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 http://wcjp.unicri.it/deliverables/docs/Module_6_Genocide.pdf

 

(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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Genocide? Murder? Criminal Negligence? Or Passive Indifference? Canada is Killing Our People

Racism doesn't just hurt our feelings - racism kills. The two senseless deaths of First Nations children in a house fire in Makwa Sahgaiehcan First Nation in Saskatchewan from an unpaid bill of less than $4,000 has sparked outrage across Canada. In no other place in Canada would an ambulance, fire fighter or police officer ask a provincial resident if they had paid their taxes before answering an emergency call for help. Canada has a deep-seated racism problem which is killing our people. But to truly understand Indigenous outrage and sadness, one must understand both the context and true depth of this problem in Canada.

In the mid-1700’s, colonial governments in what is now Nova Scotia considered the Mi’kmaw Nation to be “rebels” because we refused to give up our land. As a result, Governor Cornwallis issued a scalping proclamation that decimated the Mi’kmaw Nation by as much as 80%. In 1971, Donald Marshall Jr., was sentenced to life in prison for murder and spent 11 years in jail before his wrongful prosecution was exposed. A subsequent Royal Commission found the reason for his imprisonment was racism against Mi’kmaw people by all levels of the justice system.

In 1999, the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed that the Mi’kmaw right to fish and trade it commercially was protected in our constitutionally-protected treaties. The result? Canada sent in law enforcement to beat, pepper spray and run over our fishing boats – in addition to legal charges. In 2013, Elsipogtog First Nation and other members of the Mi’kmaw Nation who supported their anti-fracking stance in Mi’kmaw territory were labeled “terrorists”, “militants” and “bad Indians”. The scalping law was not used but our people were beaten and imprisoned.

From small pox blankets and scalping bounties to imprisonment and neglect – Canada is killing our people and Canadians will be next if nothing is done to change the value (or lack thereof) that we collectively put on human life – all human life. This dictatorial, police state is not what newcomers to Canada had in mind when they came to Canada. A territory shared with Indigenous Nations based on formal agreements (treaties) and information agreement (alliances) were founded on three principles: (1) mutual respect, (2) mutual prosperity and (3) mutual protection. Indigenous peoples, their families, communities and Nations protected and cared for newcomers. Our people fought in Canada’s world wars to protect our shared territory and people. Now it’s time for Canadians to stand up for Indigenous peoples.

In 1971, Helen Betty Osborne was kidnapped and murdered in The Pas, Manitoba. Her grieving friends and family were treated like criminals while the accused men were given the royal treatment by law enforcement and left to walk free for years. This wasn’t the first time our Indigenous women and little girls have been victims of a racist Canada, but no action was taken. Today, Canadians are well aware of the thousands of Indigenous women and little girls have gone murdered and/or missing in Canada. Yet, there is no sense of alarm in Parliament, nor has the Canadian state taken any steps to work with First Nations to embark on an inquiry or implement an emergency action plan.  

By 1996, the last residential school had closed which was supposed to mark an end to the theft of Indigenous children from our Indigenous families, communities and Nations. Literally thousands of Indigenous children were victims of murders, rapes, tortures and medical experiments – and upwards of 40% never made it out of some of those schools alive. The legacy of thousands of our children who died as a matter of state law and policy should at least have included a promise to stop stealing our children. Today, we have more than 30,000 Indigenous children in care and growing. The problems have not stopped – they are getting worse.

The use of small pox blankets on our people to try to kill us off faster has been described by medical doctors as the first example of “biological warfare” during non-war times. Indigenous women and little girls were forcibly sterilized without their knowledge and consent for decades in an effort to stop us from reproducing. The Canadian state does not need to use such blatant policies to reduce our populations anymore – willful neglect has the same lethal effect. Federal, provincial and municipal governments are standing by while our people die. This is not an “Indian problem” – this is a Canadian problem that impacts every single Canadian and our collective future.

In 2005,  Jordan River Anderson, a little boy from Norway House Cree Nation with many medical issues, died in hospital at 5 years old never having seen his home because the federal and provincial governments couldn’t stop arguing over who would pay. In 2008, Brian Sinclair, a double amputee, whose family had roots in Berens River and Fort Alexander First Nations, died after waiting 34 hours in a hospital waiting room waiting for treatment for a bladder infection – while nearly 200 people passed him by – including staff who wrongly assumed he was “sleeping it off”.

The former Auditor General for Canada raised the alarms about discriminatory funding and the failure by Indian Affairs to take action on programs that would significantly impact the lives of First Nations. The Office of the Correctional Investigator has called the increasing over-representation of Indigenous peoples a crisis that needs to be addressed. The United Nations Special Rapporteur has made numerous recommendations on how Canada can address this multi-faceted crisis in First Nations. But Canada fails to take action.

Despite Canada’s failure to act, First Nations continue to try to raise the alarm bells on this lethal situation. A failure to address the chronic underfunding has led to First Nations being 10 times more likely to die in a house fire than Canadians. Indian affairs own report done in 2011 indicated that a minimum of $28 million dollars was needed to prevent deadly fires in Manitoba alone – yet all 633 First Nations in Canada only get $26 million.

Canada sits back and watches our people die needless deaths while we struggle to heal our families and communities, to rebuild after the theft of our lands and resources and to resist ongoing attempts to assimilate and eliminate us. The herculean effort at the grassroots level to protect our people is made more difficult by state propaganda that would blame us for our own misery, or deflect media attention by vilifying our leaders. Now Bill C-51 will make those of us who speak out against such inhumanity all “terrorists”. Then who will defend this territory?

The Chief Coroner for Ontario released an especially rare and powerful report in 2011 on the child suicide epidemic in Pikangikum First Nation which had declared a state of emergency – a desperate call for help that went unanswered by Canada. Within a two year period between 2006 and 2008, 16 children between the ages of 10-19 committed suicide. 16 children died – not from accidental car crashes or unpreventable diseases but because the “basic necessities of life are absent” in Pikangikum who struggles to heal and survive amidst the “backdrop of colonialism, racism and social exclusion” and government neglect.

16 little First Nation children committed suicide because the Canadian state creates and maintains the conditions of life that will either kill them or make them so hopeless they will kill themselves. That’s the UN definition of genocide.

In the words of the coroner, this “was not a story of capitulation to death, but rather, a story of stamina, endurance, tolerance, and resiliency stretched beyond human limits until finally, they simply could take no more.”

In what vision of Canada are the ongoing deaths of our people ok? We need Canadians to stand beside First Nations and support us as we defend the health of our lands and waters as well as the rights and freedoms of Canadians. This should not be our burden to bear alone anymore. Help us turn this ship around before we lose any more precious children.

#StopBillC51 #RacismKills #Genocide #FirstNationsLivesMatter #foodfor7gens #mmiw

P. Palmater, Genocide, Indian Policy and legislated Elimination of Indians In Canada (2014) vol.3, no.3, Aboriginal Policy Studies 27-54.
http://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/aps/article/view/22225/pdf_22

P. Palmater, Stretched Beyond Human Limits: Death by Poverty in First Nations (2011) No.65/66, Can. Rev. of Social Policy 112-127.
http://pi.library.yorku.ca/ojs/index.php/crsp/article/viewFile/35220/32057

Lynn Gehl v. Canada: Unstated Paternity and Indian Status

 

Lynn Gehl

(Google images)

Lynn Gehl v. Canada: Unstated Paternity and Indian Status

 

Dr. Lynn Gehl is a First Nations woman who is grounded in the traditional Indigenous knowledge of her Algonquin Anishinaabe culture and tradition. Gehl’s family originates from the Algonquins of Pikwakanagan (formerly Golden Lake Band) in Ontario. Yet, despite her connection to her culture, her Algonquin upbringing, and her ancestral ties to her First Nation, Gehl is denied legal recognition as an “Indian” by the federal government.

 

But just like Mary Two-Axe Early, Jeanette Corbiere-Lavell, Yvonne Bédard, Sandra Lovelace and Sharon McIvor before her, Gehl is not taking no for an answer. After more than twenty years of applications, protests and appeals, Gehl is headed to court.

Mary, Jeannette, Yvonne, Sandra, Sharon

(lynngehl.com and Google Images)

Mary Two-Axe was a well-known advocate who challenged Canada's discriminatory Indian Act which took Indian status away from Indian women if they married a non-Indian. Jeanette-Corbiere Lavell and Yvonne Bédard took Canada all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada to challenge these marrying-out provisions and lost. This gave Sandra Lovelace the opportunity to go straight to the United Nations and argue her case and win. The United Nations decided that Canada cannot enact legislation that denies Indian women and their children the right to enjoy their culture together with their communities.

However, the Bill C-31 amendments, while reinstating some Indian women, still discriminated against many others. Sharon McIvor dedicated 25 years to the court system to challenge this residual discrimination. She also won, but the court left it up to Canada to amend the Act. This resulted in Bill C-3, which remedied some of the discrimination for Indian women, but added more discriminatory provisions to the Act, which forced McIvor to take her case to the United Nations as well. While we wait for the decision in that case, Lynn Gehl has put in over 20 years trying to seek justice for Indian women and their children in terms of unstated paternity.

Today (Monday, October 20^th) Gehl and her legal counsel, Christa Big Canoe from Aboriginal Legal Services Toronto, will appear before the Ontario Superior Court to argue that the Indian Act rules around who is an “Indian” are discriminatory on the basis of race, marital status and/or gender. The Indian Act, and the means by which the federal government applies the act to Indian children whose fathers are unknown, results in them receiving a lesser form of Indian status, or no status at all. 

Gehl’s case focuses on what is known as unknown or unstated paternity – Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada's (AANDC) policy to automatically presume that an unknown or unstated father is a non-Indian - even if the father is, in fact, an Indian. Unstated or unknown paternity manifests in a variety of ways. For example, AANDC will unilaterally determine that the father is non-Indian if:

 

-          an Indian mother does not know the name of the father;

-          the father refuses to acknowledge paternity of the child;

-          the father refuses to sign the birth certificate and/or  Indian registration form;

 

-      the mother does not have the money to complete and file all vital statistics forms; there may be difficulty meeting time-lines for remote First Nations women who must fly into hospitals to have children;

-          the underage mothers may have privacy concerns related to paternity in smaller communities; and/or

-          an Indian mother refuses to name the father (due to incest, rape, domestic violence).

AANDC is not legally required to process applications with the presumption that an unstated father is a non-Indian. This is a clear policy choice made by AANDC to reduce the number of Indians over time. Prior to 1985, there was a legal presumption of Indian paternity for unwed mothers – there was no mad dash to try to scam the system and register non-entitled children. Thus, there is no reason why AANDC cannot presume Indian paternity in the absence of documentation. At the end of the day, the child is born to, will live with and be raised by his/her Indian mother, family and community. 

However, such a policy does not correspond to Canada's ultimate objective regarding Indians. AANDC’s policy objective has always been “the final solution of the Indian problem” i.e., to ensure “there is not a single Indian in Canada”. In fact, Canada is the last remaining country to determine who is an Indigenous person based on racial characteristics (descent through male blood). It is a racist formulation based on outdated views about biological characteristics of "races" and debunk sciences like eugenics and phrenology which sought to eliminate "undesirable" human populations.

AANDC is the federal government department which created the rules to determine who can be registered as an Indian (status). Indian status confers not only program benefits like education and health care, but also determines who can be a band member; live on the reserve; vote or run for office in a First Nation; and often who is and is not a treaty beneficiary. Just like Canadian citizenship determines whether or not a Canadian can access education and health services from their province, Indian status determines eligibility on the federal side. So, its not that Indians get anything "more" from status in terms of programs, its just the source of the benefits.

AANDC has done an incredible job of misinforming Canadians about the impacts of registering Indians. They often make comments about "floodgates" (i.e. everyone will become an Indian) and "costs" (this will be burden on taxpayers). The truth is, in terms of registrations, it would not have a significant impact.. While the Bill C-31 population projections (Indian women being reinstated to Indian status) ranged from 20-40% increase, the projected increases for unstated paternity are relatively small - approximately 2%. This does not substantiate the fear-mongering around population increases.

Similarly, if the only concern here is money - there is no increased burden on taxpayers. For every person that is registered as an Indian they will get less money for education, health care, housing, food, water, and less child and family services. Status Indians are the most impoverished people in Canada. Plus, its the wealth from Indigenous lands and resources that pay for our programs and services and also subsidizes the programs and services of Canadians - not the other way around. Therefore, there is no financial argument to made against affording equality to Indian women and their children.

This federal policy purposefully, systematically and disproportionately impacts Indigenous women who are most often the primary caregivers of their children and statistically more likely to live in poverty. This is especially true of young, teenage Indigenous mothers – 80% of whom were found to live in households making less than $15,000 a year. These mothers, often lone parents, depend on the federal programs and services associated with Indian status to care for their children. 

Gehl is relying on section 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which guarantees equal benefit of the law without discrimination based. While section 6 of Act may on its face, appear to apply equally to Indian men and women, in reality, AANDC interprets and implements it in a gender-biased manner, which has a substantial and disproportionate impact on Indian women and their children whose paternity is unknown. The fact that AANDC interprets the Act so as to prejudice the descendants of unwed Indian women discriminates against them on the basis of marital status as well.

 

Section 6 is a modern manifestation of historical discriminatory views of Indian women based on race, gender and marital status that should have been repealed decades ago.

Gehl, who has five continuous generations of Indian lineage on her paternal side, will argue that she should be registered as an Indian. She will also seek a declaration from the court that Section 6 of the Indian Act:

 

(1)   Discriminates against applicants born out of wedlock;

(2)   Discriminates against applicants who do not know their paternity; and

(3)   Be applied so as not to disadvantage the descendants of individuals whose paternity is unknown.

Other recommendations for change from Indigenous women have included:
 

-           Amend the Act to permit registration based on one parent’s registration;

-           AANDC should discontinue its discriminatory interpretation and implementation of the registration provisions;

-           AANDC should specifically eliminate the unstated paternity policy;

-           Remove administrative and financial barriers to timely and accurate birth registrations;

-           Provide legal and social protections to young mothers to protect their rights to privacy, personal safety and registration of their children.

 

Gehl, like Sandra Lovelace and Sharon McIvor have spent decades in the courts fighting for their right to belong. It’s time Canada afforded equality to all people – including Indigenous women.

Selection of sources on Unstated Paternity:

 

Lynn Gehl personal website

http://www.lynngehl.com/

 

P. Palmater, Beyond Blood: Rethinking Indigenous Identity (Saskatoon: Purich Publishing, 2011).

http://www.chapters.indigo.ca/books/beyond-blood-rethinking-indigenous-identity/9781895830606-item.html?ikwid=beyond+blood&ikwsec=Home&ikwidx=0

 

M. Mann, Indian Registration: Unrecognized and Unstated Paternity (2013)

http://apr.thompsonbooks.com/vols/APR_Vol_5Ch6.pdf

 

M. Mann, Disproportionate and Unjustifiable: Teen First Nations Mothers and Unstated Paternity Policy (2013)

http://apr.thompsonbooks.com/vols/APR_Vol_9Ch12.pdf

 

L. Gehl, Indian Rights for Indian Babies: Canada's "Unstated Paternity Policy" (2013)

http://journals.sfu.ca/fpcfr/index.php/FPCFR/article/view/187

 

National Aboriginal Women's Association, Aboriginal Women and Unstated Paternity (2007)

http://www.laa.gov.nl.ca/laa/naws/pdf/nwac-paternity.pdf

 

S. Clatworthy, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, Factors Contributing to Unstated Paternity (2003)

http://www.canadiancrc.com/PDFs/Unstated_Paternity_First_Nations-Canada_Birth_Registrations_en.pdf

Harper Solicits Research to Blame First Nations for Murdered, Missing and Traded Indigenous Women

Canada's shameful colonial history as it relates to Indigenous peoples and women specifically is not well known by the public at large. The most horrific of Canada's abuses against Indigenous peoples are not taught in schools. Even public discussion around issues like genocide have been censored by successive federal governments, and most notably by Harper's Conservatives. Recently, the new Canadian Museum for Human Rights refused to use the term "genocide" to describe Canada's laws, policies and actions towards Indigenous peoples which led to millions of deaths. The reason?: because that term was not acceptable to the federal government and the museum is after all, a Crown corporation.

http://indigenousnationhood.blogspot.ca/2013/07/human-rights-museum-or-harper.html

Aside from the fact that this museum will be used as a propaganda tool for Canada vis-à-vis the international community, Harper's Conservatives are also paying for targeted research to back up their propaganda as it relates to murdered, missing and traded Indigenous women. This is not the first time that Harper has paid for counter information and propaganda material as it relates to Indigenous peoples, and it likely won't be the last. However, this instance of soliciting targeted research to help the government blame Indigenous peoples for their own victimization and oppression is particularly reprehensible given the massive loss of life involved over time.

http://indigenousnationhood.blogspot.ca/2011/06/secret-agent-harper-conservative-spy.html

The issue of murdered and missing Indigenous women was made very public by the Native Women's Association of Canada (NWAC) several years ago through their dedicated research, community engagement and advocacy efforts. Even the United Nations took notice and starting commenting on Canada's obligation to address this serious issue. Yet, in typical Harper-Conservative style, once the issue became a hot topic in the media, they cut critical funding to NWAC's Sisters in Spirit program which was the heart of their research and advocacy into murdered and missing Indigenous women.

http://indigenousnationhood.blogspot.ca/2010/11/neanderthal-politics-shame-on.html

To further complicate the matter, any attempts for a national inquiry into the issue has been thwarted by the federal government, despite support for such an inquiry by the provinces and territories. One need only look at the fiasco of the Pickton Inquiry in British Columbia to understand how little governments in Canada value the lives of Indigenous women, their families and communities. The inquiry was headed by Wally Oppal, the same man who previously denied the claims of Indigenous women who were forcibly sterilized against their knowledge and consent. The inquiry seemed more interested in insulating the RCMP from investigation and prosecution than it was about hearing the stories of Indigenous women.

http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/pamela-palmater/2011/10/murdered-missing-and-still-excluded-indigenous-women-fight-eq

Now, the Canadian public has to deal with a new chapter to this story - the sale of Indigenous women into the sex trades. The CBC recently reported that current research shows that Indigenous women, girls and babies in Canada were taken onto US ships to be sold into the sex trade. While this is not new information for Indigenous peoples, it is something that Canada has refused to recognize in the past. The research also shows that Indigenous women are brought onto these boats never to be seen from again.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/thunder-bay/story/2013/08/21/tby-first-nations-women-human-trafficking-ships-united-states.html

The issue of murdered and missing Indigenous women has now expanded to murdered, missing and traded women. One might have expected a reaction from both the Canadian government and the Assembly of First Nations (AFN). Yet, the day after the story hit the news, the AFN was tweeting about local competitions and the federal government was essentially silent. I say essentially, because while all of this was taking place, the federal government put together a Request for Proposals on MERX (#275751) to solicit research to blame the families and communities of Indigenous women for being sold into the sex trade.

https://www.merx.com/English/SUPPLIER_Menu.asp?WCE=Show&TAB=1&PORTAL=MERX&State=7&id=275751&src=osr&FED_ONLY=0&ACTION=&rowcount=&lastpage=&MoreResults=&PUBSORT=2&CLOSESORT=0&IS_SME=Y&hcode=%2f6A6jdkNJoHoufgILSp4Xg%3d%3d

Instead of making a call for true academic research into the actual causes and conditions around Indigenous women, girls and babies being sold into the sex trade, the federal government solicited research to prove:

(1) the involvement of family members in their victimization;

(2) the level to which domestic violence is linked to the sale of Indigenous women into the sex trade; and

(3) even where they are investigating gang involvement, it is within the context of family involvement of the trade of Indigenous women.

The parameters of the research excludes looking into federal and/or provincial laws and policies towards Indigenous peoples; funding mechanisms which prejudice them and maintain them in the very poverty the research identifies; and negative societal attitudes formed due to government positions vis-à-vis Indigenous women like:

- rapes and abuse in residential schools;
- forced sterilizations;
- the theft of thousands of Indigenous children into foster care;
- the over-representation of Indigenous women in jails;
- and the many generations of Indigenous women losing their Indian status and membership and being kicked off reserves by federal law.

The research also leaves out a critical aspect of this research which is federal and provincial enforcement laws, policies and actions or lack thereof in regards to the reports of murdered, missing and traded Indigenous women, girls and babies. The epic failure of police to follow up on reports and do proper investigations related to these issues have led some experts to conclude that this could have prevented and addressed murdered, missing and traded Indigenous women. Of even greater concern are the allegations that have surfaced in the media in relation to RCMP members sexually assaulting Indigenous women and girls.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2013/02/12/bc-human-rights-watch-abuse-report.html

This MERX Request for Proposals is offensive and should be retracted and re-issued in a more academically-sound manner which looks to get at the full truth, versus a federally-approved pre-determined outcome.

It's time Canada opened up the books, and shed light on the real atrocities in this country so that we can all move forward and address them.

Human Rights Museum or Harper Propaganda Show?: Genocide in Canada Denied

Canada has a dark history - one which begins long before Confederation in 1867. The state of Canada, which was previously a British colony, was only made possible by the theft of Indigenous lands and resources, and the genocide of Indigenous peoples. While some government officials will admit that some of their laws and policies may have resulted in assimilation, you will never hear any of them speak of their elimination policies which resulted in genocide.

What is the difference between assimilation and elimination? Assimilation is when one group (usually the colonizing settler government) tries to force another group (Indigenous peoples) to abandon their culture, language, values, traditions, practices and beliefs for those of the colonizer. Policies like residential schools, resulted in the disruption and loss of Indigenous language and culture. This can and has resulted in inter-generational trauma in many Indigenous families, communities and Nations.

Elimination policies are much more direct. The scalping bounties issued in the Atlantic region for the scalps of Mi'kmaw men, women and children were meant to physically eliminate Mi'kmaw peoples. The distribution of smallpox blankets to Indigenous peoples were meant to physically eliminate Indigenous peoples through the ourposeful spread of a deadly disease. Similarly, the forced sterilization of Indigenous women in Canada without their knowledge and consent was also meant to eliminate any future population of Indigenous peoples. These are what have been called elimination policies.

Some will debate whether the residential school policy was a policy of assimilation or elimination, but I argue that it was both. The physical abuse for practicing one's culture is a form of forced assimilation; whereas the starvation, torture and medical experiments conducted on the children which resulted in upwards of 40% of the children dying, is elimination.

Whether it is assimilation or elimination, all of the acts fit under the definition of genocide as noted in the UN Convention Against Genocide.

Article 2

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:

• (a) Killing members of the group;
• (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
• (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
• (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
• (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

http://www.hrweb.org/legal/genocide.html

If you look at any of the criteria, Canada has committed acts under each which can be defined as genocide. The colonizing governments have:

(a) purposely killed Indigenous peoples (smallpox blankets, residential schools, scalping bounties, starlight tours);

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2013/02/18/residential-schools-student-deaths.html

(b) have caused serious bodily harm (residential school torture, deaths and beatings in police custody, medical experiments in residential schools and in First Nation communities);

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/hungry-aboriginal-kids-adults-were-subject-of-nutritional-experiments-paper/article13246564/

(c) deliberately inflicted conditions meant to bring about death and illness (chronic under-funding of essential human needs like water, sanitation, housing, and food);

http://pi.library.yorku.ca/ojs/index.php/crsp/article/viewFile/35220/32057

(d) prevented births (forced sterilization of Indigenous women);

http://www.naho.ca/documents/naho/english/publications/DP_womens_health.pdf

(e) transferred children our of Indigenous communities (residential schools, massive 60's scoop where kids taken and adopted into non-Indigenous families,  current policy of child apprehensions);

http://www.originscanada.org/the-stolen-generation/

Thus, if the new Canadian Museum for Human Rights will not use the term genocide to describe what Canada has done to Indigenous peoples in Canada, then its own credibility will be called into question. A few staff members at the museum do not have the right decide how history will be presented. The grisly facts about Canada's treatment of Indigenous peoples is something that must be recognized and accepted if there is any hope of moving forward in a good way or at least in a way which does not repeat the atrocities of the past.

One does not have to look too far to find the real reason why the museum will not use the word genocide - it is Crown corporation, i.e., an arm of the government. The museum staff are quoted as saying: "as a Crown corporation, it's important the museum's terminology align with that of the federal government".This Harper government's modus operandi is to control information, silence opposition and present propaganda instead of open, accountable fact-based reports.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/cmhr-rejects-genocide-for-native-policies-217061321.html

While the museum appears to be relying on the fact that Canada has refused to acknowledge that its policies against Indigenous peoples were genocide, they should also note that those governments and politicians who have committed genocide in other parts of the world never admitted their illegal activity either. Canada will never admit wrong-doing unless and until it is brought to justice. Even Canada's watered-down residential schools apology was quickly followed by a denial that any cultural genocide took place.

http://aptn.ca/pages/news/2011/10/27/residential-schools-saganashduncan-apologize/

There is little point in even opening this museum if its only purpose is to act as a propaganda machine for the federal government. We can expect little more than government-approved pictures, displays, and histories if even the terminology are going to be censored. Why waste all that money, when one could simply log on to the Harper government website and read the propaganda directly?

The continued denial of genocide in Canada, against the weight of much academic research and evidence, shows that Canada (the government) has no real interest in moving forward in a respectful relationship with Indigenous peoples. In fact, all of Harper's actions to date indicate a desire to go back in time and resurrect old assimilation policies. Perhaps this is the real reason why Harper does not want the museum to educate Canadians about the truth?

http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/pamela-palmater/2012/09/harpers-manifesto-erasing-canadas-indigenous-communities

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:

• (a) Killing members of the group;
• (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
• (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
• (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
• (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

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