My Submission to United Nations Human Rights Committee on Canada's Human Rights Violations

Statement of Pamela Palmater

to the

114th Human Rights Committee Session:

Formal Briefing on Canada

(July 6, 2015 Geneva, Switzerland)

Kwe, n’in teluisi Pam Palmater. I am from the sovereign Indigenous Nation of the Mi’kmaq in Mi’kma’ki, Canada. I am here as an impacted Indigenous individual thanks to the support of Franciscans International. Today I would like to testify to three urgent situations related to Canada’s obligations under the Covenant which are also raised in the joint submission presented by the NGO Mining Working Group in response to the List of Issues which I fully support:

First, the criminalization of Indigenous peoples in Canada for our human rights advocacy and defense of our lands.

Federal and provincial laws and regulations have criminalized Indigenous peoples’ traditional occupations and trade economies by making it illegal to hunt, fish, gather or use our natural resources within our traditional, treaty, title, trapping or reserve lands. Engaging in Indigenous rights advocacy or defense of the environment to protect the health of our lands, waters, plants, animals and people also results in our public vilification, beatings, arrests, imprisonment, and/or deaths.

The incarceration rate for Indigenous peoples is 10 times higher than the national average. Since 2000, the Indigenous inmate population has increased by over 56% and in some prisons, represent as much as 65% of the inmate population. The Government’s own studies have consistently concluded that it is the result of racism in Canada’s justice system.

The recently enacted Anti-Terrorism Act (C-51) threatens to treat peaceful Indigenous activists as potential terrorists. There are several examples in which Canada’s Ministers, military, and RCMP have already labelled First Nations as “insurgents”, “eco-terrorists” and “threats to national security.” Given this context, we feel that we will be targeted under this law if we continue our traditional practices.

Second, the Committee ought to emphasize the growing crisis of poverty and discriminatory treatmentof Indigenous peoples.

Despite being less than 4% of the population, Indigenous children make up nearly 50% of all children in state care (90% in Manitoba). 73% of all water systems in First Nations are at high risk – for those that have running water. The majority of houses on reserve are in need of major repair and/or overcrowded (upwards of 25 people to a home). Indigenous peoples suffer higher rates of ill health, accidents, and injuries and have some of the highest suicide rates in the world. Indigenous women and girls are over-represented in those that are murdered or missing – 16% nationally, but as high as 55% in provinces like Saskatchewan. Indigenous peoples have lower rates of education and employment and live 7-20 years less than Canadians.

As different UN mechanisms have consistently found, this crisis is particularly jarring in a wealthy and highly developed country like Canada - especially since the majority of the wealth comes from Indigenous lands.The situation is aggravated by the Government’s failure to protect Indigenous peoples’ rights, to remedy harms, and to properly fund Indigenous institutions.

Third and finally, I emphasize Canada’s failure to consult with Indigenous peoples regarding legislation and actions impacting Indigenous lands and waters.

Despite decisions from the Supreme Court of Canada directing Canada to consult, accommodate, and obtain the consent of Indigenous peoples, Canada has unilaterally limited debate and refused to consult with Indigenous peoples on legislation which impacts our inherent, Aboriginal and treaty rights.

Peaceful civil actions by Indigenous peoples to protect lands and waters from clear-cutting, mining, hydro-fracking or pipelines are met with heavy RCMP intervention. State law enforcement is used to protect state subsidized corporations to engage in the extraction of Indigenous lands, waters and resources without our consent, to our social and economic detriment, to the destruction of our lands and waters and in violation of our human rights.

Together with the NGO Mining Working Group, I urge the Committee to consider the following recommendations for Canada:

(1) Repeal Bill C-51 Anti-Terrorism Act and all recent legislation unilaterally imposed on Indigenous peoples and start a comprehensive study and consultative process in partnership with Indigenous peoples;

(2) Develop independent and more robust oversight, reporting, and redress mechanismsfor Canada’s national security activities, law enforcement, and surveillance of Indigenous peoples and other environmental and human rights defenders;

(3) Take all measures necessary to ensure that all domestic and international extractive activities by Canadian corporations comply with human rights obligations, including obtaining the free, informed and prior consent of Indigenous peoples;

(4) Provide adequate funding to Indigenous peoples to address the multiple, over-lapping crises in education, health, housing, food, water, infrastructure, flooding;

(5) Take emergency action to address structural discrimination especially the over-representation of Indigenous children in care; murdered and missing Indigenous women and girls; and the over-incarceration of Indigenous peoples; and

(6) Implement treaties, address outstanding claims of lands and resources; and develop a more equitable revenue sharing structure in partnership with Indigenous peoples.

(    Note: 

      

                          (Sharon McIvor and I at the United Nations in Geneva)

      

The Committee only allows 3 minutes to present. Therefore, all presenters had to pick only 2 or 3 core issues to discuss. I could not read the entirety of even this small submission, so I hit the highlights of the issue and read the recommendations. Sharon McIvor was there to make a submission on two issues: murdered and missing Indigenous women and sex discrimination against Indigenous women and their descendants in the Indian Act registration provisions. Art Manuel presented on self-determination and Canada's failures in this regard. Amnesty International spoke on a variety of issues, one of which was Bill C-51 and recommending its repeal.
f

RCMP Report on Murdered and Missing Aboriginal Women is Statistically Skewed

In 2014, the RCMP released a report on their "National Operational Review" on the issue of "Missing and Murdered Aboriginal Women" which amounted to 1181 women total - 164 missing and 1017 murdered.  The core conclusion of the report was that "Aboriginal women"* were over-represented in the numbers of murdered and missing. They cautioned readers that their report contained a certain amount of "error and imprecision" given the thirty year period of review, the human error of investigators, inconsistency of collection, and definitional issues.

Let's look at that caveat a little closer. The RCMP had to "limit" their file review to missing women who had been identified by RCMP on CPIC (Canadian Police Information Centre) as "non-white" female or "blank". The category of "Aboriginal origin" was only recently added to CPIC and so could not possibly capture all Aboriginal persons. Similarly, the numbers do not include Aboriginal women who were mistakenly recorded as "white" or Aboriginal women who were reported missing but were never recorded. Given the high level of overt and systemic racism in policing as confirmed in the Donald Marshall Jr., Manitoba Justice, Ipperwash, and Pickton inquiries, the numbers of those missing never recorded could be extremely high.

Now, let's look at how the RCMP or other jurisdictions determine who is "Aboriginal". The RCMP report notes that they used "perception-based assessment". In other words, "how a police officer defines how an individual looks in terms of complexion and/or ancestry". However, even this determination is not consistent across jurisdictions. Any number of jurisdictions use the following to identify persons:

            (1) official Aboriginal "status";

            (2) officer discretion; and

            (3) self-identification.

Based on the above, it would seem logical that the RCMP would miss identifying a large portion or even majority of Aboriginal persons. In the first methodology, I presume they meant to say "Indian status" or "Indian registration" because there is no formal or official "Aboriginal status". I hope the RCMP know at least this much about the legislated identity of Indigenous peoples in Canada (hint: it's in the Indian Act). For those that only use "Indian status", that would exclude all the non-status Indians, Métis, and Inuit individuals in Canada. The most recent National Household Survey indicated that there were 1,400,685 Aboriginal people in Canada and only 637,660 of them were registered Indians. That leaves 763,025 individuals (more than half the Aboriginal population) excluded from possible identification as Aboriginal by RCMP standards.

Even those who are identified based on their official Indian status, the RCMP fails to take into consideration the fact that there are well over 20,000 people with Indian status who do not descend from nor identify as "Indian" or "Aboriginal". This is thanks again to the Indian Act which made non-Indian women and their non-Indian male and female children registered as Indians, despite their lack of Aboriginal ancestry or cultural connection. This equates to thousands of men with Indian status that are not in fact Aboriginal.

With regards to the second methodology, the RCMP are identifying Aboriginal peoples based on a racist set of biological and/or physical characteristics which they unilaterally assign to Aboriginal people. In other words, "Aboriginal people" are treated as one race of people with certain pre-determined physical characteristics - like hair, eye or skin colour. They ignore the fact that Indigeneity is social, cultural, political, legal, territorial, and nation-based - not an identity based on race. This racist methodology would be as useless as trying to identify a Canadian citizen gone missing in the USA based on skin colour. Clearly, the RCMP would miss the vast majority of "Aboriginal people" using this kind of methodology.

With regard to the third methodology of self-identification, the RCMP failed to indicate what percentage of jurisdictions actually rely on self-identification. This of course would not work in the context of a murdered or missing Aboriginal woman as she cannot self-identify. It might only work in the context of the woman's family or friends choosing to identify her as Aboriginal. It is impossible to know how many people would voluntarily self-identify given the extent to which every level of the justice system is infected with overt and systemic racism as per the numerous justice inquiries. Many Aboriginal people have a justified fear of the RCMP stemming from residential school days, Starlight tours, and deaths in police custody - as well as provincial police forces for similar reasons.

So, it is logical to conclude that the RCMP grossly under-counted the actual numbers of murdered and missing Aboriginal women in Canada. This conclusion is confirmed by the RCMP's own admission that due to these methodological problems "a high number of Homicide survey reports where the identity of the victim (and/or accused) remained unknown". This admission on their part is extremely important in understanding the racist dialogue which has recently unfolded at the Ministerial level.

Aboriginal Affairs Minister Bernard Valcourt has been very vocal in his refusal to conduct a national inquiry into murdered and missing Indigenous women and little girls. He has publicly stated that part of the problem is that First Nation men "have a lack of respect for women and girls on reserve". Aside from the fact that he forgot Métis and Inuit people who don't live on reserves, Valcourt went on to tell Treaty 6 Chiefs that 70% of the cases, Aboriginal women were killed by Aboriginal men. The RCMP refused to release the statistics on the alleged perpetrators as they claimed a commitment to "bias-free" policing. That commitment did not last long as they issued a letter several days later to Treaty 6 Grand Chief seeming to back up Minister Valcourt.

The RCMP's exact words to Treaty 6 Grand Chief Martial were as follows:

"In considering the offender characteristics, a commonality unrelated to the ethnicity of the victim was the strong nexus to familial and spousal violence. Aboriginal females were killed by a spouse, family member or intimate relation in 62% of the cases; similarly, non-aboriginal females were killed by a spouse, family member or intimate relation in 74% of occurrences."

This statistic confirms that Canadian women are more often killed by their spouse or families than Aboriginal women. Yet, in the second paragraph of this letter, the RCMP explain that despite their bias-free policing policy and despite their confidentiality agreement with Statistics Canada, they would release the sensitive information relating to offenders anyway in order to back up Minister Valcourt's claims that "70% of offenders were of Aboriginal origin".

Some commentators rushed to conclude that the RCMP statement does in fact support the Minister's claims and (a) that this somehow reduces Canada's culpability for both creating and refusing to deal with this crisis; and (b) that, in fact, 70% of offenders were Aboriginal. Neither of these conclusions are correct. The RCMP's statistics, as noted above, are extremely skewed and unreliable when it comes to the identification of Aboriginal people - victims or offenders. It bears repeating that the RCMP's own assessment of problems in its methodology led them to conclude:

"a high number of Homicide survey reports where the identity of the victim (and/or accused) remained unknown".

This means that a high number of the accused in murder cases have an unknown identity. Therefore, the RCMP's claim that 70% of the accused are Aboriginal is highly suspect at best and completely inaccurate at worst.

There is also a problem with the assumption that because 64% of Aboriginal women are killed by their spouses or families, that those offenders were in fact "Aboriginal". Aside from having to make the racist assumption that Aboriginal people only have relationships with other Aboriginal people, the statistics do not bear this out. If you look only at the case of First Nations people, the vast majority of First Nations have out-parenting rates (children with non-Aboriginal people) that are moderate to high. Specifically, 246 First Nations have an out-parenting rate of 40-60%; 162 First Nations have an out-parenting rate of 60-80%; and 49 First Nations have an out-parenting rate of 80-100%. It is safe to say that no less than half of First Nations are in spousal or familial relationships with non-Aboriginal people. So, even if 64% of Aboriginal women are murdered by their spouses, it does not follow that those spouses are "Aboriginal". Statistically, they are just as likely to be non-Aboriginal.

One must also keep in mind that the RCMP did not include statistics on the number of RCMP and provincial police officers who have been accused of physically and sexually assaulting, murdering and/or causing to go missing, Aboriginal women in Canada. Despite a Human Rights Watch report which details accounts by young Aboriginal women and girls at the hands of the RCMP - the RCMP has refused to investigate its own members. We know at least one RCMP officer who lost 7 days pay for violating an Aboriginal women and one provincial court judge who plead guilty to physically and sexually assaulted Aboriginal girls as young as 12 years old.

This shell game of numbers and statistics is meant to blame the victim and deflect attention away from Canada's continued inaction to address this crisis which the United Nations has called a "grave violation" of our basic human rights. The crisis of murdered and missing Indigenous women and little girls continues while Canada (through Valcourt) blames the victim and the RCMP fail to live up to their duty to serve and protect everyone in Canada.

Shame on them both. Nothing in the RCMP numbers changes anything. Canada has a crisis of murdered and missing Indigenous women and little girls regardless of who is doing the killing - and we need to address it.

Don't be fooled or distracted by Canada's games. 

We should all stay focused on pushing for both a national inquiry and for an emergency action plan to protect our women and girls and address the underlying root causes and inequities which make them vulnerable to begin with.


* I use the term "Aboriginal" in this blog to reflect the terminology of the RCMP report only.

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.

Laurie River Lodge Adventures: Watch Out for Animals and Indians?

It is hard to believe that in 2014, there are still businesses who provide services to the public that have no problem profiting from the lands, resources and traditional knowledges of Indigenous peoples, but who, at the same time, spread racism and hatred against us. Laurie River Lodge, an outdoor adventure business located in northern Manitoba and owned by Brent and Erin Fleck, is one such company.

Laurie River Lodge has a website which includes a link to a promotional brochure which explains what clients can expect when they purchase an adventure with their lodge. Their website is:

http://www.laurieriverlodge.com/index.php

And their brochure can be found under the Heading "Outpost Plan" at the following link:

http://www.laurieriverlodge.com/downloads/2014/2014_trip_planning_guide.pdf

On the same page that the Lodge warns its customers about animals, it provides a warning about its Cree Indian guides. The offending comments can be found on page 10, under the section entitled “Section 1-9 What You Can Expect From Us”:
 

We take great care when hiring our staff; however the subject of Native Guides must be touched upon. We use Cree Indian guides from the town of Pukatawagon in northern Manitoba. They are wonderful people and fun to fish with however, like all Native North Americans, they have a basic intolerance for alcohol. Please do not give my guides alcohol under any circumstances. This is rarely a problem and by telling you in advance I hope to avoid it altogether.

The Lodge is speaking about the band members of Mathias Colomb Cree Nation (MCCN) whose primary reserve is located in Pukatawagan in northern Manitoba. They apparently use MCCN band members as guides for their business. It is also noteworthy that this business uses the lands and resources contained within MCCN's traditional, treaty and reserve lands as well as their trap-lines. Band members were so upset by these racist remarks that they contacted Chief Arlen Dumas and asked that he look into this and he responded immediately by sending out a letter to the Lodge owners.

Chief Dumas explained that he was "appauled" to see that this business profits from his Nation's lands, resources and people to ensure a profit for the owners, but at the same time promotes racist stereotypes against the very people they use to make a profit: Cree guides.

Chief Dumas explains:

Not only did you single out the band members from our reserve in Pukatawagan, but your brochure presented an ominous or threatening tone by stating and/or implying that:

(1)  Our Cree people have a genetic and/or biological intolerance for alcohol due to their race;

(2)  You warned the public against giving our members any alcohol due to this intolerance, one can only presume you meant that some sort of harm would come to the public; and

(3)  That while rare, this “problem” does occur and the public needs to avoid it.

None of the above statements or implications about our people are true. The comments are racist and negative stereotypes which only serve to promote or incite hatred against our people. There is no scientific basis for your claim that Cree people have an intolerance for alcohol, nor is there any basis for alleging that our Cree people would drink while working or that the pose a risk to the public.

As a result of such discriminatory remarks, Chief Dumas demanded that the remarks be removed from the website; a public apology be offered to all Cree and First Nation people; personal letters of apology be sent to all their Cree employees; and that they make amends to MCCN.

 

He concluded the letter by stating that if the Lodge owners refuse to address the issue, he would "have no choice but to take further steps to protect my band members from your racist, discriminatory incitement of hatred."

Chief Dumas is right to be upset about these public comments. It is not just a matter of taking offense to insulting words, this Lodge potentially faces a discrimination complaint, a civil suit and very bad publicity for their business.

The Manitoba Human Rights Code (provincial law) provides that Manitobans recognize that "to protect this right it is necessary to restrict unreasonable discrimination against individuals, including discrimination based on stereotypes or generalizations about groups with whom they are or are thought to be associated, and to ensure that reasonable accommodation is made for those with special needs" and such discrimination is prohibited.

The Criminal Code (federal law) under section 319 makes the public incitement of hatred against a particular group, like the Cree people a criminal offense.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms (constitutional law) also provides that: 15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability".

Even international law protects people from racism and discrimination.

If morals could not guide these business owners, certainly they have an obligation to follow the law. It is no wonder why discrimination against Indigenous peoples has not subsided, given openly racist attitudes like this.

One would have thought the days of warning people against animals and Indians were over.

Harder Politics When No Skin in the Game: Time to Address Racism

Is it just me, or is there something about this unusually hot summer that has scrambled the brains of business owners, community groups and politicians? It seems to me that in the last few weeks, I have received no end of e-mails and messages on social media from concerned Indigenous peoples from all over Canada. What is their concern? It's the fact that in the year 2012, we STILL have Canadians who believe it is acceptable to profit from or completely ignore the blatant racism being perpetrated against Indigenous peoples.

Eska Water:

Perhaps it is just the heat because last year around this time, I wrote a blog about the discriminatory advertising being used by Eska Water. Their commercial for "pure" water included three men who were a mish-mash of stereotypes depicting Indigenous peoples. When confronted with the racist commercial, a spokesperson defended the company by saying "the depiction was a generic one of native people and not meant to represent any specific group". What???

http://indigenousnationhood.blogspot.ca/2011/07/eskan-racism-bottled-and-sourced-in.html

The depiction was indeed a racist depiction of Indigenous peoples and they did in fact, mean to represent a specific group of people - Indigenous peoples. The fact that none of their non-Indigenous test group identified any problems and in fact offered positive comments about the ad, shows a much deeper problem. Racism against Indigenous peoples in Canada is so ingrained that some in society can't even identify it when they see it. It is so ingrained in fact, that no one in the company thought to include any Indigenous peoples in the consumer test group.

Recommendations:

(1) Companies should include  a broad cross-section of society in consumer focus groups (this includes Indigenous peoples).

(2) Companies should use the multitude of resources available related to human rights, diversity and inclusion to prevent harmful situations of racism and discrimination.

Royal Canadian Legion:

Less than two weeks ago, it was reported that the Royal Canada Legion in Cranbrook, BC had published a newsletter which included a racist joke about Indigenous peoples. This "joke" was not your usual combo of insulting stereotypes, this one had a hateful undertone which mocked the killing of Indigenous peoples with impunity.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2012/08/16/calgary-cranbrook-newsletter-pulled-joke.html

The response was that the joke "only offended one person" and that it was meant to "get a laugh". I can't imagine a time when a racist joke would be funny, but in no stretch of the imagination is the murder of an Indigenous person funny. Many of our Indigenous peoples lost their lives fighting alongside Canadian soldiers in war. On average, 40% of Indigenous children who entered residential schools never came out alive. Starlight Tours have resulted in countless deaths of Indigenous peoples. Indigenous peoples die pre-mature deaths everyday from conditions of extreme poverty caused by chronic underfunding of essential social services like food, water and housing. This is no joke.

Simply removing the joke from the newsletter without a sincere apology and commitment to do better does little to educate their legion members about racism, discrimination and how it impacts all their members. I doubt it did much to make amends for the shock, insult and hurt most likely felt by the Indigenous members of the Legion, as well as other non-Indigenous Legion members who care deeply about the human rights of all members of society.

Recommendations:

(1) When an organization makes a mistake which hurts 1 person, 3 people or a 1000 people, own up to it, apologize, make amends, and take steps to ensure it doesn't happen again.

(2) Any organization can use this kind of situation as a learning opportunity to educate its members about discrimination, what it is, how it can occur, the harm it does and most importantly, how to prevent it altogether.

Holy Chuck:

Last week, I was again contacted by my social media contacts, this time about a restaurant in Toronto that allegedly used racist language in their burger menu. When I was sent a copy of the menu and read that one item was called the "Dirty Drunken Half Breed", I honestly thought it was a bad joke (as in it wasn't a real menu item). I went online and checked it out and it was indeed an actual menu item.

http://aptn.ca/pages/news/2012/08/28/toronto-restaurant-scalded-after-using-slur-for-burger-name/

I personally found it hard to believe that anyone in Canada would NOT know that this type of language is both racist and discriminatory. In my opinion, the response from the restaurant was equally offensive. Here are some excerpts from their Twitter response which went from apologetic to angry and defensive:

"We at Holy Chuck r truly sorry to anyone who was offended by our burger TDDHB. It has been removed..."

"I can see why people are offended. We'll chng name"

"Our menu at HC is meant to be entertaining & funny!"

"Once again I am sorry but I've never heard of the Metis people!"

"Totally blown out of proportion"

"Enough's enough! ... there's nothing more we can do"

"I'm done tweeting & there's nothing else to b said! I'm on Vacation & I plan on enjoying the rest of it! Beach and Pina colada's await!"

After reading this series of emails, would anyone consider Holy Chuck's apology to be sincere? It sounds more to me like the apology was an attempt to shake off the issue so the owner could get back to his/her drinks. No sincere apology ever starts with the words "I'm sorry but..." - that is merely a means of deflecting responsibility. Discrimination is not about the alleged intent of the perpetrator, it is about actual impact on the person offended.

It would have taken literally 2 seconds on the Internet to find numerous definitions for the word "half breed" had the business cared as much about its customers as it did its profits. Definitions of the word "half breed" include: a disparaging and offensive word for the offspring of parents of different racial origin, especially the offspring of an American Indian and a white person of European heritage; or an offensive word for a person of mixed racial descent, especially a person of Native American and white parentage. Adding the words "dirty" and "drunken" to the mix makes it even more offensive.

Trying to deny responsibility by claiming ignorance to the existence of Metis people in Canada can hardly be said to be an apology, but rather acts as further insult.

Recommendations:

(1) Anyone operating a business that provides a service of any kind to the public must know who their serving - the population of Toronto is made up of many different groups, including First Nations, Metis and Inuit - take the time to learn about them.

(2) Business owners can avoid acts of discrimination by making themselves aware of human rights laws in their particular province, as well as any potentially applicable federal human rights laws.

Nepean Redskins:

The most recent issue of discrimination that has been brought to my attention is one that still has not been resolved. Ian Campeau, otherwise known as Dee Jay NDN from the music group, A Tribe Called Red, has, for some time now, been trying to work amicably with the youth football team called Nepean Redskins to help them change their name.

http://www.ottawasun.com/2012/08/27/nepean-redskins-name-sparks-war-of-words

Instead, the responses from the local city councillor and the team has been anything but apologetic or helpful. The football club's President has been silent on the issue, although he was quoted last year as saying that they "don't use the name in a racist way". The city councillor, Jan Harder, said that "there is nothing wrong with the name" and that the issue has "nothing to do with her". What a bizarre series of statements to make.

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/sports/Names+matter+Minor+football+organization+should+change/7152812/story.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

First of all, when I used 3 seconds to look up the meaning of the word "redskin", this is what I found:

- an offensive and disparaging word used to describe North American Indians;

- offensive slang and disparaging term for Native American;

- dated and offensive term for American Indian;

- offensive term for Native Americans like "red man" and "injun".

I don't think there is any doubt that the term is offensive. But the word has far more meaning that just being a racist insult. Colonizers used to scalp Indigenous peoples in Canada and the United States. In some areas of Canada, there were bounties on the scalps of Mi'kmaw men, women and children which decimated our Nation by up to 80%. The fact that American soldiers would sometimes skin an entire Indigenous person is horrific and a stark reminder of the genocide committed against Indigenous peoples in all its forms.

How the Nepean Redskins team President, Stephen Dean, could say that the team does not use the name in a racist way makes absolutely no sense when the name itself is racist. There is no neutral use of the term "redskin", unless you are talking about potatoes, and we all know that is not the case here. This shows an extremely deep level of ignorance. If we were to exchange any other racist name of another cultural group - there would be no question about the racist nature of it. The difference here is that its "just" Indigenous peoples we are offending, which appears to be very acceptable to some non-Indigenous people.

The further offensive appropriation of Indigenous symbology and likeness for a non-Indigenous football team is also offensive. But the most telling comments came from city councillor Jan Harder who said there is nothing wrong with the name and the issue has nothing to do with her. We've already established that there is a lot wrong with the name. But Harder has hit on an important point: she has no skin in the game, so to speak, so what's it to her? She is not Indigenous and she obviously knows or cares very little about the historical and ongoing discrimination against Indigenous peoples.

As city councillor, she has worked on finances, land development, environment and hydro. Why on earth would she want to know anything about Indigenous peoples? Never mind that all of those issues impact the lives of Indigenous peoples in significant and often destructive ways. Over 13,000 Aboriginal people live in Ottawa - I am quite sure that some even live in Councillor Harder's ward. Whether there is one Indigenous person who is offended or 1000, according to Canada's laws, she is obligated to act on behalf of all people in her district, not just her and "anyone else I know" that looks, acts, and thinks like her.

Personally, I would like to see Harder do her job and Dean stop hiding from the issue and deal with it. What else can Ian Campeau do? He has tried to deal with this amicably, he has offered to fundraise so that the team can transition to a new name and has contacted various people. By ignoring the issue, the team risks bad publicity, a human rights complaint, a boycott on their funders, and continued hurt amongst the Indigenous peoples in Ottawa and beyond.

Recommendations:

(1) The team could use this issue as an opportunity to get everyone in the community engaged and come up with a community-based strategy to transition from their current racist name to one that everyone can enjoy.

(2) The team should read the following letter from Leanne Simpson, who expresses with great insight and gentle compassion, why the team ought to change its name. Seriously take the time to consider her words:

http://leannesimpson.ca/2012/08/27/an-open-letter-to-the-nepean-redskins-the-national-capital-amateur-football-association/

Just in case you are not convinced, I invite the public to write, call or visit the councillor and team president to show them how much this impacts everyone who wants to live in a discrimination-free society.

City Councillor Jan Harder
Jan Harder
Councilor, Ward 3 Barrhaven
T - 613-580-2473
 F - 613-580-2513
jan.harder@ottawa.ca

President Stephen Dean
Nepean Redskins
613-825-1903
sdean@rogers.com

Ontario Human Rights Commission
180 Dundas Street West, Suite 900
Toronto, ON  M7A 2R9
416-597-4900
info@ohrc.on.ca

Also, here is a new petition started by Ian Campeau to have the name changed:

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/changetheredskinname/?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=button

*Full disclosure - I used to work at the Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission as an investigator of human rights complaints.

Justice Minister Vic Toews' Wilful Blindness to the Ongoing "Crisis" in Justice System

Please tell me that I am not the only one who is shocked by federal Justice Minister Vic Toews' idiotic comments tonight on APTN News. Did he actually say that there is nothing wrong with our justice system and that our justice system does not discriminate? I can't even think of a proper descriptor for his comments - ignorant, racist, wilfully blind, pitifully stupid, unprofessional, and irresponsible don't seem to convey the depth to which his comments are offensive.

http://aptn.ca/pages/news/2011/11/28/the-justice-system-doesnt-discriminate-says-justice-minister-toews/

It is as if he has ignored every single justice report, inquiry, and Supreme Court of Canada judgement that has found, based on overwhelming research and evidence, that our justice system does in fact discriminate, especially against Indigenous peoples. However, we all know that as Minister of Justice he knows about all these reports - he has simply chosen to ignore them because it suits the Conservative party's racist assimilatory policy towards Indigenous peoples.

I hardly know where to start.

The Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP) published in 1996 is one of the most comprehensive studies on the situation of Indigenous peoples in Canada.

http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/webarchives/20071126051037/http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ch/rcap/sg/cg_e.html

In the same year, they released a report entitled: Bridging the Cultural Divide: A Report on Aboriginal People and Criminal Justice in Canada was released which highlighted the numerous problems with the justice system as it relates to Indigenous peoples. Both reports found the fact of over-representation of Indigenous peoples in the criminal justice system to be due in part to ongoing discrimination.

Prior to that, in 1989, there was the Royal Commission on the Donald Marshall Prosecution which you will recall was brought about because of the wrongful imprisonment of Donald Marshall Jr simply because he was Mi'kmaq.

http://www.gov.ns.ca/just/marshall_inquiry/_docs/Royal%20Commission%20on%20the%20Donald%20Marshall%20Jr%20Prosecution_findings.pdf

The inquiry found: "The criminal justice system failed Donald Marshall Jr., at virtually every turn from his arrest and wrongful conviction for murder in 1971 up to, and even beyond, his acquittal by the Court of Appeal in 1983." They further found that everyone involved, from the police, Marshall's lawyers, the judges, prosecutors, and appeal judges all failed Marshall because he was "native".

Minister Toews would be shocked to learn that their actions "amounted to a defence of the criminal justice system at the expense of Donald Marshall Jr., in spite of overwhelming evidence that the system itself had failed." Toews might also be gobsmacked to hear that this inquiry made recommendations to "reduce discrimination in the justice system".

There is also the Report of the Manitoba Justice Inquiry in 1999 which made significant findings in relation to the level of discrimination in the justice system as it relates to Indigenous peoples.

http://www.ajic.mb.ca/volume.html

They found that there are two primary reasons why Aboriginal peoples are over-represented in the criminal justice system, and both are the result of systemic and ongoing discrimination against Aboriginal peoples. First of all, they found that Aboriginal peoples are more likely to be confronted by the justice system, not because they are culturally pre-disposed to criminal activity, but because of the long history of "discrimination and social inequality that has impoverished Aboriginal people and consigned them to the margins of ...society."

However, the Inquiry found that the more serious issue was the ongoing discrimination within the justice system that assumes all people are the same. A system which assumes equality exists "can't help but discriminate against Aboriginal people". Just in case there was any doubt about the fact of discrimination in the justice system (which Toews denies), the Inquiry further found that: "Discrimination against Aboriginal people has been a central policy of Canadian governments since Confederation" and "represents a monumental symbol of intolerance".

Aboriginal peoples have been, and continue to be victims of "the openly hostile bigot" and the victims of the systemic discrimination found in our justice system. For Minister Toews to say otherwise is an outright lie according to these legal inquiries, the Supreme Court of Canada and even the Office of the Correctional Investigator. This alone is cause for Minister Toews to submit his resignation because he obviously no longer represents the public interest if he can so openly deny the sickness within the justice system.

Most of you will recall the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Gladue.

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1999/1999canlii679/1999canlii679.pdf

The TOP COURT in our country found that in addition to Canada being "a world leader in putting people in prison";  the "serious problem of aboriginal overrepresentation in Canadian prisons is well-documented", the "excessive imprisonment of aboriginal people is only the tip of the iceberg" because "Aboriginal people are overrepresented in virtually all aspects of the system."

The Supreme Court of Canada goes on to explain (so READ carefully Minister Toews), that "there is widespread BIAS against aboriginal people within Canada" such that "this widespread RACISM has translated into systemic DISCRIMINATION in the criminal justice system." (emphasis added) They also highlight the fact that the drastic level of discrimination and overrepresentation should be considered "a CRISIS in the Canadian criminal justice system".

But, just in case numerous reports, inquiries and court cases from the top court in the land don't convince you, what about the research and observations of a federal official like the Office of the Correctional Investigator who has been saying for over 15 years that the discrimination at every level of the justice system against Aboriginal peoples is a full-blown CRISIS.

http://www.oci-bec.gc.ca/rpt/index-eng.aspx

I invite anyone to read any report from any year and you will note that report after report highlights the discrimination, the suffering of Aboriginal peoples by discriminatory laws and policies and the fact that the problem is getting WORSE not better. These reports call the situation:

- "discriminatory" (2001);
- a "continuing crisis and embarrassment" (2003);
- it is a "grave" situation which prevents Aboriginal people from enjoying equality (2005);
- the "inequitable results" stem directly from federal policies (2008);
- the situation is getting much worse (2009); and
- "inequitable outcomes" are the direct result of federal policies and practices (2010).

What does this all mean in terms of numbers? Well, Aboriginal peoples are only 4% of the population, but in places like Manitoba Aboriginal men can make up 79% of the prison population. Aboriginal women fare even worse making up to 83% of all prison admissions.

http://www.vcn.bc.ca/august10/politics/facts_stats.html

However, the situation is getting much worse for Aboriginal women and are expected to have significant increases. In fact, over a 10 year period, the imprisonment of our Aboriginal women rose by 151%.

http://elizabethfry.ca/wwdcms/uploads/Aboriginal%20Women.pdf

This of course, ONLY reflects what is happening in criminal justice. This does not include all the overt discrimination faced by Aboriginal peoples in the justice system by way of:

- murdered and missing Aboriginal women left to die without adequate police attention;
- our people who are taken on Starlight tours and left to freeze to death;
- our people who are shot to death, beaten to death or tazered unnecessarily; and
- the use of CSIS, RCMP, military and now INAC to spy on our people - even those of us who have never committed a criminal act.

No one in their right mind could stand before all Canadians and claim that our justice system is not broken and does not discriminate against anyone. Only a right-wing extremeist, drunk with "white privilege" and power would even have the nerve to say something like that and ignore all the evidence to contrary - including evidence that comes from the very justice system he defends.

This controversy all comes about over his defence of Bill C-10 - a massive bill that would make numerous amendments to numerous acts - many of which will have devastating consequences on Canadians. It will make minimum prison sentences mandatory and will take away the discretion of judges to find alternatives to prison.

It is widely opposed - by organizations like the Canadian Bar Association which represents lawyers in Canada. Their 100-page submission against the Bill highlights the speed at which this omnibus bill (one that makes many changes to many acts) is being considered, the lack of time for study and comment and the overall dangers of the bill.

http://www.cba.org/CBA/submissions/PDF/11-45-eng.pdf

The following link is to a radio interview where I first talked about Bill S-2 (matrimonial real property on reserve) and then Bill C-10 and how they both relate to the oppression and assimilation of Aboriginal peoples.

http://www.radio4all.net/files/fro.macpho@gmail.com/4356-1-InterviewPamelaPalmaterEdited.mp3

I know I ask a great deal of my readers - to read such lengthy blogs, access numerous links and write e-mails to express our concerns regarding endless bills, policies and actions against our peoples. But, most of us have the education, access to internet and computers and ability to do this. Think of all those who can't, but who will no doubt be the ones to suffer from this ongoing oppression and assimilation of our people. Please write to Minister Toews and tell him to get real, submit his resignation and NOT pass Bill C-10.

libmem@parl.gov.ca
bqmem@parl.gc.ca
cpcmem@parl.gc.ca
ndpmem@parl.gc.ca
vic.toews@parl.gc.ca

Thank you for all your support and for continuing the battle for real justice and equality. For rabble fans, see my blog on rabble.ca.

Murdered, Missing, and Still Excluded: Indigenous Women Fight for Equality

If there is one thing that the Pickton Inquiry has proven to Canadians is that gender discrimination against Indigenous women is not only a present-day phenomenon, but that it is systemic at all levels of government. The unique problem for Indigenous women is that the gender discrimination they face when dealing with one group, like the police, is multiplied many times over top of the gender discrimination they face in all other aspects of their lives. These Indigenous women who were murdered at the hands of Robert Pikcton or who remain missing have never truly been treated as human beings worthy of care and protection.

In many Indigenous Nations, their concept of citizenship or belonging was a relational concept that provided both rights and responsibilities on the parts of individuals and Nations. So, an Indigenous Nation required the recognition, loyalty and contributions of their people, and the people required the recognition, protection and contributions of their Nation. For many, there was no such thing as a person who was dispensable.

We also know that in many Indigenous Nations, women were not only considered "equal" as human beings, but many societies were matriarchal. In some Nations, it was a council of women who decided who would be the next leader and that same council could remove a poor leader. For others, while the men may have tracked down and killed a moose for the community, it was the women who had to dress it and drag it back. There is not a single Indigenous Nation that I have ever studied where their women were not valued as life-givers and care-takers of their Nations.

This is a far cry from the European laws, rules, policies and values imposed on our Indigenous Nations. I wish I could say that colonization was a thing of the past, an issue for which we should all just "get over". Sadly, the reality is that Canada is still in the colonizing business - trying to assimilate Indians once and for all and our women have always been the primary targets. Today, our women face gender discrimination on all fronts, from all levels of government and society, and many have paid the ultimate price for being an Indigenous woman - they have lost their lives.

When the colonial governments in Canada realized Indians were not dying off fast enough, they enacted provisions in the Indian Act to assimilate them faster. The first people to be tossed out were Indigenous women and their children. Jeanette Corbiere-Lavell (now President of the Native Women's Association of Canada) took Canada to court to challenge this blatant discrimination, but our Supreme Court of Canada said there was never any intention that the equality provision in the Bill of Rights would effect legislation.

Sandra Lovelace (now a Senator) was then forced to take Canada to the United Nation Human Rights forum to protect her equality rights and Canada was found in violation of international laws by preventing her from enjoying her culture with her community. Canada was supposed to get rid of ALL gender inequality in the Indian Act - but Bill C-31 not only did not remedy all gender inequality, but created new forms for Indigenous women and their children to suffer.

Sharon McIvor then took the lead and sued Canada for continued gender discrimination in the Indian Act and won. However, Canada's response was to amend the Indian Act in such a limited way that more people will be excluded than included. Moreover, Bill C-3 did not fully remedy gender inequality and once again created new forms of discrimination only applicable to Indigenous women. Adding insult to injury, the preferential treatment of non-Indian women remains in the Indian Act today.

But this is not the only issue faced by Indigenous women. The proposed Bill S-2 (previously Bill S-4, Bill C-47 and Bill C-8) is supposed to provide equitable divisions of matrimonial assets upon divorce for Indians living on reserve. It is touted by the Conservatives as legislation that will also protect Indigenous women from violence. However, this Bill not only does NOT address violence against Indigenous women, but creates once again, an illusion of justice in that any rights must be accessed through Canadian courts and expensive lawyers - assuming any courts and lawyers are available in many remote communities.

Bill S-2 also creates NEW rights for non-Indians to have life interests in reserve lands. Given the high rates of out-marriage in many communities, this could mean whole scale occupation of reserve lands by non-Indians. That is in addition to all the homes already occupied by non-Indian women who got to keep their privileged Indian status because Canada thought it would be too unfair to take it away from them once they had it. That kind of injustice is only suitable for Indigenous women.

So, Indigenous women continue to fight for equality, which has turned into a fight for their identities, their right to be part of their communities and now their very lives. The fact that hundreds of Indigenous women could go missing for so long, over so many years, without anyone in power batting an eye, is a testament to the less than human status assigned to Indigenous women. The police, Crown lawyers, and federal and provincial politicians have created this situation. The least they can do is allow Indigenous women to finally exercise their voice in a safe forum with the same protection afforded to police - lawyers paid for by the Crown. As it stands now, any Indigenous woman who testifies must face a firing squad of no less than 13 lawyers who will interrogate these women at length.

Just like all the "non-status", "non-band member" and "off-reserve" Indian women who have been excluded at every turn, we now have a new negative descriptor - murdered or missing Indigenous women. Our women can be murdered or go missing in frighteningly high numbers without society caring enough to even wonder why. How much more inequality must Indigenous women endure before society at large will stand up and say enough?

British Columbia needs to step up, stand up and give these women the same chance afforded the already too powerful police force. Anything less is a complete sham.

For Rabble fans, see my blog posted at rabble.ca!

Eskan Racism - Bottled and Sourced in Canada for Over 500 Years

With the warming of the days that comes with summer and the positive effect a little vacation and relaxation has on many of us, I had hoped that the red necks would be able to take some time off as well. Yet, this latest advertisement for Eska Water is another testament to the fact that racism in Canada is an ongoing problem that doesn't just surface when there is tension or disagreement - but is, in fact, so embedded in some parts of the population that they themselves don't even recognize it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfNDFdZVDE8

Some of you may think that I am being too harsh and that none of the folks as Eaux Vives Canada Inc ever "intended" for anyone to take offence.

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/canada/native-group-wants-racist-water-ad-pulled-58789.html

Some of you might also feel that if any of us don't like the ad, we should simply refrain from watching it. Alternatively, it has been suggested that anyone who is offended by the ad should take solice in the fact that the ad was intended to be "funny" and not meant to represent any particular group.

Eaux Vives Canada has explained that they had no indication that anything in the ad might cause a problem - nothing to make them "suspect" an issue. In fact, Eaux Vives conducted a focus group of the local population and received "all positive feedback". They admit, however, that there may not have been any First Nations people included in that sample.

http://www.ctv.ca/generic/generated/static/business/article2089081.html

Eaux Vives Canada Inc is responsible for approving such an ad, so this reflects very poorly on their company, including those in the senior-most positions who make the decisions. However, one should also shine the spotlight on the ad's creators - KBS & P which stands for Kirshenbaum Bond Senecal and Partners.

http://www.kbsp.com/

They are owned by MDC Partners Inc. A company that specializes in marketing.

http://www.mdc-partners.com/#/agency/mdc_partners/2/about

You'll notice that KBS & P's bigger clients include Coke, Levis, North Face and Victoria's Secret. They work in the big leagues, so to speak, and either know better or should have known better. Further, for anyone who does any kind of advertising - be it print, television or online media - they all know or should know, the laws relating to discrimination, racism, hate crimes and limitations on free speech.

Its not like these companies do not have access to legal advisors, community relations experts and senior management-types to appropriately review and approve public ads. Afterall, these ads don't just sell products, they reflect on the character or lack thereof of the company and it's leaders.

That is why when the company's spokesperson, Gilles Corriveau said to the media that the company had "no intention to hurt people", he made the company look even worse. Anyone who studies anti-discrimination law knows that it is NOT the intention that counts - but the effect that it has on the person or groups offended. But more than that, big companies like Eska Water, KBS & P or MDC Partners cannot plead ignorance when they ALL have the resources, capacity and experience to know better.

I might also ad that there are no shortage of people that work in the area of human rights, anti-discrimination, anti-racism, and First Nations issues. Any number of people, groups, organizations or universities could have been consulted to provide input on any number of ads that has the potential to impact certain groups in society.

Let's pretend no such experts or advisors exist, is there any excuse for not googling the issue of racism in the media and making sure that your company is adequately aware of the issue? I googled the issue just now and tons of sources came up. Even the first source that popped up would have made the company think twice - had they taken the time to read it:

http://www.usask.ca/education/coursework/802papers/crawford/jamesc.html

The issue, sadly, is much deeper than that. The company itself indicated that it may have failed to include First Nations people in their focus sample, which amounts to more than a mere oversight - some might even call it incompetent.

There is no doubt that the company was trying to portray an Indigenous group, whether or not it was a fictional one. In so doing, they used stereotypes about what Indigenous people look and act like - neither of which were presented with accuracy, thoughtfulness or dignity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSggKIAShbM

Indigenous people in Canada and indeed all over the world must fight the colonially-imposed requirement to be "authentic" or "pure" Indians. The stereotype includes the requirement to live and behave as this did at some arbitrary and distant point in pre-contact times. Real Indians wear feathers, paint their bodies and carry around spears, arrows and other weapons. Real Indians are primitive and fierce and seek only to make war with non-Indians. These stereotypes are not just promoted in the media, but are also promoted by right-wing academics and governments.

http://indigenousnationhood.blogspot.com/2011/03/no-natives-allowed-how-canada-breeds.html

In the Eaux Vives Eska water ad, we see the age-old stereotype of purity. The mixing of orange juice with water is portrayed as being an offence to maintaining the purity of the water. Colonial governments have been obsessed with defining Indigenous peoples in terms of "purity" both legally and politically. Even Canada, through the Indian Act and other laws and policies, tries to exclude from legal recognition any Indigenous person who is not a "pure" Indian - i.e., someone who is mixed Indian and non-Indian (water and orange juice).

http://www.vueweekly.com/front/story/blood_challenge/

This means that the public at large is constantly bombarded by these types messages and no consistent education about Indigenous realities in Canada. Even the omission of positive images of Indigenous peoples in the media serves to reinforce negative stereotypes. How often do you see an Indigenous woman consulted as a legal or political expert on the news, in the papers or in advertisements of any kind? What about Indigenous men as business analysts, foreign affairs experts or champions of human rights? We are led to believe that Aboriginal women are all victims of violence and Aboriginal men all corrupt leaders or criminals.

It is simply not enough to say, if you don't like the commercial don't watch it. Even if we could be with out children and youth 24-hours a day, the fact is they will eventually be exposed to these sorts of ads. However, what is worse is that Canadians will be exposed to these kinds of ads and thus these old stereotypes will continue to be reinforced and played out in relations between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples in Canada.

Consider the situation where racist jokes are told to co-workers but not the Indigenous person in an office. This still has the effect of creating a hostile work environment for the Indigenous person. I would argue that ads like Eska Water helps create a hostile country for Indigenous peoples where we are seen as the savage terrorists as opposed to the First Peoples.

http://indigenousnationhood.blogspot.com/2011/05/from-savages-to-terrorists-justifying.html

We as Indigenous people already know, that none of these stereotypes reflect our wonderfully diverse and rich realities, ways of being and relations. We do indeed have many social issues created and perpetuated by colonial governments, like the inequities in funding for essential services, Canada's failure to live up to treaty and self-government obligations, the theft of our lands and the failure to share our resources with us - like water. Over 50% of First Nations in Canada have unsafe drinking water according to the Auditor General.

http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/docs/parl_oag_201106_04_e.pdf

The very least Eaux Vives Canada should have done was issue an IMMEDIATE apology. The hiring of a public relations firm shows more concern for minimizing loss of profit than for the humanity of others. They don't need a meeting with First Nations leaders to know that the right thing to do is to pull the ad.

What an insult for Eaux Vives Canada to make such a mockery of Indigenous peoples and profit from OUR water sources while First Nations are denied access to this and other basic necessities of life. This water ad serves, ironically, to highlight the problem in ideology (racist ad) and in practice (lack of clean water for First Nations).

Racism has been ongoing in Canada for over 500 years since contact. It is time to acknowledge the problem and work towards addressing it.

From Savages to Terrorists: Justifying Genocide of First Nations

I am moved to write this blog because a couple of my readers/listeners/followers have contacted me about comments I made a while back on Facebook where I was critical of the US using the codename "Geronimo" in the assassination of Bin Laden. I was critical about First Nations being publicly characterized as terrorists and some members of the public thought I was over-exaggerating the situation. In my view, this is a direct association between the world's most notorious terrorist and an Indigenous hero. In their views, no one had really compared Indigenous peoples to terrorists and my alleged exaggeration would only cause more harm than good.

I respect the fact that these individuals shared their viewpoints as it is only through this discussion and debate that these issues can be resolved. However, in this instance, the facts do not support their allegation. In fact, there is more than enough evidence which demonstrates a far-reaching pattern of racism and public vilifying of Indigenous peoples in Canada and even the United States.

The terminology, description, and context used by government officials, politicians, academics, and others to describe Indigenous peoples is little more than propaganda used to justify the ongoing genocide in our Nations. Public outcries against Indigenous gangs, criminals, corrupt leaders and "terrorists" do not serve to improve relations between our peoples or undo the harms inflicted by the settler society, but instead act as a distraction from the crisis in First Nations poverty and the ongoing theft of our lands and resources and denial of our sovereignty.

The characterization of our peoples as terrorists reinforces the notion of us vs. them and helps provide excuses for society to walk by our homeless, jail our youth, remove our children, murder our women, disempower and vilify our men, and support governments which provide funds for other countries while our communities lack drinking water, sewage, food, fire protection and schools - the basic necessities of life. Sadly, some of our own even partake in promoting the negative stereotypes against our people.

As a lawyer, I fully realize that despite the fact that this is just a blog - which has no real rules, my readers will expect links to articles, documents, and reports which back up my argument. For those of you who doubt that First Nations have ever been called terrorists, I refer you to the following selected examples. Of course, these are only a few examples as there are far too many to include here and after a while it hurts my heart to read too much of this.

(1) Tom Flanagan

As you all likely know, Tom Flanagan is no fan of First Nations and in fact has strenuously advocated for their assimilation for years saying that "it has to happen". His books, First Nations? Second Thoughts and Beyond the Indian Act: Restoring Aboriginal Property Rights have portrayed First Nations as "primitive", "communists", and "corrupt" and have also set their complex traditional property issues within the context of studies of "chimpanzees".

Here is the link to the book review I did of Beyond the Indian Act:

http://reviewcanada.ca/reviews/2010/04/01/opportunity-or-temptation/

Flanagan, who is a political scientist who has focused on western political issues and First Nations, is now apparently a "security" expert and has authored a paper for the Canadian Defense and Foreign Affairs Institute in 2009  entitled "Resource Industries and Security Issues in Northern Alberta".

http://www.cdfai.org/PDF/Resource%20Industries%20and%20Security%20Issues%20in%20Northern%20Alberta.pdf

In this paper, Flanagan argues that due to the "rapid expansion of natural-resource industries in northern Alberta, accompanied by growing environmentalist and aboriginal-rights movements" that "violent resistance to industrial development" is very possible from specific individuals like "saboteurs", "eco-terrorists" and "First Nations". While Flanagan explains that his paper could not deal with "Islamic terrorists" the focus of his paper was primarily on "security threats". Some of the examples he used were the "Lubicon Cree", the "Woodland Cree", and "warrior societies" like the "Mohawks in Ontario and Quebec".

Flanagan creates fear in his argument that an "apocalyptic scenario" of "nightmare" proportions would arise if Indigenous warrior societies and eco-terrorists joined forces:

"A nightmare scenario from the standpoint of resource industries in northern Alberta would be a linkage between warrior societies and eco-terrorists. Members of warrior societies would brandish firearms and take public possession of geographical sites, while eco-terrorists would operate clandestinely, firebombing targets over a wide range of territory. The two processes could energize each other, leading in the extreme case to loss of life and a shutdown of industry over a wide area. But this apocalyptic scenario is unlikely to happen because the members of warrior societies and environmental activists are different types of people with different objectives. It would be difficult for them to maintain coordinated action for very long."

But, then again, this is just his "expert" opinion. Does it really matter? I think most educated people would see Flanagan's unsupported claims for what they are. However, one can't ignore his political influence - having been Prime Minister Harper's right hand man or his influence on an uneducated public.

http://www.walrusmagazine.com/articles/the-man-behind-stephen-harper-tom-flanagan/

Sadly, his books, presentations and backroom influence will likely continue to promote the view of Indigenous peoples as terrorists for the sole purpose of justifying assimilatory state actions and laws.

(2) Christy Blatchford

Some of you may know Christie Blatchford, the "journalist" who wrote the book: Helpless in Caledonia: Caledonia's Nightmare of Fear and Anarchy and How the Law Failed Us All about the situation in Caledonia. Her book portrays the Six Nations land claims as an unimportant issue as compared to what she calls the "lawlessness" in Caledonia.

http://indigenousnationhood.blogspot.com/2011/01/update-tvo-agenda-botches-show-on.html

She also appeared on TVO's The Agenda to speak about her book and compared her coverage of the protests at Caledonia to the terrorist activities at "ground zero" in New York.

http://www.tvo.org/cfmx/tvoorg/theagenda/index.cfm?page_id=7&bpn=779932&ts=2011-01-14

Just the fact that she held her book signing in Caledonia and brought "protection" with her perpetuated the stereotypical view that Indigenous peoples are inherently dangerous thugs and terrorists ready to strike at a moment's notice. She got even more publicity for herself by bringing police to her book signing at a local university.

http://www.totalwomanshow.com/News/Local/article/827023

(3) Canadian Military

Then there is the Canadian military who have listed Mohawks as a threat to national security alongside terrorists like "communists", "anarchists", "Hezbollah", "Tamils", "Mexican Indians", and "Northern Ireland's paramilitary groups". They specifically noted that: "The rise of radical Native American organizations, such as the Mohawk Warrior Society, can be viewed as insurgencies".

The manual defines an "insurgency" as "a manifestation of war and that "The military's counter-insurgency actions "seeks not only to defeat the insurgents themselves, but the root causes of, and support for, the insurgency".

The manual itself can be accessed at this link:

http://ceasefireinsider.files.wordpress.com/2007/04/counter-insurgency-operations-manual.pdf

The military said in 2010 that they would apologize to the Mohawks, but no apology has been forthcoming:

http://video.ca.msn.com/watch/video/military-apologizing-to-mohawks/16ahlo0dq
http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Military+apologize+Mohawk+Warriors/4015748/story.html

However, the Canadian military is not alone in its depiction of Indigenous peoples as terrorists. APTN was provided with copies of US State Department cables from Wikileaks where the US described "Indigenous terrorist groups" in Canada. APTN explains: "The cables, sent from the US embassy in Ottawa, and entitled Security Environmental Profile Response for Mission Canada, appear to be part of regular updates on the situation in the country."

http://aptn.ca/pages/news/2011/04/30/u-s-considers-native-canadian-groups-as-possible-terror-threats-embassy-cables/

(4) RCMP

We also know that the anti-terrorism unit of the RCMP has been over-zealous in its monitoring of Indigenous peoples. If the RCMP did not consider Indigenous peoples to be terrorists, its anti-terrorism unit would not be actively monitoring Indigenous peoples. The unit has been known to use excessive force on Indigenous peoples alleged to be involved in "Native Issues":

http://www.turtleisland.org/news/wcw1.pdf

In addition, in a confidential report written by the RCMP's criminal intelligence unit, they argue that our Indigenous youth are a threat to to civil society alleging that "street gangs and violent activity" will continue to increase and that "organized crime" is especially a part of Mohawk communities. I received this information from an ATIP request in 2008.

However, the RCMP did recognize that the Aboriginal populations are "marginalised", have a "diminishing quality of life", that the crimes committed by Aboriginal peoples are symptoms of "poverty" and "will only get worse" unless such poverty is addressed. They also highlight the Indian Act's role in their destitution: "Many Aboriginal people find themselves limited in education and employment opportunities because of the social order created by the Indian Act".

So, if we know the causes of these situations, why doesn't Canada go to war against poverty in our communities - instead of against us? Instead, the military, RCMP and sister enforcement agencies like DFO (Fisheries and Oceans) have intervened time and again to deny our rights at Kahnesatake, Burnt Church, Gustefsen Lake, Ipperwash,  and other Indigenous territories.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsvG4KpFHOA

First Nations are not the Terrorists:

Historically, First Nations were viewed as "primitive" and "savages". Even today, academics like Flanagan continue to promote that view of us.  It is no longer acceptable to call us savages, so the new word is terrorist - a word used to justify a whole series of unjustified enforcement and military actions against our people. As far as the military is concerned, they are at "war" with us.

Far worse, is the justification it gives Canadians to ignore the crisis of poverty in our communities and the ongoing discrimination faced by our people - men who are over-incarcerated, children who are removed from their families at epidemic proportions, or women who are murdered at alarming rates. It should be kept in mind that the Criminal Code of Canada prohibits acts of genocide which is defined not only as the direct killing of an identifiable group of people, but the creating of conditions that lead to their early deaths.

In fact, if one were to tally the casualties of war, I think we would see that we are the ones who have suffered and continue to suffer. The fact that our struggles to survive and preserve our lands, resources, cultures, languages and histories for our future generations are considered as acts of "war", "insurgency" or "terrorism" is more than mere discrimination - it is propaganda designed to justify the continued assimilation and genocide of our people.

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/aaron_huey.html

Here is an excerpt from a memorial posted on Daniel Paul's website related Native Americans:

"Today I remember:

The thousands of Cherokee, Creek, Choctaw, Seminole & Chickasaw People who suffered untold agony during the forced removal from their homelands in the 1830's. Innocent men, women and little children perished in concentration camps or froze and starved to death on the Trail Where They Cried.  

The 90 women and children who died in the Bear River Massacre in southeastern Idaho. 

The 200 Cheyenne men, women and children who were slain at Sand Creek in eastern Colorado by the US Cavalry led by Col John Chivington, a Methodist minister who ordered his men to "Kill and scalp all, big and little; nits make lice." 

The 200 murdered Blackfeet women and children who died at Maries River in northern Montana and the other 140 People who were left to freeze to death in the January cold.

The 103 Cheyenne women and children who were butchered on the Washita River in western Oklahoma. 

The 200 to 300 Sioux who were slaughtered under a flag of truce at Wounded Knee, South Dakota.

The 500 Sauk and Fox Indians led by Black Hawk who were massacred by militia forces while trying to negotiate a surrender. 

The Yuki's and other tribes of Indians in California whose populations declined from 11,000 to less than 1000 because white men wanted the land to search for gold. Organized Indian hunts were held on Sundays and our People were killed for sport.

The little children who were kidnapped from their homes and forced to attend BIA schools. Many of them died alone and lie in unmarked graves.

From the small pox, measles, typhoid, cholera, diphtheria, TB, and VD epidemics brought to us by the white invaders to the continued genocide still being waged against us, we know about terrorism. 
And I remember."

We can never truly address the problem until Canada admits that it has one. Sadly, Prime Minister Harper's statement that there was no colonisation in Canada does not give me much hope.

http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/derrick/2009/09/harper-denial-g20-canada-has-no-history-colonialism

Geronimo was a hero, not a terrorist. Many of our leaders who fought to protect our lands and our Nations and who signed treaties were also heros - not terrorists. How quickly the settlers forget that it was they who invaded our territories and killed our people.

Many have asked about the solution. I don't think there is one solutions. A complex mix of tactics are required. While we fight Canada on the political and legal front, we must also ensure we protect what we have left.

It is therefore incumbent upon all of us to love and protect our people - regardless of how our actions are labelled. We are not the terrorists.