “deal”, this was not made in a good way, nor in the spirit of unity. In fact, the countless secret meetings, lack of information, and surprise announcements are counter to our traditional ways of building consensus and capitalizing on our strengths and differences in unity. The biggest problem is that no space was ever made for the possibility that there would be no unity on this deal – the deal was made for us without us at the table. The result is wide-spread distrust, anger and reaction – all justified. Now, our leaders are forced to account to their citizens for decisions of which they had no part, causing even further disharmony amongst our Nations. Yet, none of this had to happen.

    For many decades, First Nations have been tightly unified on their views about First Nation education. While we may have taken very different approaches to other issues, on First Nation education we all agreed. First Nations are united in their views that we have jurisdiction over every aspect of our education systems (however we choose as individual Nations to define them) and that we should be the ones in control. We have always held the position that Canada must live up to its legal obligations to recognize and implement our treaty, Aboriginal and other rights to education with adequate funding. We have always asserted that Canada needs to make amends for the damages caused to our languages and cultures from residential schools by providing the supports needed to advance and protect them in current education systems – First Nations or provincial.

    How we choose to get there is up to us. Some of us may want to negotiate sectoral self-government agreements in education; some may wish to use the current systems with modified funding, some may want a treaty-based system, and others may want to design and implement their own systems independently with completely different funding agreements. We may have different methods, but we are united in defense of our right to choose how we will implement our right to control our own education systems. We are not all one mythical race of Indians after all.

    Our current initiatives in resisting the Atleo-Harper deal on education are not about sour grapes, jealousy, politics, the next federal election, the next AFN National Chief election, or who’s “right”. Those are all red-herrings critics throw in the mix to keep people from focusing on the real issue – control over our own education systems. The reason why so many Chiefs, grassroots citizens, academics, lawyers and Canadian allies are against this deal is because it violates our fundamental right to control our own education systems. We are not fighting against unity – we are fighting desperately to maintain our long-held unity in education.

    The Harper government has become very adept at its divide-and-conquer techniques. It also uses funding as a reward-punishment tool to further control and divide us. It’s most effective tool so far has been using First Nations individuals and organizations to promote its assimilatory agenda. Trojan horses filled with assimilatory Aboriginal warriors march forward to implement Harper’s plan under the guise of what’s good for us. The numerous bills being imposed on us all have wonderful titles and great media sound bites that distract us from what’s inside the bills. Calling a bill “First Nations Control” is a lie if what’s inside is increased Ministerial control.

    I think most of us expect this from Harper, but the most hurtful and offensive part is that we don’t expect our own leaders to do this to us. National Chief Shawn Atleo has hurt us all by acting as if he had the right to make this deal in the first place; by acting so secretively and outside our traditional ways of building consensus; and then standing in defense of this destructive bill – no matter what First Nations say. Part of being a leader is being humble and admitting when you have made mistakes. Atleo could still stand with First Nations against this bill, but he refuses to do so. Atleo destroyed our negotiating leverage in Ottawa and now he has broken our unity on education. He refuses to listen to us.

    Unfortunately, we don’t have time to commiserate about it – we have to act. We cannot give Harper any ammunition to use against us as he tries to ram this bill through the House and Senate. We have to show that Atleo does not speak for us, as the Minister is already relying on Atleo’s endorsement of the bill as his “proof” of consultation and consent. We cannot let Harper hide behind any First Nation individual or organization to roll out his assimilation plan.

    Most of all, we have to stay united against this bill to protect control over our education and save our cultures and languages for future generations. If we voluntarily allow Canada to legislate our treaty rights, there is no undoing it later. Harper is desperate to turn the treaty right to education into a discretionary program and service that is subject to Parliament’s budgetary whims. We can’t let Harper do that.

    Harper is scared of our voices. AANDC is running scared and is tweeting in defense of itself. Harper can see the growing opposition from First Nations and is speeding up the review of the bill. We have the power to stop this. When First Nations stand in unity, there is no piece of paper, no legislation, or crooked politician that can stop us. The “winter we danced” as Idle No More showed the world how powerful in peace our people are when we stand together. I’ve always believed in the power of our people to make change – let’s stay united on education and give our children some hope.

     

    #StayUnited against #FNCFNEA

  • #IMPEACH ATLEO – Response to AFN’s “Analysis” Of Its Own Education Deal With Harper

    The National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) Shawn Atleo made a “historic” deal with Prime Minister Stephen Harper on First Nation education. What makes this deal so historic? Well, it’s the deal that no First Nation asked for and its one that Atleo had no power to make. It’s historic because not only will Atleo go down in history as the worst National Chief, but he has taken the AFN down with him. For the most part, many Regional Chiefs sat by and watched him do it. Now, the AFN thinks that by analyzing its own deal, this will help make the bitter taste of assimilation wash down more easily. They are wrong.

    It is important to understand that Atleo has absolutely no independent political power as National Chief. The AFN’s Charter is very specific about this. So, all of his deal-making with Canada is outside the legal scope of this authority. The Prime Minister, who is not a signatory to the treaties between First Nations and Her Majesty, is also acting outside the legal scope of his power. Harper has no power to unilaterally amend treaties or violate constitutionally-protected treaty rights. Yet, this political duo is taking matters into their own hands and changing the rules in education and treaty rights – just like they both promised at the Crown-First Nation Gathering.

    The opposition to this deal is not new – it has been significant and consistent throughout the last few years. Three provinces of First Nations pulled out of the National Panel on Education – Saskatchewan, Quebec and Ontario – as a strong message to Atleo that he did NOT have the mandate to make a deal on First Nation education. Atleo did not listen. He forged ahead despite the growing opposition. The Chiefs in Assembly passed numerous resolutions AGAINST Atleo making any deals on First Nation education and specifically against education legislation. Atleo hung on tightly to Harper and forged ahead despite growing calls for his impeachment.

    Then came the “deal” – the promise of adequate funding, First Nation control, and legislation that would recognize our Aboriginal and treaty rights to education. From the moment Atleo-Harper held their joint press conference, First Nations knew we were in trouble. Atleo sang songs about how he was saving our children from the status quo while Harper countered every point Atleo made – although with great tact. When Atleo realized that Harper wasn’t singing the same song, Atleo send a strongly worded letter asking whether or not any of the promises Atleo made to First Nations were in fact going to be kept by Harper. The answer was no. Instead of throwing away his pride, admitting to his colossal mistake and standing with First Nations against Harper’s assimilation agenda, Atleo stood by Harper.

    What followed was political propaganda from Harper, Minister Valcourt and Atleo meant to save the deal from being challenged in the public arena. AFN’s open letters, statements, clarifications, and press releases were desperate acts of damage control. It was too late – Chief Gilbert Whiteduck filed a judicial review against Canada about the proposed legislation. First Nations spoke honestly and critically in the media about the damage this proposed Act would do. Lawyers, academics, analysts and political commentators all seem to come to the same conclusion: the Act did not reflect First Nations control or protect treaty rights, and even the funding was an illusion.

    The proof is in the act – Bill C-33 which was supposed to be called First Nations Control of First Nations Education Act actually reads:

    An Act to establish a framework to enable First Nations control of elementary and secondary education and to provide for related funding and to make related amendments to the Indian Act and consequential amendments to other acts

    The Act establishes a “framework” and that framework is to “enable” First Nations control over elementary and secondary schools. But what does this mean exactly? First Nations have been very specific that they want recognition of their exclusive jurisdiction and control over all aspects of education in First Nations. The Summary portion of the Act provides more clarity:

     

    This enactment provides for the control by First Nations of their elementary and secondary education systems. It establishes a framework to enable First Nations to exercise that control by administering schools situated on their reserves, by delegating the power to administer schools to a First Nation Education Authority or by entering into a tuition or administration agreement. (emphasis added)

    First of all, any “control” by First Nations is limited only to elementary and secondary education. In addition, that control is limited to the administration of on reserve schools only. That administrative control is further limited to a power to delegate – i.e. that control MUST be exercised by giving up all control to First Nation Education Authorities – a new level of bureaucracy.

    In simple terms, Canada is retaining all of its control over First Nation education – this is clear throughout the Act. At best, this Act outlines a complex process for how Canada will DEVOLVE limited ADMINISTRATIVE control over some, not all, education to First Nation organizations (not First Nations themselves). In case there was any doubt, the Summary goes on to explain that it is Canada that will set out the roles and responsibilities of First Nation educators and will create a National Organization, in addition to this Education Authorities as yet another layer of control over First Nations education.

    This cumbersome new bureaucratic system will not be adequately funded, and the majority of the funds will be eaten up by this bureaucracy. The only people that will benefit are those waiting in the wings to gain favour from the Harper government and be appointed to one of these new boards. While newly appointed bureaucrats suck up the already inadequate funding that should be going to First Nations to operate their schools, a new financial burden is being placed them – the requirement to provide education to non-First Nation people.

    One doesn’t even have to read the actual provisions contained inside the Act to know that this is not in the best interests of First Nations. Yet, Atleo continues to vehemently defend the deal he made with Harper. Atleo’s most recent “analysis” of the Act is a sign that the AFN stopped working for First Nations and is more concerned about gaining favour with Harper to the detriment of our children and future generations.

    The analysis is not really an analysis so much as it is AFN’s spin on their colossal failure. A simple, plain language analysis could have been done in relatively few pages. However, their analysis does not even start until the 4th page of their document. The first three pages simply outline history – what we already know. What’s worse is that when the analysis does start, it begs us to read into the Act what isn’t there – legal recognition, implementation, enforcement and funding of First Nations controlled education systems according to First Nation laws, rights and priorities.

    Highlights of AFN’s Analysis:

    “Principle” of First Nation Control:

    AFN uses the same weasel words that Justice Canada and Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC) uses. Instead of a direct recognition of First Nation jurisdiction over all education systems, AFN and AANDC say that First Nation education should be “designed” based on a “guiding principle” of First Nation control. The design of First Nation education is being done by AANDC through this Act, and the guiding principles of First Nation control are not law – they are fluffy statements used to give the illusion of control without actually recognizes a legal right.

    “Reference” to language and culture:

    AFN argues that a mere reference to language and culture is significant, but fails to highlight how this is limited by the actual provisions within the Act that make provincial standards the norm and English and French the standard languages of instruction.

    K-12 Education is part of life-long learning:

    AFN highlights that this is an important statement in the preamble of the Act, yet ignores the fact that this Act is specifically limited to K-12 education. In an analysis, we would expect AFN to highlight the substantive promises, not the fluff.  This Act does not state that First Nations have jurisdiction over every level of education, thus the lifelong learning statement is just more fluff.

    Protecting the Treaty Right to Education:

    AFN claims that the preamble which states that Canada protects Aboriginal and treaty rights in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 should give comfort that this Act respects treaty rights. All the preamble actually says is that Canada protects treaty rights in section 35. It does not say this Act protects treaty rights. These weasel words are meant to distract our people and give them false comfort.

    AFN asks us to believe that the non-derogation clause contained within the Act is further protection of our Aboriginal or treaty right to education. Yet, that is not what the clause says. The clause speaks to the non-derogation (to take away from) or abrogation (to end or cancel) of Aboriginal and treaty rights generally. There is no positive protection of the treaty right to education, no specific mention of the treaties which protect education being exempt from the Act, and no acknowledgment of Canada’s legal obligations to recognize and implement the treaty right to education. Instead, this Act purports to legislate that treaty right without our consent. The very act of introducing this Bill without the free, informed and prior consent of First Nations, violates the treaty right and/or Aboriginal to education. Further, the failure to fully fund education in First Nations violates the treaty provisions, which in turn violates the constitution.  AFN should be advocating and defending our rights – plain and simple.

    Access to Education:

    Instead of focusing on the necessary funding to ensure that First Nations can provide robust education (of their own design) to First Nations, this part of the Act is not focused on First Nations at all. This section speaks to forcing First Nations to provide education (as outlined by AANDC) to non-First Nation residents. This is an added burden and could impede the ability to direct their education system as per Indigenous values and traditions.

    AANDC, as part of its assimilation agenda, is trying to transition the rights-based obligations of Canada to First Nations, to a discretionary one of programs and services to generic residents. This is the transition from First Nations to provincial municipalities. This is not the first Act to do this. Look at the Matrimonial Real Property Act which purports to give non-Indians property rights on reserve in contravention of treaties and the Indian Act itself. This will also create an administrative and financial burden on First Nations. The fact that AFN would not highlight this and defend First Nation rights shows they are no more than an arm of the federal government facilitating the assimilation agenda.

    Joint Council of Education Professionals:

    Again, this is another provision that First Nations did not ask for, but is a mandatory aspect of this Act. The very fact that this Council is created and governed by federal legislation speaks to the lack of independence. Either way, whether federally-controlled or jointly AFN-Harper controlled – this is not the vision of First Nations regarding jurisdiction over education. If the funding component was addressed, First Nations would be able to build their own capacity with whatever “expert” assistance they determine to be relevant.

    Instead, this Act, like the Matrimonial Property Act, gives the illusion of control and independence, while mandating Centres of Excellence, National Joint Council, controlled by the federal government to oversee federal legislation. None of this speaks to First Nation control. All of AFN’s hopes with regards to this Joint Council are based on “anticipated” roles, not actual roles contained in the legislation.

    Even after all of this, AFN still expects First Nations to follow blindly down this legislative path in “anticipation” of good results. The way I see it, once Canada lives up to its current legal and treaty obligations, I might be more inclined to have some faith in their intentions to live up to the hopes of AFN in this legislation. Until then, we owe our future generations a little more than pie in the sky false hopes.

    First Nation Languages:

    Nice try AFN, but the legislation is clear. The language of instruction in schools is French and English. There is no way you can interpret the law as written in any other manner. The First Nation “is to”, i.e. must offer French or English. They “may” “in addition” offer First Nation languages. This is an optional, permissible action, in addition to regular instruction. Given that First Nations are also being forced to adopt provincial standards and curriculum, there’ll be little room for English-French as core instruction to provincial standards, as well as First Nation immersion. The two are incompatible.

    I don’t want the courts left to interpret our rights. We have domestic and international legal rights to speak our own languages and educate our children in our own languages and on our own standards. This is also an inherent right based on our sovereignty and jurisdiction over education. If Canada had intended that First Nations would be “allowed” to educate their children in First Nation languages in immersion, they would have written it that way. Justice Canada’s legislative drafters are skilled in writing the intentions of the instructing Minister. There was no mistake here.

    First Nation Governance?

    First Nation Education Authorities are the heart of this Act. It is intended that First Nation “control” is exercised through First Nation Authorities. These authorities are defined by Canada. They are agents of AANDC. Similarly, AANDC defines who is to be hired by these authorities, including Directors and Principles, and prescribes their roles. AANDC takes it a step further and includes a school inspector – modern day Indian agent to oversee and “verify” compliance with the Act. This Act goes even further and gives the power to AANDC to require that the First Nation Authority hire a Special Advisor, and can even appoint a third-party educator known as a “temporary administrator” against the will of the First Nation.

    In comparison to the current Indian Act, this act gives AANDC much more detailed and expansive powers over First Nation education. The Act makes it mandatory for the Director, principal and staff of a First Nation school to comply with the third-party educator. Given the horrific outcomes of federally-run residential schools, First Nations have a right to fear such invasive control over their education systems – far more intrusive than now. The difference between residential schools and modern-day federally-controlled schools under this Act is that the federal government was liable for the damages they caused in residential schools. In this Act, they absolve themselves of any and all liability for any harm done to First Nations.

    Other Issues with the Act:

    The funding is inadequate and will be eaten up by new federal and regional education bureaucracies;

    The Act limits First Nation “control” to on reserve schools and excludes First Nation control over their students within their territories but off reserve;

    The Act mandates the provision of already-stretched education services to non-First Nations;

    The Act mandates parents to register and force attendance of their children – not unlike residential schools, which could result in increased abductions of First Nation children by Child and Family Service agencies into already swollen foster care;

    The functions and powers of the National Joint Council are unlimited and could be substantially expanded under the yet-to-be-written regulations;

    There is no requirement that the regulations be approved by or jointly drafted by First Nations – Canada retains all the power to enact any regulation regarding this Act;

    The provisions around the Joint Council membership seem to be more about saving the AFN as an organization, than of representing the views and choices of First Nations – although not defined in the Act, the regulations will determine who is the representative organization;

    A First Nation is not permitted to charge tuition fees to any of its attendees (I’m thinking specifically non-First Nation attendees) which precludes the design of special schools or funding options for schools;

    The Act prescribes who can and cannot act as a Director or Principal, which in very small communities could severely limit whether local people could apply for these jobs;

    Methods of calculation for funding purposes have skewed comparators in “similarly-sized provincial” schools given that the treaty right is not comparable with those who do not have similarly-protected constitutional rights, histories, experiences, socio-economic conditions, governance capacity or catch-up to do from harms in residential schools;

    Finally, the height of an undemocratic, irresponsible, unaccountable government:

    Canada reserves all these powers to direct First Nation education, but will not allow itself to be held accountable if it causes harm – by insulating itself from liability.

    This isn’t what First Nations meant by recognition of First Nations jurisdiction over their own education systems, nor does it recognize and implement the treaty right to education. The AFN’s continued defense of Atleo-Harper’s education deal. At any time the regional chiefs of the AFN could have stopped Atleo by impeaching him; they could have resigned in protest; they could have spoken up loud and clear.

    While it’s true that some regional chiefs were ostracized and excluded from information and decision-making, staying silent about what is happening does not protect the people. I am a strong believer in unity, but not at the expense of unifying ourselves out of existence. Our ancestors were kind, respectful people who guarded their protocols to ensure good working relationships with other Nations. But our ancestors were also warriors and knew when to stand up and protect their people from harm.

    Atleo’s three-piece suits, photo-ops, club speeches, international travel, and fancy dinners with Harper and his Ministers are an insult to the First Nations women who go murdered and missing, to our kids who die in foster care, to the children without hope who die of suicide; and the many people who die pre-mature deaths from purposeful, chronic federal underfunding.

    The problem and the solution have been identified in hundreds of reports. Recognition of First Nation jurisdiction and adequate funding could change lives of First Nations and Canadians as we know it. Even the economic analysis says we’d all live much richer, fuller lives – First Nation and Canadian – if we invested in First Nation education. You don’t need legislation or any more studies to do this – it’s a simple choice by Canada. Not all pressing problems have such simple solutions, but it’s the solution itself – funding – that Canada has taken great pains to avoid.

    It’s time to stop shaking hands with those who are trying to eliminate us and start defending the rights of our people.

    Related blogs:

    http://www.indigenousnationhood.blogspot.ca/2014/03/first-nations-controlled-first-nations.html

    http://www.indigenousnationhood.blogspot.ca/2014/02/harpers-cons-and-fnea-would-you-want.html

    http://www.indigenousnationhood.blogspot.ca/2014/02/first-nation-control-of-first-nation.html

     

     

     

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

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

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

  • Mirror, Mirror on the Wall, Whose the Smartest of them All? The Problem with Radicals, Insurgents, Terrorists, and Non-Thinkers

    Mirror, Mirror on the wall, who’s the smartest of them all? Well, according to Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver, the Conservatives are the smartest of them all – at least, they are the only ones who take “facts” into account when they think. This means that everyone else who does not think, act and support the Conservative right-wing agenda is relegated to that neanderthal group of non-thinkers who pose a national security risk. Sound familiar? http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/story/2012/01/09/pol-joe-oliver-radical-groups.html Well, I am not just talking about me and my alleged “subversive and hostile activities”. Nor am I talking about Cindy Blackstock and her evil pursuit to give First Nations children a chance at the good life. This time I am talking about all those pesky environmentalists, anti-poverty groups, churches, amnesty groups, human rights organizations, international organizations, students, academics, lawyers, animal protection groups, scientists, researchers, women’s right organizations, Canadian politicians and political groups, actors, actresses and singers, and philanthropists, as well as the most notorious radicals, insurgents, and terrorists in Canada – Indigenous peoples. https://pampalmater.com/2012/01/when-advocating-for-first-nations-is.html Somehow this gigantic, ideologically, culturally, socially, politically and legally diverse group form a “radical” group of people who, according to Conservative Minister Oliver: “don’t take into account the facts but are driven by an ideological imperative”. This imperative is to “block trade” and “undermine Canada’s economy”. This out of control group “threaten to hijack our regulatory system to achieve their radical ideological agenda”. Honestly, just the thought of someone trying to hijack our regulatory process sends a cold shiver down my spine. Imagine the level of sophistication, planning and education that allowed such a dangerous group to read and understand those millions of regulations. The sheer level of dedication to their terrorist plot to protect the environment, the health of the residents or Indigenous lands is astounding. Don’t let this insurgent group’s reliance on research data, scientific studies, academic publications, and internationally recognized reports fool you. They are not basing their ideology of sustainability and human rights on “facts” – they are, instead, blindly following a radical ideology which is intent on destroying Canadians – i.e., those that voted Conservative in the last election. “Their goal is to stop any major project no matter what the cost to Canadian families in lost jobs and economic growth. No forestry. No mining. No oil. No gas. No more hydro-electric dams.” What next? Wind mills, solar power and bicycles? I think the answer is actually hidden in Minister Oliver’s comments – REAL Canadians support mining, logging and oil sands – regardless of the costs to people, land, water or the environment. Radicals support clean water, alternative energy and respecting Indigenous lands and resources. Thus, by stripping this rather large group of radicals of their citizenship (non-Canadians), intelligence (thinking without facts), or legitimate concerns (radical ideologies), they can be de-humanized, vilified, criminalized, and ultimately ignored. If you think I am being paranoid (that one’s for you CSIS), then ask any Indigenous person who has been labelled as “savage”, “pagan”, “heathen”, “uncivilized”, “communist”, “radical”, “insurgent”, “terrorist” threat to Canada. We are so dangerous in fact that it takes CSIS, special units of the RCMP, DND (military) AND Indian Affairs to keep an eye on our tiny little population. Stealing our land and resources, decimating our populations, outlawing our languages and cultures, keeping us in extreme poverty, stealing our children from us, throwing us in jails, and publicly vilifying us in the media is not enough to comfort those fact-based thinking Conservatives. If you ask me, the real radical terrorists are the “new” Conservative party. They are so far away from their old political ideologies that even some Conservatives are scared of this new party. However, given that many consider Harper to be akin to a dictator, these same old-school Conservatives fear doing anything but supporting this new radical party. It is plain to see that the right wing fanatics from the Reform Party invaded the Conservatives and have never ceded power. Once a dictator assumes power, the only way he can maintain it is through propaganda, misinformation, secrecy, fear and force. This is exactly what we see now. The new Conservative Party has shown that it is THEY who hold radical right-wing ideologies that they ram down the throats of the majority of Canadians. These ideologies are never based on fact, science or reality, but instead on their radical ideology that the ultimate goal is to achieve the most power and wealth it can. This is not my political rhetoric, as you will recall I don’t vote in federal or provincial elections as none of those parties represent our Indigenous Nations. What I am saying is fact – and in case you have any doubts, I invite you to consult the Parliament of Canada website and peruse the legislation that has already passed or is being proposed. It is highly focused on power (military, defense) and wealth (stopping unions, stealing reserve lands). http://www.parl.gc.ca/LegisInfo/Home.aspx?language=E&Parl=41&Ses=1 If such a political party can proceed with oil sands despite the catastrophic environmental, human and animal impacts; if it can proceed with destructive extraction industries ignoring Indigenous rights; or pursue wealth and power while leaving children and families to live in poverty – then I ask who is the radical terrorist? Who is acting in a way to subvert the well-being of Canadian citizens and Indigenous peoples, lands and waters? Since when did sustainable development, sharing the wealth, respecting human rights and Indigenous rights become anti-Canadian? Moreover, since when did participating in a democratic process like testifying before a regulatory board about one’s concerns about a project become such a radical act? Is Minister Oliver saying we are no longer entitled to hold a different opinion? That sounds radically like a dictatorship to me. I think we ought to start monitoring his Facebook, Twitter, and e-mail accounts and see what kind of meetings and conferences he attends. I’m a little nervous about this one.