Although my blog site already says this, I have to repeat it for the small handful of Brazeau fans that exist in Canada. This blog and every single word contained therein represents my own personal opinions and views as an Indigenous person. It does not represent legal advice nor should it be relied on as such. This blog, as with all others, represents my "fair comment", on a wide range of legal and political issues, i.e., my honestly-held, personal opinions which I have based on personal experiences, media reports, Senate documents, as well as other discussions and events that have been relayed to me by Indigenous people all over this country.
There is no malice in any of my blogs and, in fact, they are designed to engage with other Indigenous Peoples and to think critically about our state of affairs. This blog also does not hurt his "reputation" for his reputation, as has been relayed to me by Indigenous people, media and himself others confirms that he is an Indigenous person (some would argue used to be) who obtained his fame and political power by trashing Chiefs.
Senator Patrick Brazeau went from obscurity to enemy number one in Indian country because of his singular focus on trashing First Nations and Chiefs at every public opportunity. I have seen him on TV, quoted in newspapers, speaking in the Senate, heard his videos, and even been present in public forums where he literally trashes Chiefs as though such negativity and stereotypes were acceptable or even helpful in the debate. Whenever he loses some of the limelight, he will come up with his own bizarre home video to share with the public to again stir up some controversy and of course, publicity for himself.
Prior to becoming a hand-selected conservative Senator, Brazeau was the President of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples (CAP) for a very short period of time. I say President, because although he called himself "Chief", he certainly did nothing to earn that title and in fact so often trashed Chiefs, I often wondered why he was so desperate to be called Chief? He only became President by default when the former one stepped down. He served out that term and was elected again amongst much controversy and several political plots to have him removed as President shortly thereafter - of course none of that ever made the media.
He appeared to use his very limited time as President to get as much media attention for himself as possible and the common theme was to stereotype First Nations and Chiefs in negative ways. This of course caught the attention of the conservatives, whose former political advisor was none other than Tom Flanagan - the poster boy for promoting the assimilation of First Nations. There is no better way to sell an otherwise objectionable or unconscionable idea than to get an Indian to do it. Here is where Brazeau found his niche.
By doing conservative bidding, he would get his media fame and make up for his failed modelling career and his failed attempt to become a real lawyer. We have to keep in mind that Brazeau brought no real political experience to the table when he became the President of CAP. He was a self-described former model and had completed some law school courses. Oh, and I can't forget - he was also allegedly a whiz in martial arts. How that ever qualified him to try to lead a national Aboriginal organization is beyond me.
FORMER MODEL: "PRESENTABLE FACE" FOR CAP:
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=3f7827a1-d524-4c56-a6f4-d86bb1aada68
I think the above article may have unknowingly hit the nail on the head about where Brazeau gets his qualifications - it could be unresolved anger and jealousy for having lived a "rock's throw" away from the reserve and perhaps is why he is so bent on "throwing a few" rocks at First Nations. First Nations are not to blame for his living as a non-status Indian for part of his life and growing up off reserve. We all know that is Canada's legacy.
There is also a saying - don't throw rocks if you live in a glass house. While Brazeau clamored for media attention through throwing rocks at chiefs, he forgot to look in his own backyard. There are many media sources which say that Brazeau left CAP in financial and administrative shambles, that he had originally wanted to double-dip, i.e. get a 6-figure salary from CAP and a 6-figure salary from the Senate, that he was not paying his child support and even worse, that several former employees had filed sexual harassment complaints against him. Here are some links to related media reports:
SEXUAL HARASSMENT COMPLAINT AGAINST BRAZEAU
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/01/07/brazeau-senate.html
BRAZEAU LAGGED ON $100 CHILD SUPPORT
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/585027
BRAZEAU WANTED BOTH JOBS AND BOTH SALARIES
http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/568616
SECOND WOMAN FILES SEXUAL HARASSMENT AGAINST BRAZEAU
http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/568616
BRAZEAU CHOOSES STAFF ALLEGED AS "OFFICE DRINKERS"
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20090208/senator_brazeau_090208/
BRAZEAU DEFENDS DRIVING PORCHE AND REPRESENTING IMPOVERISHED
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20090208/senator_brazeau_090208/
Certainly, this is not the kind of resume I would want from a person that would represent me in the Senate.
In addition, the current President of CAP, Betty-Ann Lavallee has indicated that Brazeau is suing her and CAP for speaking out publicly about Brazeau. I have not seen the actual Statement of Claim, so I can't provide any details. When interviewed, Brazeau always tries to shift the focus on his critics, as if they just make these things up. Some elders have indicated their view that by not taking responsibility for any of his actions, Brazeau cannot ever grow and become a better person.
If we are to believe what is reported in the media about the horrible mess that CAP's finances were left in after Brazeau's reign, then we start to get a picture about his real talents or lack thereof.
CAP's ACCOUNTS FROZEN:
http://media.knet.ca/node/2089
On a more personal note, I used to be a member of the New Brunswick Aboriginal Peoples Council (NBAPC), which is a provincial affiliate of CAP. I used to attend their Annual General Meetings (AGMs) and one year Brazeau, then President of CAP attended to give a speech to the delegates. Instead of focusing on the severe poverty in off-reserve Aboriginal communities, lack of housing, jobs, and recognition of rights, his mantra was "Down with the Chiefs"! I believe that session was taped, but I never saw it ever reproduced. There were many of us sitting in the audience in absolute shock as he loudly and passionately shouted "Down with the Chiefs".
He completely ignored the fact that although the NBAPC represented off-reserve Aboriginal peoples, many of them still had band membership with their home communities; many had close relations with their families and friends on reserve, and more still worked in solidarity with their communities, including their chiefs, to bring about change for their people. His stereotyping of all chiefs as bad, not only hurt the hearts and souls of the people he spoke to, but he betrayed the very position with which he occupied - to be a spokesperson of the people he represented. No one in my family or circle of friends and relations held such negative, stereotypical views about our leaders - so I was left who the heck was he representing?
From that point on, every time I saw him in the media, he was literally parroting everything that the Minister of Indian Affairs or conservative MPs had to say about Aboriginal peoples. At one of the last AGMs of CAP that he ever attended during his short reign, one of the delegates stood up and turned his back to Brazeau, when Brazeau got up to address the delegation. In our tradition, this is our way of saying that the person being shunned is no longer considered an Indigenous person which belongs to the community. No one yelled or challenged Brazeau because from that point on, as far as many were concerned, he was no longer a part of the Indigenous community.
It was not long after that, that Brazeau was appointed to the Senate where he has been given a forum to continue trashing our communities through our leaders. Many people across the country who write to me, call or meet me, feel that Brazeau has single-handedly set back all the public education that has been done over the last 20 years to overcome the racist stereotypes about First Nations. Now, thanks to Brazeau and other right-wing groups and academics, it has become acceptable again to publicly insult, stereotype, and humiliate our people.
The really sad thing about Brazeau's situation is that he was so young and inexperienced that he could not see how easily he was manipulated and used by the conservatives. What was so clear to those of us who were more experienced and used to the kinds of political games and divide and conquer methods used by governments, was beyond Brazeau's comprehension. Instead of seeking advice and guidance from the many experienced leaders in our communities - some of whom have done amazing things for their communities, he acted as if he had all the answers. It was pitiful to watch, especially since it is so rare for an Indigenous person to be so completely "converted".
Despite all this, what it comes down to at the end of the day is personal responsibility. Many elders have told me that Brazeau had a choice: he could be a spokesperson for his people or for himself and it appears as though he chose the latter. According to the elders, he therefore has to accept full responsibility for all the damage he has done and is doing in his pursuit of fame and power. I have learned over the years that our elders' wisdom should not be discounted lightly. Even if Brazeau would take time to consider the criticism that is levelled against him, he might be forgiven for ignoring it. Yet he seems to relish in the spotlight and use those opportunities to further insult and stereotype our leaders and in so doing, our communities and future generations.
I have written previously about my concerns over Brazeau's use of Senate insignia and meeting rooms to film his bizarre videos criticizing chiefs, his uninformed opinions on our communities, and the disrespectful way he talks about our leaders. Many experienced Senators work on various issues outside of the Senate to support important community issues - but they do so in a helpful, positive way. Using the resources of the Senate to vilify, even if only by implication, a cultural group that is already the most vulnerable group in society, goes well beyond what is conduct expected of a Senator.
Readers may also recall that when I was invited to the Senate to present on Bill S-4 regarding matrimonial real property (MRP) as an expert witness, Brazeau later, when I was not there to defend myself, wrongly accused me of being a paid consultant to the Chiefs and therefore asked the Senate to ignore my expert legal testimony based on the unfounded allegation that I was only there to "feather my nest". When APTN made my subsequent complaint public, it was the Chiefs who stepped forward to defend me publicly and by letters.
Did Brazeau ever apologize to me personally? No. But I can tell you that the next time I was invited as an expert witness to speak to the Senate on Bill C-3, I was unexpectedly disinvited at the last minute after having already made travel and other arrangements. I have to wonder whether I will ever be invited back after having spoke out against Brazeau's behaviour.
Now, Brazeau's tiresome campaign against the Chiefs continues. Many chiefs have complained how he treats them disrespectfully whenever they appear before a committee of the Senate. Brazeau himself admits to "testy" exchanges. I wonder if Brazeau would ever think to speak to PM Harper that way?? Of course not. Some of you may be questioning why I would compare First Nations Chiefs to a PM - well, if its good enough for the salary issue, why is it not applicable for other issues? The public can't have it both ways.
Below is a link to APTN's story on the issue:
http://aptn.ca/pages/news/2011/02/09/brazeau-not-legitimate-represenative-of-first-nations-ontario-chiefs/
The letter that is referenced comes from the Chiefs of Ontario and is addressed to all Senators and Members of Parliament. It is signed by the heads of its regional organizations as well as Chiefs from Six Nations and Akwesasne. They raise a very important issue: that Brazeau was never nominated, appointed, elected or in any way chosen by First Nations people to speak for them and therefore he should not do so. In fact, they argue that it is a breach of our numerous international human rights.
The letter goes on to state that while they recognize that the conservative government has the right to appoint anyone it chooses to the Senate, the government must recognize that First Nations have the right to choose their own leaders and have asked that the Conservatives: "desist from characterizing Senator Brazeau as someone who can speak to our issues".
This seems like a reasonable request given that many have questioned not only his ability to be a Senator and former President of CAP, but also his lack of experience personally or politically in First Nations. Given that some of Brazeau's own "grass roots" people have literally turned their backs on him and no longer even consider him Indigenous, I think the request is more than reasonable.
We are all sick of Brazeau's tiresome campaign against First Nations and their leaders. Many of us are even sick of seeing him on TV. Let him sit in the Senate with his former CAP employees and work on other issues. Leave the business of First Nations issues to those with the experience to add something positive to the agenda. Let's get on with the business of finding solutions to the serious and even deadly issues facing Indigenous peoples in Canada and finally wrap up Brazeau's 15 minutes of fame.
Friday, February 11, 2011
Friday, February 4, 2011
Conservatives' Election Platform for Aboriginal Peoples is "Assimilatory"
With all this talk of a possible federal election, I was wondering how long it would take for the three major national parties (Liberals, NDP and Conservatives) to start talking about their platforms in relation to Aboriginal peoples. Thanks to APTN National News, we got to hear a preview of their platforms last night. For anyone who missed the APTN panel, please go to the following link and watch it before you read my commentary:
http://aptn.ca/pages/news/2011/02/04/aptns-mp-panel-back-in-business-but-for-how-long/
For those who don't have video capabilities, I will briefly review the discussion. Appearing in this broadcast was Conservative Senator Patrick Brazeau, NDP MP and Aboriginal Affairs critic Jean Crowder, and Liberal MP and Aboriginal Affairs critic Todd Russell. The purpose of this panel was to discuss the possible federal election, whether the parties had a platform on Aboriginal issues and what their views were on First Nations tobacco industry and sovereignty. Here is an overview of what they had to say:
(1) WILL THERE BE AN ELECTION?
Russell - He was concerned with direction that the Conservatives are taking, i.e. billions in tax cuts to wealthy corporations and little for families and First Nations education. While they will try to work cooperatively, if the Conservatives don't change direction, they will vote against the budget.
Crowder - The issue is whether Harper will work with minority parties to make Parliament work for Canadians and substantial work needs to be done for Aboriginal communities.
Brazeau - This Conservative government does not want an election and Canadians don't want an election. Canadians want them to focus on the economy and creating jobs and training opportunities for Aboriginal people to "hold" jobs.
(2) WHAT ABORIGINAL ISSUES ARE MOST IMPORTANT?
Russell - Liberals have already spoken about their vision for Aboriginal policy going forward: (1) they would remove the 2% funding cap on post-secondary education, (2) substantial investments in Aboriginal education and k-12 system, (3) national response to murdered and missing Aboriginal women, and a (4) commitment to endorse UNDRIP which has happened.
He also stresses that there must be a rebuilding of trust between government and Aboriginal peoples and criticized the Conservative government for their plans to get rid of communal property ownership on reserves and for their overall "assimilationist" approach to Aboriginal issues. Aboriginal peoples are not the same - they have legally protected rights.
Crowder - When NDP develops platform on Aboriginal issues, they work with their Aboriginal Commission which is made up of Aboriginal peoples and they are working on running Aboriginal candidates in the next election.
The larger issues are Nation to Nation status, inherent rights, treaties and other issues like education, health care and water.
Brazeau - "There may be a disconnect" between the Conservative government and Aboriginal peoples in "some cases" but "the relationship is getting better".
The Liberals are just fear-mongering. Brazeau said he heard 5 years ago about the Conservative plans to take away First Nation rights and promote assimilation. He refers to their record: (1) residential schools apology, (2) funding for murdered and missing Aboriginal women and (3) UNDRIP.
However, their focus is Aboriginal education and economic development.
(3) HOW DO THE PARTIES VIEW THE TOBACCO TRADE BETWEEN SOVEREIGN FIRST NATIONS?
Brazeau - The topic of "illegal tobacco" needs to be addressed. "Many of the tobacco shops on reserves" "are being used for other illegal drugs" and other "illegal things that are happening".
We have to start treating Aboriginal people equally with other manufacturers and store owners who sell tobacco". Perhaps we need to start to "tax" them and their is a "role for the federal government in this".
Crowder - (1) There is a public health issue with the availability of cheap tobacco. (2) You have to control the supply of the raw product to control the manufacturing and (3) There are solutions like a First Nation tobacco tax imposed by First Nations and that goes back to First Nations.
Russell - Aboriginal communities and the public have identified issues of health and economics. There are also issues of sovereignty, jurisdiction and treaty rights. We need to have these discussions around a negotiating table.
So what we have seen in this panel on the part of the Conservatives is really more of the same. Brazeau accused Russell of fear-mongering when Russell said that the Conservatives were using an assimilatory agenda to make Aboriginal people the same as other Canadians and ignore their legally protected rights. Yet, Brazeau could not help himself when he later said that the Conservative goal was to treat First Nations the same as other Canadians.
While the Conservatives try to dance around their ultimate agenda so that their assimilatory views do not look so overt, the fact of the matter is that this is exactly what they are attempting in their Aboriginal policy. You can look at any of their activities over the last few years and see the common thread of trying to making Aboriginal "the same" as everyone else and an almost complete rejection of their legally and constitutionally protected rights. For example:
(1) Bill C-3 did not remedy gender inequality which leads to loss of status. In fact, Canada defended the second-generation cut-off rule despite the fact that it guarantees the legal extinction of First Nations.
(2) Bill S-4 does not provide real access to justice for Aboriginal peoples living on reserve after a marital break-up, but it does guarantee land rights to non-Indians of reserve lands for the first time in history.
(3) Bill C-575 does not address the severe poverty of First Nations that lead to their early deaths. It creates more reporting requirements for First Nations who already report more than any other entity in Canada.
(4) There have been numerous studies, reports, commissions and inquiries that prove that Aboriginal men and women are incarcerated at a disproportionately higher rate than non-Aboriginal peoples and sometimes the cause is pure racism. Yet, the Conservative response is to spend millions building new prisons and hiring new corrections officers so they can house the increasing numbers which will effectively remove any remaining Aboriginal people (who are not assimilated through the Indian Act) out of society.
(5) When the Native Womens' Association of Canada identified an alarming number of murdered and missing Aboriginal women in Canada, the Conservatives cut the funding and poured millions into policing to help "all Canadians".
(6) When the Corrections Ombudsperson identified discrimination against Aboriginal offenders; the former auditor general Sheila Fraser identified inequality in funding critical services like child and family services and education, when the Ministerial representative for INAC noted that matrimonial real property legislation required consultation, when the UN identified numerous unresolved issues in Canada with regard to Aboriginal peoples, the response is always the same - there is no response.
(7) Now it is reported that Canada is providing funds in one form or another to people like Tom Flanagan and Manny Jules to promote the privatization of reserve lands. No land = no community = assimilation.
I could go on and on, but my blogs cover alot of this stuff. Brazeau focused on education and jobs - assimilating Aboriginal people into Canadian society, and no recognition of their special legal, constitutional and cultural status. It is the Flanagan-Cairns-Helin-Gibson-Widdowson-Canadian Tax Payers plan:
Step 1 - underfund essential services so that First Nations off reserves,
Step 2 - educate them in the Canadian system and put them in "regular" jobs and debt,
Step 3 - entice individuals with financial incentives not tied to their community and villify their leaders,
Step 4 - bleed off Indian women and their descendants through the Indian status provisions, and
Step 5 - innocently promote individualism under the guise of equality.
I am not saying that jobs or education are bad. In fact, I am a huge promoter of education so that we can build capacity to help heal our communities and rebuild our Nations. Having jobs and income to finance these projects are also essential. But I don't agree with the requirement that we abandon our cultures, languages, identities, histories, legal rights, lands, communities, governments, laws, or treaties. The Conservatives hope to entice us down the path of assimilation "voluntarily" - but we have another choice.
We can be Indigenous and educated. We can be Indigenous and own our own businesses. We can be Indigenous and have relations with Canadians. We do not need to give up our identities, communities and Nations to be entitled to demand fair treatment and respect of our rights.
I have never been a voter myself, nor do I belong to any political party, but in recent years I have started to think that we need to take action on multiple fronts. I am still thinking about it, but the Conservatives are getting scarier as each year passes and their arrogance and paternalism on Aboriginal issues becomes more and more apparent.
MP Todd Russell spoke of jurisdiction, treaty rights, and negotiation. MP Jean Crowder spoke of inherent rights, treaties and Nation to Nation relations. Brazeau preached about federal taxation of "illegal" First Nation business, the disconnected relation they have with Aboriginal peoples, and the need to treat Aboriginal peoples the same as other Canadians.
Could the message be any clearer?
http://aptn.ca/pages/news/2011/02/04/aptns-mp-panel-back-in-business-but-for-how-long/
For those who don't have video capabilities, I will briefly review the discussion. Appearing in this broadcast was Conservative Senator Patrick Brazeau, NDP MP and Aboriginal Affairs critic Jean Crowder, and Liberal MP and Aboriginal Affairs critic Todd Russell. The purpose of this panel was to discuss the possible federal election, whether the parties had a platform on Aboriginal issues and what their views were on First Nations tobacco industry and sovereignty. Here is an overview of what they had to say:
(1) WILL THERE BE AN ELECTION?
Russell - He was concerned with direction that the Conservatives are taking, i.e. billions in tax cuts to wealthy corporations and little for families and First Nations education. While they will try to work cooperatively, if the Conservatives don't change direction, they will vote against the budget.
Crowder - The issue is whether Harper will work with minority parties to make Parliament work for Canadians and substantial work needs to be done for Aboriginal communities.
Brazeau - This Conservative government does not want an election and Canadians don't want an election. Canadians want them to focus on the economy and creating jobs and training opportunities for Aboriginal people to "hold" jobs.
(2) WHAT ABORIGINAL ISSUES ARE MOST IMPORTANT?
Russell - Liberals have already spoken about their vision for Aboriginal policy going forward: (1) they would remove the 2% funding cap on post-secondary education, (2) substantial investments in Aboriginal education and k-12 system, (3) national response to murdered and missing Aboriginal women, and a (4) commitment to endorse UNDRIP which has happened.
He also stresses that there must be a rebuilding of trust between government and Aboriginal peoples and criticized the Conservative government for their plans to get rid of communal property ownership on reserves and for their overall "assimilationist" approach to Aboriginal issues. Aboriginal peoples are not the same - they have legally protected rights.
Crowder - When NDP develops platform on Aboriginal issues, they work with their Aboriginal Commission which is made up of Aboriginal peoples and they are working on running Aboriginal candidates in the next election.
The larger issues are Nation to Nation status, inherent rights, treaties and other issues like education, health care and water.
Brazeau - "There may be a disconnect" between the Conservative government and Aboriginal peoples in "some cases" but "the relationship is getting better".
The Liberals are just fear-mongering. Brazeau said he heard 5 years ago about the Conservative plans to take away First Nation rights and promote assimilation. He refers to their record: (1) residential schools apology, (2) funding for murdered and missing Aboriginal women and (3) UNDRIP.
However, their focus is Aboriginal education and economic development.
(3) HOW DO THE PARTIES VIEW THE TOBACCO TRADE BETWEEN SOVEREIGN FIRST NATIONS?
Brazeau - The topic of "illegal tobacco" needs to be addressed. "Many of the tobacco shops on reserves" "are being used for other illegal drugs" and other "illegal things that are happening".
We have to start treating Aboriginal people equally with other manufacturers and store owners who sell tobacco". Perhaps we need to start to "tax" them and their is a "role for the federal government in this".
Crowder - (1) There is a public health issue with the availability of cheap tobacco. (2) You have to control the supply of the raw product to control the manufacturing and (3) There are solutions like a First Nation tobacco tax imposed by First Nations and that goes back to First Nations.
Russell - Aboriginal communities and the public have identified issues of health and economics. There are also issues of sovereignty, jurisdiction and treaty rights. We need to have these discussions around a negotiating table.
So what we have seen in this panel on the part of the Conservatives is really more of the same. Brazeau accused Russell of fear-mongering when Russell said that the Conservatives were using an assimilatory agenda to make Aboriginal people the same as other Canadians and ignore their legally protected rights. Yet, Brazeau could not help himself when he later said that the Conservative goal was to treat First Nations the same as other Canadians.
While the Conservatives try to dance around their ultimate agenda so that their assimilatory views do not look so overt, the fact of the matter is that this is exactly what they are attempting in their Aboriginal policy. You can look at any of their activities over the last few years and see the common thread of trying to making Aboriginal "the same" as everyone else and an almost complete rejection of their legally and constitutionally protected rights. For example:
(1) Bill C-3 did not remedy gender inequality which leads to loss of status. In fact, Canada defended the second-generation cut-off rule despite the fact that it guarantees the legal extinction of First Nations.
(2) Bill S-4 does not provide real access to justice for Aboriginal peoples living on reserve after a marital break-up, but it does guarantee land rights to non-Indians of reserve lands for the first time in history.
(3) Bill C-575 does not address the severe poverty of First Nations that lead to their early deaths. It creates more reporting requirements for First Nations who already report more than any other entity in Canada.
(4) There have been numerous studies, reports, commissions and inquiries that prove that Aboriginal men and women are incarcerated at a disproportionately higher rate than non-Aboriginal peoples and sometimes the cause is pure racism. Yet, the Conservative response is to spend millions building new prisons and hiring new corrections officers so they can house the increasing numbers which will effectively remove any remaining Aboriginal people (who are not assimilated through the Indian Act) out of society.
(5) When the Native Womens' Association of Canada identified an alarming number of murdered and missing Aboriginal women in Canada, the Conservatives cut the funding and poured millions into policing to help "all Canadians".
(6) When the Corrections Ombudsperson identified discrimination against Aboriginal offenders; the former auditor general Sheila Fraser identified inequality in funding critical services like child and family services and education, when the Ministerial representative for INAC noted that matrimonial real property legislation required consultation, when the UN identified numerous unresolved issues in Canada with regard to Aboriginal peoples, the response is always the same - there is no response.
(7) Now it is reported that Canada is providing funds in one form or another to people like Tom Flanagan and Manny Jules to promote the privatization of reserve lands. No land = no community = assimilation.
I could go on and on, but my blogs cover alot of this stuff. Brazeau focused on education and jobs - assimilating Aboriginal people into Canadian society, and no recognition of their special legal, constitutional and cultural status. It is the Flanagan-Cairns-Helin-Gibson-Widdowson-Canadian Tax Payers plan:
Step 1 - underfund essential services so that First Nations off reserves,
Step 2 - educate them in the Canadian system and put them in "regular" jobs and debt,
Step 3 - entice individuals with financial incentives not tied to their community and villify their leaders,
Step 4 - bleed off Indian women and their descendants through the Indian status provisions, and
Step 5 - innocently promote individualism under the guise of equality.
I am not saying that jobs or education are bad. In fact, I am a huge promoter of education so that we can build capacity to help heal our communities and rebuild our Nations. Having jobs and income to finance these projects are also essential. But I don't agree with the requirement that we abandon our cultures, languages, identities, histories, legal rights, lands, communities, governments, laws, or treaties. The Conservatives hope to entice us down the path of assimilation "voluntarily" - but we have another choice.
We can be Indigenous and educated. We can be Indigenous and own our own businesses. We can be Indigenous and have relations with Canadians. We do not need to give up our identities, communities and Nations to be entitled to demand fair treatment and respect of our rights.
I have never been a voter myself, nor do I belong to any political party, but in recent years I have started to think that we need to take action on multiple fronts. I am still thinking about it, but the Conservatives are getting scarier as each year passes and their arrogance and paternalism on Aboriginal issues becomes more and more apparent.
MP Todd Russell spoke of jurisdiction, treaty rights, and negotiation. MP Jean Crowder spoke of inherent rights, treaties and Nation to Nation relations. Brazeau preached about federal taxation of "illegal" First Nation business, the disconnected relation they have with Aboriginal peoples, and the need to treat Aboriginal peoples the same as other Canadians.
Could the message be any clearer?
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Frequently Asked Questions About Bill C-3 (Simplified)
Hi all, I hope you are all in the process of changing your links over from my Non-Status Indian sites to my Indigenous Nationhood sites. My Facebook, Blogger and website have all been changed to Indigenous Nationhood. I will leave my old blogger and website links up for a few months to allow people to find the new sites, but please switch over so that you don't miss any future posts. My Twitter and LinkedIn profiles are the same.
New blog site: http://www.indigenousnationhood.blogspot.com/
New website: http://www.indigenousnationhood.com/
New facebook name: Indigenous Nationhood
Same Twitter: Pam_Palmater
Same LinkedIn: Dr. Pam Palmater
New E-mail = palmater@indigenousnationhood.com
I hope you have all read my last blog post where I updated everyone with what is happening with Bill C-3. Since I still continue to get a large number of e-mails and questions related to what the application process and who qualifies, I decided to post another this blog will point you to the exact links which answer your questions. Please feel free to e-mail me if there is anything else I have not covered.
I apologize to my readers if this information seems at all repetitive or you were hoping for a blog on another topic. I have been receiving so many e-mails and calls for information and complaints from Aboriginal people all over the country saying that they don't know what is happening and their local organization or community has not provided any information.
One would think that organizations like the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples (CAP) or any of their provincial affiliates, like the New Brunswick Aboriginal Peoples Council (NBAPC) and others would be in their communities informing people about next steps. Sadly, this does not appear to be happening and people are left on their own trying to figure out this amazingly confusing, complex, legal process.
(1) DID BILL C-3 COME INTO FORCE?
Yes, the bill is now in force and the Indian Act has been amended accordingly. You can see a copy of the amendments that will be added to the Indian Act at this link:
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/I-5/AmendmentsNotInForce
(2) WHO QUALIFIES FOR STATUS?
Here are the three criterion that INAC has indicated will determine whether or not you qualify for status under the new Bill:
(i) Did your grandmother lose her Indian status as a result of marrying a non-Indian?
(ii) Is one of your parents registered, or entitled to be registered, under sub-section 6(2) of the Indian Act?
(iii) Were you, or one of your siblings, born on or after September 4, 1951?
If you have answered yes to all of these questions, there is a good chance that you might qualify for status. These criteria can be found on INAC's website here:
http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/br/is/bll/rpb/index-eng.asp
(3) ARE THERE ANY EXCEPTIONS?
Even if you meet all of the criteria noted above, you might still be excluded from status. Please take note of the very important qualification that INAC has recently posted on their website:
"If the applicant's grandparents were not married to each other before April 17, 1985 and the parent of the applicant was born after April 17, 1985, the 2011 Indian Act amendments may not entitle the applicant to registration."
This information can be found at the following link:
http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/br/frms/mci/83114-eng.asp
(4) I ALREADY APPLIED BEFORE BILL C-3 BECAME LAW - SHOULD I REAPPLY?
I had the very same question. I applied for my status before the McIvor case was decided and before Bill C-3 became law. I called INAC's toll-free information line (1-800-567-9604) and asked the very same question.
They informed me that INAC already has a process in place to deal with those who already applied. They advised me NOT to reapply as this might delay the processing of my application. They further advised that INAC would contact me about what the next steps are for my application to be considered.
They said that while I am waiting for INAC to contact me, that I could be getting all the extra required documents in order to submit. This includes the guarantor form, driver's license and passport photos.
The following link provides detailed information about the registration process and the various ways in which you can contact INAC and ask questions:
http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/br/is/bll/rpb/index-eng.asp
(5) WHAT IS REQUIRED TO APPLY FOR STATUS UNDER BILL C-3?
Here is the link that provides you with detailed information about what you need to submit with your application:
http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/br/is/bll/rpb/index-eng.asp
In simple terms; here is the checklist of things you need to apply:
(1) The application form (for applicants 16 years and older);
http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/br/frms/mci/83114-eng.pdf
(2) The guarantor form (a lawyer, doctor, social worker, chief etc) who can confirm your identity:
http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/br/frms/mci/83120-eng.pdf
(3) OR the statutory declaration form to list two references (in case you don't have a guarantor) (notarized by lawyer):
http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/br/frms/mci/83119-eng.pdf
(4) Two identical passport photos taken within the last 12 months (signed by guarantor or lawyer)
(5) Copy of both sides of your driver's license (or passport, etc) (signed by guarantor or lawyer);
(6) ORIGINAL long form birth certificate (shows parents names);
Here is the link which provides the more detailed list of exactly what you need and which highlights other requirements:
http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/br/is/bll/rpb/index-eng.asp
There are many different situations which might require different or alternative documents and/or information. This simplified list is just to give you an idea of what is required. PLEASE refer to INAC's website for precise information related to your own specific situation. Also remember that this blog is just trying to simplify the information and should never be relied on as legal advice.
INAC asks that all the applications and documents be mailed (although I recommend that they be couriered so that you have a record) to INAC directly:
INAC Application Processing Unit
Indian and Northern Affairs Canada
GD Stn Main
Winnipeg MB R3C 0M2
If you have any questions, please contact INAC directly as they would have the official information that relates to your specific individual situation.
Hope this helps.
New blog site: http://www.indigenousnationhood.blogspot.com/
New website: http://www.indigenousnationhood.com/
New facebook name: Indigenous Nationhood
Same Twitter: Pam_Palmater
Same LinkedIn: Dr. Pam Palmater
New E-mail = palmater@indigenousnationhood.com
I hope you have all read my last blog post where I updated everyone with what is happening with Bill C-3. Since I still continue to get a large number of e-mails and questions related to what the application process and who qualifies, I decided to post another this blog will point you to the exact links which answer your questions. Please feel free to e-mail me if there is anything else I have not covered.
I apologize to my readers if this information seems at all repetitive or you were hoping for a blog on another topic. I have been receiving so many e-mails and calls for information and complaints from Aboriginal people all over the country saying that they don't know what is happening and their local organization or community has not provided any information.
One would think that organizations like the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples (CAP) or any of their provincial affiliates, like the New Brunswick Aboriginal Peoples Council (NBAPC) and others would be in their communities informing people about next steps. Sadly, this does not appear to be happening and people are left on their own trying to figure out this amazingly confusing, complex, legal process.
(1) DID BILL C-3 COME INTO FORCE?
Yes, the bill is now in force and the Indian Act has been amended accordingly. You can see a copy of the amendments that will be added to the Indian Act at this link:
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/I-5/AmendmentsNotInForce
(2) WHO QUALIFIES FOR STATUS?
Here are the three criterion that INAC has indicated will determine whether or not you qualify for status under the new Bill:
(i) Did your grandmother lose her Indian status as a result of marrying a non-Indian?
(ii) Is one of your parents registered, or entitled to be registered, under sub-section 6(2) of the Indian Act?
(iii) Were you, or one of your siblings, born on or after September 4, 1951?
If you have answered yes to all of these questions, there is a good chance that you might qualify for status. These criteria can be found on INAC's website here:
http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/br/is/bll/rpb/index-eng.asp
(3) ARE THERE ANY EXCEPTIONS?
Even if you meet all of the criteria noted above, you might still be excluded from status. Please take note of the very important qualification that INAC has recently posted on their website:
"If the applicant's grandparents were not married to each other before April 17, 1985 and the parent of the applicant was born after April 17, 1985, the 2011 Indian Act amendments may not entitle the applicant to registration."
This information can be found at the following link:
http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/br/frms/mci/83114-eng.asp
(4) I ALREADY APPLIED BEFORE BILL C-3 BECAME LAW - SHOULD I REAPPLY?
I had the very same question. I applied for my status before the McIvor case was decided and before Bill C-3 became law. I called INAC's toll-free information line (1-800-567-9604) and asked the very same question.
They informed me that INAC already has a process in place to deal with those who already applied. They advised me NOT to reapply as this might delay the processing of my application. They further advised that INAC would contact me about what the next steps are for my application to be considered.
They said that while I am waiting for INAC to contact me, that I could be getting all the extra required documents in order to submit. This includes the guarantor form, driver's license and passport photos.
The following link provides detailed information about the registration process and the various ways in which you can contact INAC and ask questions:
http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/br/is/bll/rpb/index-eng.asp
(5) WHAT IS REQUIRED TO APPLY FOR STATUS UNDER BILL C-3?
Here is the link that provides you with detailed information about what you need to submit with your application:
http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/br/is/bll/rpb/index-eng.asp
In simple terms; here is the checklist of things you need to apply:
(1) The application form (for applicants 16 years and older);
http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/br/frms/mci/83114-eng.pdf
(2) The guarantor form (a lawyer, doctor, social worker, chief etc) who can confirm your identity:
http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/br/frms/mci/83120-eng.pdf
(3) OR the statutory declaration form to list two references (in case you don't have a guarantor) (notarized by lawyer):
http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/br/frms/mci/83119-eng.pdf
(4) Two identical passport photos taken within the last 12 months (signed by guarantor or lawyer)
(5) Copy of both sides of your driver's license (or passport, etc) (signed by guarantor or lawyer);
(6) ORIGINAL long form birth certificate (shows parents names);
Here is the link which provides the more detailed list of exactly what you need and which highlights other requirements:
http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/br/is/bll/rpb/index-eng.asp
There are many different situations which might require different or alternative documents and/or information. This simplified list is just to give you an idea of what is required. PLEASE refer to INAC's website for precise information related to your own specific situation. Also remember that this blog is just trying to simplify the information and should never be relied on as legal advice.
INAC asks that all the applications and documents be mailed (although I recommend that they be couriered so that you have a record) to INAC directly:
INAC Application Processing Unit
Indian and Northern Affairs Canada
GD Stn Main
Winnipeg MB R3C 0M2
If you have any questions, please contact INAC directly as they would have the official information that relates to your specific individual situation.
Hope this helps.
Blog Name Has Changed from Non-Status Indians to Indigenous Nationhood
Dear readers;
Please be advised that the names of my social media sites will be changing. This blog will now be "Indigenous Nationhood" as will my website. In the interim, you will still be able to acess the old addresses. However, no new blogs will be posted on Non-Status Indian. Any "followers" should also add their names to the new blog to avoid any missed links in future posts.
Please link to the following addresses:
Blog = http://www.indigenousnationhood.blogspot.com/
Web = http://www.indigenousnationhood.com/
Facebook = Indigenous Nationhood
Twitter = Pam_Palmater
LinkedIn = Dr. Pam Palmater
E-mail = palmater@indigenousnationhood.com
Thanks so much and I apologize for any inconvenience this may cause. This is a permanent name change and will be the only one. I will leave the old sites operating for the next few months until followers have a chance to change their links.
Pam
Please be advised that the names of my social media sites will be changing. This blog will now be "Indigenous Nationhood" as will my website. In the interim, you will still be able to acess the old addresses. However, no new blogs will be posted on Non-Status Indian. Any "followers" should also add their names to the new blog to avoid any missed links in future posts.
Please link to the following addresses:
Blog = http://www.indigenousnationhood.blogspot.com/
Web = http://www.indigenousnationhood.com/
Facebook = Indigenous Nationhood
Twitter = Pam_Palmater
LinkedIn = Dr. Pam Palmater
E-mail = palmater@indigenousnationhood.com
Thanks so much and I apologize for any inconvenience this may cause. This is a permanent name change and will be the only one. I will leave the old sites operating for the next few months until followers have a chance to change their links.
Pam
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
An Update on Bill C-3 - January 19 2011 - What's Next?
Dear Readers; after checking my blog stats, I can see that traffic has been heavy on my previous Bill C-3 blogs, especially the one that reads as an update. I will try to oblige, but please forgive any annoying repetition.
March 11, 2010 - First Reading (that's where the Minister or someone like that introduces the bill into the House).
March 26, 2010 - Second Reading
March 29, 2010 - Debates
April 1, 2010 - Studied by Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development (AAON)
April 13,15,20,22,27, 2010 - Meetings of AAON re Bill C-3 where they heard from witnesses sharing their concerns about the bill.
April 29, 2010 - AAON submitted and debated their report which included a variety of amendments they had adopted to ensure that the bill remedied all gender inequity instead of just a minor part of it.
May 25, 2010 - AAON continued debate of report.
Parliament then recessed for the summer.
October 26, 2010 - Report Stage - Report was debated again. Three motions were voted on and passed:
(1) Motion #1 dealt with minor amendments to the wording related to how INAC would report on the effects of the bill once it has been implemented;
(2) Motion #2 would restore the previous section 9 which had been deleted at AAON. This section provided Canada with an insulation from financial liability for claims which would come from women and children who had been wrongly excluded from the Act.
(3) Motion #3 essentially was to approve the bill as amended by the previous two motions.
All three motions were approved which meant that Bill C-3 (as amended)would go forward for Third reading and debates.
Nov.22, 2010 - Third Reading and debates
The bill was therefore passed as amended. Once it passed in the House, it literally sped through the process in the Senate being introduced on Nov.23, 2010 and passed Dec.9, 2010.
Dec.15, 2010 - Bill C-3 receives Royal Assent.
Jan.21. 2011 - The law officially comes into force and applications will be available at that time.
All this legislative information can be found at the following link:
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Sites/LOP/LEGISINFO/index.asp?Language=E&Chamber=N&StartList=A&EndList=Z&Session=23&Type=0&Scope=I&query=6949&List=stat
Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) has now posted new information about those who think they might qualify for status and the new process it will use to handle applications for status. Their link can be found here:
http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/br/is/bll/index-eng.asp
INAC provides three basic criteria that gives potential applicants a sense of whether or not they will be entitled under the new amendment:
(1) Did you grandmother lose Indian status because she married a non-Indian?
(2) Is one of your parents registered or entitled to be registered under section 6(2) of the Indian Act? and
(3) Were you (the applicant) or one of your siblings born after Sept.4, 1951?
If you can answer yes to all of these questions, then it is very likely (although INAC does not guarantee) that you will qualify for status. So, some of you might be thinking that you meet this criteria and want to know what to do next? INAC has provided contact information so you can ask them questions directly:
INAC Public Enquiries Contact Centre
Email: InfoPubs@ainc-inac.gc.ca
Phone: (toll-free) 1-800-567-9604
Fax: 1-866-817-3977
TTY: (toll-free) 1-866-553-0554
I have called them several times and they answer the phone quickly and the people who are working the telephone lines had up to date information and were very helpful. They did explain to me that although I have already applied for status, there will be NEW application forms with NEW requirements. Canada will make the forms available at the following locations:
Online: January 31, 2011
By mail: Call 1-800-567-9604 to request an application package.
In person: At any INAC Regional office or call 1-800-567-9604.
The kind of status card that Bill C-3 registrants will receive (if eligible) is a Secure Certificate of Indian Status (SCIS) card. It does not change the type of benefits, but does require additional documentation from applicants not requested of non-Bill C-3 applicants. The following list is what INAC has indicated will be required:
- Original birth certificate (listing parents names) (often referred to as "long-form")
- Two passport style photographs
- Original piece of valid identification (i.e. - driver's licence, passport, government issued ID)
- Guarantor Declaration for SCIS
And if applicable:
- Legal change of name document or marriage certificate
- Custody Court Order
- Statutory Declaration Form(s).
Please also keep in mind that INAC is changing the application for Bill C-3 applicants to a "mail-in" process only. That means the original documents they require MUST be mailed in to INAC and you will HOPEFULLY receive them back within a month or so.
I don't know about any of you, but I don't feel comfortable mailing INAC my Driver's License (as a local police officer told me it is against the law to drive without it on your person). Similarly, the thought of my passport (at March break time) being held up at INAC for weeks maybe months is not overly user friendly or considerate.
INAC has also provided some time lines for processing applications. They are as follows:
Act comes into force and applications posted online = January 31, 2011
Letter confirming entitlement (assuming all docs provided with applic) = no time specified
Issuance of SCIS card number = 10-12 weeks after receipt of Letter of entitlement
Entire Process from start (application) to finish (receipt of status card) = 4-6 months
The ability to access benefits will start before you receive your card as your Letter of entitlement will provide a number you can use to access health and other benefits.
Also of interest:
(1) Sharon McIvor has filed a claim with the United Nations to have her gender discrimination case heard by the Human Rights Tribunal; and
(2) Merchant Law has filed a class action here in Canada in an attempt to get compensation for all those who will now be registered as per Bill C-3 for lost education benefits, lost taxes, health benefits etc. You will recall that the Bill prohibits any compensation.
Let me know if this is the kind of update you were looking for from my blog.
Pam
March 11, 2010 - First Reading (that's where the Minister or someone like that introduces the bill into the House).
March 26, 2010 - Second Reading
March 29, 2010 - Debates
April 1, 2010 - Studied by Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development (AAON)
April 13,15,20,22,27, 2010 - Meetings of AAON re Bill C-3 where they heard from witnesses sharing their concerns about the bill.
April 29, 2010 - AAON submitted and debated their report which included a variety of amendments they had adopted to ensure that the bill remedied all gender inequity instead of just a minor part of it.
May 25, 2010 - AAON continued debate of report.
Parliament then recessed for the summer.
October 26, 2010 - Report Stage - Report was debated again. Three motions were voted on and passed:
(1) Motion #1 dealt with minor amendments to the wording related to how INAC would report on the effects of the bill once it has been implemented;
(2) Motion #2 would restore the previous section 9 which had been deleted at AAON. This section provided Canada with an insulation from financial liability for claims which would come from women and children who had been wrongly excluded from the Act.
(3) Motion #3 essentially was to approve the bill as amended by the previous two motions.
All three motions were approved which meant that Bill C-3 (as amended)would go forward for Third reading and debates.
Nov.22, 2010 - Third Reading and debates
The bill was therefore passed as amended. Once it passed in the House, it literally sped through the process in the Senate being introduced on Nov.23, 2010 and passed Dec.9, 2010.
Dec.15, 2010 - Bill C-3 receives Royal Assent.
Jan.21. 2011 - The law officially comes into force and applications will be available at that time.
All this legislative information can be found at the following link:
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Sites/LOP/LEGISINFO/index.asp?Language=E&Chamber=N&StartList=A&EndList=Z&Session=23&Type=0&Scope=I&query=6949&List=stat
Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) has now posted new information about those who think they might qualify for status and the new process it will use to handle applications for status. Their link can be found here:
http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/br/is/bll/index-eng.asp
INAC provides three basic criteria that gives potential applicants a sense of whether or not they will be entitled under the new amendment:
(1) Did you grandmother lose Indian status because she married a non-Indian?
(2) Is one of your parents registered or entitled to be registered under section 6(2) of the Indian Act? and
(3) Were you (the applicant) or one of your siblings born after Sept.4, 1951?
If you can answer yes to all of these questions, then it is very likely (although INAC does not guarantee) that you will qualify for status. So, some of you might be thinking that you meet this criteria and want to know what to do next? INAC has provided contact information so you can ask them questions directly:
INAC Public Enquiries Contact Centre
Email: InfoPubs@ainc-inac.gc.ca
Phone: (toll-free) 1-800-567-9604
Fax: 1-866-817-3977
TTY: (toll-free) 1-866-553-0554
I have called them several times and they answer the phone quickly and the people who are working the telephone lines had up to date information and were very helpful. They did explain to me that although I have already applied for status, there will be NEW application forms with NEW requirements. Canada will make the forms available at the following locations:
Online: January 31, 2011
By mail: Call 1-800-567-9604 to request an application package.
In person: At any INAC Regional office or call 1-800-567-9604.
The kind of status card that Bill C-3 registrants will receive (if eligible) is a Secure Certificate of Indian Status (SCIS) card. It does not change the type of benefits, but does require additional documentation from applicants not requested of non-Bill C-3 applicants. The following list is what INAC has indicated will be required:
- Original birth certificate (listing parents names) (often referred to as "long-form")
- Two passport style photographs
- Original piece of valid identification (i.e. - driver's licence, passport, government issued ID)
- Guarantor Declaration for SCIS
And if applicable:
- Legal change of name document or marriage certificate
- Custody Court Order
- Statutory Declaration Form(s).
Please also keep in mind that INAC is changing the application for Bill C-3 applicants to a "mail-in" process only. That means the original documents they require MUST be mailed in to INAC and you will HOPEFULLY receive them back within a month or so.
I don't know about any of you, but I don't feel comfortable mailing INAC my Driver's License (as a local police officer told me it is against the law to drive without it on your person). Similarly, the thought of my passport (at March break time) being held up at INAC for weeks maybe months is not overly user friendly or considerate.
INAC has also provided some time lines for processing applications. They are as follows:
Act comes into force and applications posted online = January 31, 2011
Letter confirming entitlement (assuming all docs provided with applic) = no time specified
Issuance of SCIS card number = 10-12 weeks after receipt of Letter of entitlement
Entire Process from start (application) to finish (receipt of status card) = 4-6 months
The ability to access benefits will start before you receive your card as your Letter of entitlement will provide a number you can use to access health and other benefits.
Also of interest:
(1) Sharon McIvor has filed a claim with the United Nations to have her gender discrimination case heard by the Human Rights Tribunal; and
(2) Merchant Law has filed a class action here in Canada in an attempt to get compensation for all those who will now be registered as per Bill C-3 for lost education benefits, lost taxes, health benefits etc. You will recall that the Bill prohibits any compensation.
Let me know if this is the kind of update you were looking for from my blog.
Pam
Friday, January 14, 2011
UPDATE - TVO's The Agenda Botches Show on Caledonia
Please be advised - this personal opinion blog is not for the feint of heart. The opinions I express on my website, blog, Tweets and FB updates are my own and my right to express my personal opinion is one of our most valued rights and freedoms in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As I have explained on previous blogs, my personal opinion does NOT constitute legal advice nor should it be relied on as such.
Generally, I like watching TVO's The Agenda with Steve Paiken. I find it far more engaging than the regular media and the host is willing to ask the hard questions. While they are definitely no APTN, the shows on Indigenous issues that I have seen and/or participated in, have been fairly balanced in covering Indigenous perspectives. Their producer, Mark Brosens is generally good about researching the issues and seeking different perspectives. Last night's show on the situation in Caledonia however, was a striking failure in responsible journalism and a huge disappointment to many viewers.
I am not a journalist, nor do I profess any expertise in the area. My knowledge comes from what I have learned, studied and observed. As a lawyer, professor and author, I do have a good idea about what makes good writing and how to cover an issue responsibly. That is not to say that each article must be a research study into all causes and effects, but a minimal context must be laid out for readers. I think I am as capable as anyone in assessing the quality or lack thereof of various issues covered in the media.
Last night's episode of The Agenda not only fell into the trap of considering an issue in a one-sided way, they blamed potential invitees to the show for TVO's own lack of organization and planning. Steve Paiken, the host, explained last night that the show was envisioned as a round table on the issue of Caledonia that was supposed to have someone from the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP), someone from Ontario's Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs (OMMA), Blatchford herself, someone from Six Nations and maybe others (presumably subject matter experts like a lawyer or academic who works on these issues).
Instead of saying, we screwed up and didn't get the show together on time, Paiken publicly blamed the invitees and portrayed them as if they didn't want to debate Blatchford. This of course played into Blatchford's overinflated ego who quickly agreed. Paiken made it seem as if no one would face Blatchford and I can attest to the fact that this is simply not the case. Contrary to popular belief, many of us Indigenous lawyers, academics, politicians and community members work for a living and have schedules which do not lend well to last-minute arrangements.
In a producer's blog written by Mark Brosens, he explained that he tried to contact the OPP and OMMA who turned down his invitation. I could have predicted that one given all of the legal implications, court cases, and outstanding land claims in Caledonia. Rightly or wrongly, I think there was slim to no chance of getting provincial representatives to speak about Caledonia. That did not, however, prohibit Brosens from contacting experts in political science to come and speak about the policy and political issues from a provincial stand point or from getting an expert in policing issues.
Brosens also mentions that he tried to get people from Six Nations to participate in the show but was unsuccessful. He says he tried to get the Chiefs of Ontario to come on the show, but admits (as an aside) that he did not give them much notice. Then the issue which I can speak to personally, is that he says that he tried academics but they ALL "either agreed with Blatchford, or were unavailable, or were camera shy". That is simply not true. Brosens contacted me as an "expert" in the area and to get my insight on the book and the subject generally. While he did not ask, I specifically offered that if he needed anyone at the last minute to appear on the show, I would do so, as I felt very passionately that TVO should deal with the subject in balanced way.
The overall theme of Brosen's blog was that people were unwilling to go up against Blatchford which is simply not accurate. This is not about Blatchford. It is clearly a production issue. TVO tried to pull this show together at the last minute, they failed to do so, but instead of doing something else, they went ahead with the show anyway and blamed the invited participants for the lack of quality in the show. That is simply not the kind of integrity we expect from TVO.
What I found most distasteful about the show was that Paiken turned TVO's failure into a sensational question which portrayed Blatchford as some kind of expert on Caledonia whom everyone fears. Compounding what was already a poorly produced segment, was that Paiken was overly conciliatory to Blatchford and did not ask any real hard questions of her. He allowed her to portray or imply that Six Nations and Mohawks were terrorists and did not call her on the gross analogy to the terrorist acts of 9-11.
While one might like to blame the alarmist tone of the show on their SOLE guest Blatchford, TVO was unfortunately, an equal participant. First of all, the segment was framed as one on "lawlessness" which is sensationalism as its best as well as inaccurate. The fact that TVO paired the Caledonia segment with one on policing and the recent death of a police officer also lent a certain frame to the subject. They couldn't have set up the segment any worse than had Blatchford done it herself.
After improperly introducing the subject of Caledonia and Six Nations as "Grand River of Six Nations", TVO let Blatchford set the context to the dispute. She did not start with the granting of the Haldimand Tract to the Six Nations, but started with the date of the occupation. As if one day, a bunch of bored Mohawks just got together and decided to protest for fun and from there "its as if the devil threw a party and invited all his friends". I thought the days of comparing Indigenous people to pagans and heathens were over? Is it really a critical part of understanding the Caledonia situation to repeat degrading quotes about unresolved land claims?
Aside from the inherent problems with her book, which I will save for a future blog, the things Blatchford said on the show were, in my personal opinion, inaccurate, alarmist and racist. When I use the term racist, I don't do so lightly, nor do I use the term as an emotional reaction to something I don't like. I do so based on what I have read, heard, seen and considered on the issue. There are endless media sources calling her a racist. She has also publicly had to deny being a racist which shows many smarter people than I have made the same conclusion.
With regards to the show, her more problematic comments went largely unchallenged by Paiken and include:
(1) she says she is not an expert on the subject (which begs the question of how informed her book is or even why she was on the show);
(2) that it was an "illegal" protest (but no discussion of the general right to assembly, constitutionally protected Aboriginal and treaty rights, Aboriginal title rights, land claims, etc);
(3) the issue was not a land claim and that it was simply a matter of Chief Montour wanting more compensation (which ignores the long history and details of the claim);
(4) it should all be blamed on one "entrepreneurial Mohawk" named Joseph Brant who sold the land for his own benefit (again ignoring all the legal and historical records);
(5) Calls those who were trying to mediate and negotiate the matter "BS negotiators"; (really? was she on the inside at the negotiations to make that kind of assessment?);
(6) Gary McHale was harassed by police and suffered terribly (ignore the fact he was a non-resident of Caledonia, had no interest in the dispute but to deliberately instigate violence)*;
and
(7) Accused traditional band members of Six Nations of going around intimidating other band members to support the protest (more unsubstantiated claims or perhaps I missed all the convictions of traditional band members in the media???).
Paiken, (ironically given TVO's one-dimensional take on the issue) asked Blatchford why she only dealt with one side of the issue. In defending herself, she characterized Caledonia as "ground zero" after comparing her book Helpless to the work she did at ground zero in New York with the terrorist attack on the twin towers. She explained that when she wrote about ground zero in New York, she didn't write about the perspective of the terrorists and their claims, so why would she do that here in Caledonia? Some viewers who contacted me after the show felt that this was a form of inciting hatred.
Like the Flanagan's, Gibson's, and Widdowson's of the world, we often overlook their right-wing rantings as those of ignorant people who were never taught any better. Perhaps this is what Paiken thought when he sat quietly and accepted Blatchford's terrorist analogy of the Caledonia situation without calling her on it. However, inviting the public to view First Nations as terrorists on their own lands risks relegating them back to their former colonial-imposed status as "non-humans" deserved of whatever indignities committed against them by the far-from-Helpless majority population who simply want all their land and resources. While there is no changing the views of committed right-wingers like Blatchford, TVO has a responsibility to the public to do their shows with integrity or don't do them at all.
This blog may mean that I never get invited to TVO's The Agenda again (which would be unfortunate as I like the show and the people) but I would not be true to myself if I did not call TVO on their disaster. Everyone makes mistakes, but it is how you address those mistakes that count. The true test of integrity is whether one is honest about their role in the mistake and owns up to it. TVO - you have some owning up to do.
* UPDATE - Shortly after posting this blog, I received an e-mail from Gary McHale threatening to sue me for defamation and demanded an apology. The e-mail is reproduced below and you will notice that he does not deny anything I wrote in my blog:
"It has come to my attention that you have decided to defame me on your website. You have posted the following:
(6) Gary McHale was harassed by police and suffered terribly (ignore the fact that he was a non-resident of Caledonia, had no interest in the dispute but to deliberately instigate violence)
I hope you can prove that I 'deliberately' (interesting that you know my motives) 'instigate violence'.
I have six weeks to serve you legal notice but I would hope you would post an apology instead of continuing to violate the law - as a lawyer/professor I would think you would respect the law more.
Gary McHale" (garymchale@mountaincable.net)
As this is a personal opinion blog and I have never done litigation, I can't offer the public any advice on the law with regards to either bringing or defending defamation claims. What I can do is share some of the information that is readily available on the internet. For legal advice, I suggest you contact a lawyer if you have any questions.
Defamation of character has been defined as the written (libel) or oral (slander) damaging of one's "good reputation". Some of you may be thinking - good reputation??? There are several ways in which such a claim may be defended, but one of those defences is referred to as "Fair Comment". I found the following definition online:
"Citizens are entitled to make fair comment on matters of public interest without fear of defamation claims. A good example of this is a letter to the editor on a matter of public concern. The author of the remarks may even go so far as to PRESUME MOTIVES on the part of the person who's actions are being criticized provided only that the imputation of motives is reasonable under the circumstances. The rule of thumb is that the fair comment must reflect an honestly held opinion based on proven fact and not motivated by malice." (emphasis added) (Duhaime Law)
My honestly-held, personal belief, and opinion about which I wrote this blog is based on countless books, articles, media, and internet sources, some of which I will highlight here for your interest:
(1) "What does Canada, Ontario or whoever the fools were who hired Gary McHale to INSTIGATE violence think of his colossal failure?" (emphasis added) (frostyamerindian);
(2) "McHale WANTED violence... He brought in skinheads, KKK and other professional instigators and mercenaries from both Canada and the U.S." (emphasis added)(frostyamerindian);
(3) "former politician, David Peterson... called McHale and his gang a 'bunch of wackos'." (Mohawk Nation News);
(4) Gary McHale is "NOT from Caledonia" (emphasis added). (Ryan Paul);
(5) Vigilante militia group set up by "an associate of anti-native sovereignty activist Gary McHale" and "Neo-Nazi groups have long participated in McHale's various protests". (peaceculture.org);
(6) "Gary McHale ... claims FN and 6 Nations are terrorists." (rabble.ca);
(7) OPP Commissioner Julian Fantino explained that: "I want every avenue explored by which we can now bring McHale into court seeking a court order to prevent him from continuing his agenda of INCITING PEOPLE TO VIOLENCE in Caledonia." (emphasis added) (CBC news);
(8) OPP Commissioner Fantino further stated: "We should be able to prove to court that McHale's forays into Caledonia have been PLANNED and executed for PURPOSES of breaching the peace which today also resulted in VIOLENCE. We can't allow this vicious cycle to continue...". (emphasis added) (CBC news).
Regarding his "reputation", McHale posts many negative comments about himself on his own website and could hardly claim he has any remaining reputation that could possibly be tarnished by my blog. I would post examples, but I prefer to keep my blogs profanity-free out of respect for the younger folks who read my blogs and cite them in their school work. :)
My father always told me that only narcissists think that the whole world revolves around them and that most "protests" are simply desperate attempts to get attention. I have had rare occassion to consider his specific advice, but can see now what he meant. This of course presents the dilemma of whether to respond and give the narcisist his desperately-desired attention or not respond and risk the public believing the hateful misinformation. I still wrestle with this dilemma.
Despite this brief update meant to address some petty non-sense, I would ask that readers please focus on the original message of my blog being about TVO and how they might learn from their mistake with this show and perhaps make an effort to do better the next time.
Generally, I like watching TVO's The Agenda with Steve Paiken. I find it far more engaging than the regular media and the host is willing to ask the hard questions. While they are definitely no APTN, the shows on Indigenous issues that I have seen and/or participated in, have been fairly balanced in covering Indigenous perspectives. Their producer, Mark Brosens is generally good about researching the issues and seeking different perspectives. Last night's show on the situation in Caledonia however, was a striking failure in responsible journalism and a huge disappointment to many viewers.
I am not a journalist, nor do I profess any expertise in the area. My knowledge comes from what I have learned, studied and observed. As a lawyer, professor and author, I do have a good idea about what makes good writing and how to cover an issue responsibly. That is not to say that each article must be a research study into all causes and effects, but a minimal context must be laid out for readers. I think I am as capable as anyone in assessing the quality or lack thereof of various issues covered in the media.
Last night's episode of The Agenda not only fell into the trap of considering an issue in a one-sided way, they blamed potential invitees to the show for TVO's own lack of organization and planning. Steve Paiken, the host, explained last night that the show was envisioned as a round table on the issue of Caledonia that was supposed to have someone from the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP), someone from Ontario's Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs (OMMA), Blatchford herself, someone from Six Nations and maybe others (presumably subject matter experts like a lawyer or academic who works on these issues).
Instead of saying, we screwed up and didn't get the show together on time, Paiken publicly blamed the invitees and portrayed them as if they didn't want to debate Blatchford. This of course played into Blatchford's overinflated ego who quickly agreed. Paiken made it seem as if no one would face Blatchford and I can attest to the fact that this is simply not the case. Contrary to popular belief, many of us Indigenous lawyers, academics, politicians and community members work for a living and have schedules which do not lend well to last-minute arrangements.
In a producer's blog written by Mark Brosens, he explained that he tried to contact the OPP and OMMA who turned down his invitation. I could have predicted that one given all of the legal implications, court cases, and outstanding land claims in Caledonia. Rightly or wrongly, I think there was slim to no chance of getting provincial representatives to speak about Caledonia. That did not, however, prohibit Brosens from contacting experts in political science to come and speak about the policy and political issues from a provincial stand point or from getting an expert in policing issues.
Brosens also mentions that he tried to get people from Six Nations to participate in the show but was unsuccessful. He says he tried to get the Chiefs of Ontario to come on the show, but admits (as an aside) that he did not give them much notice. Then the issue which I can speak to personally, is that he says that he tried academics but they ALL "either agreed with Blatchford, or were unavailable, or were camera shy". That is simply not true. Brosens contacted me as an "expert" in the area and to get my insight on the book and the subject generally. While he did not ask, I specifically offered that if he needed anyone at the last minute to appear on the show, I would do so, as I felt very passionately that TVO should deal with the subject in balanced way.
The overall theme of Brosen's blog was that people were unwilling to go up against Blatchford which is simply not accurate. This is not about Blatchford. It is clearly a production issue. TVO tried to pull this show together at the last minute, they failed to do so, but instead of doing something else, they went ahead with the show anyway and blamed the invited participants for the lack of quality in the show. That is simply not the kind of integrity we expect from TVO.
What I found most distasteful about the show was that Paiken turned TVO's failure into a sensational question which portrayed Blatchford as some kind of expert on Caledonia whom everyone fears. Compounding what was already a poorly produced segment, was that Paiken was overly conciliatory to Blatchford and did not ask any real hard questions of her. He allowed her to portray or imply that Six Nations and Mohawks were terrorists and did not call her on the gross analogy to the terrorist acts of 9-11.
While one might like to blame the alarmist tone of the show on their SOLE guest Blatchford, TVO was unfortunately, an equal participant. First of all, the segment was framed as one on "lawlessness" which is sensationalism as its best as well as inaccurate. The fact that TVO paired the Caledonia segment with one on policing and the recent death of a police officer also lent a certain frame to the subject. They couldn't have set up the segment any worse than had Blatchford done it herself.
After improperly introducing the subject of Caledonia and Six Nations as "Grand River of Six Nations", TVO let Blatchford set the context to the dispute. She did not start with the granting of the Haldimand Tract to the Six Nations, but started with the date of the occupation. As if one day, a bunch of bored Mohawks just got together and decided to protest for fun and from there "its as if the devil threw a party and invited all his friends". I thought the days of comparing Indigenous people to pagans and heathens were over? Is it really a critical part of understanding the Caledonia situation to repeat degrading quotes about unresolved land claims?
Aside from the inherent problems with her book, which I will save for a future blog, the things Blatchford said on the show were, in my personal opinion, inaccurate, alarmist and racist. When I use the term racist, I don't do so lightly, nor do I use the term as an emotional reaction to something I don't like. I do so based on what I have read, heard, seen and considered on the issue. There are endless media sources calling her a racist. She has also publicly had to deny being a racist which shows many smarter people than I have made the same conclusion.
With regards to the show, her more problematic comments went largely unchallenged by Paiken and include:
(1) she says she is not an expert on the subject (which begs the question of how informed her book is or even why she was on the show);
(2) that it was an "illegal" protest (but no discussion of the general right to assembly, constitutionally protected Aboriginal and treaty rights, Aboriginal title rights, land claims, etc);
(3) the issue was not a land claim and that it was simply a matter of Chief Montour wanting more compensation (which ignores the long history and details of the claim);
(4) it should all be blamed on one "entrepreneurial Mohawk" named Joseph Brant who sold the land for his own benefit (again ignoring all the legal and historical records);
(5) Calls those who were trying to mediate and negotiate the matter "BS negotiators"; (really? was she on the inside at the negotiations to make that kind of assessment?);
(6) Gary McHale was harassed by police and suffered terribly (ignore the fact he was a non-resident of Caledonia, had no interest in the dispute but to deliberately instigate violence)*;
and
(7) Accused traditional band members of Six Nations of going around intimidating other band members to support the protest (more unsubstantiated claims or perhaps I missed all the convictions of traditional band members in the media???).
Paiken, (ironically given TVO's one-dimensional take on the issue) asked Blatchford why she only dealt with one side of the issue. In defending herself, she characterized Caledonia as "ground zero" after comparing her book Helpless to the work she did at ground zero in New York with the terrorist attack on the twin towers. She explained that when she wrote about ground zero in New York, she didn't write about the perspective of the terrorists and their claims, so why would she do that here in Caledonia? Some viewers who contacted me after the show felt that this was a form of inciting hatred.
Like the Flanagan's, Gibson's, and Widdowson's of the world, we often overlook their right-wing rantings as those of ignorant people who were never taught any better. Perhaps this is what Paiken thought when he sat quietly and accepted Blatchford's terrorist analogy of the Caledonia situation without calling her on it. However, inviting the public to view First Nations as terrorists on their own lands risks relegating them back to their former colonial-imposed status as "non-humans" deserved of whatever indignities committed against them by the far-from-Helpless majority population who simply want all their land and resources. While there is no changing the views of committed right-wingers like Blatchford, TVO has a responsibility to the public to do their shows with integrity or don't do them at all.
This blog may mean that I never get invited to TVO's The Agenda again (which would be unfortunate as I like the show and the people) but I would not be true to myself if I did not call TVO on their disaster. Everyone makes mistakes, but it is how you address those mistakes that count. The true test of integrity is whether one is honest about their role in the mistake and owns up to it. TVO - you have some owning up to do.
* UPDATE - Shortly after posting this blog, I received an e-mail from Gary McHale threatening to sue me for defamation and demanded an apology. The e-mail is reproduced below and you will notice that he does not deny anything I wrote in my blog:
"It has come to my attention that you have decided to defame me on your website. You have posted the following:
(6) Gary McHale was harassed by police and suffered terribly (ignore the fact that he was a non-resident of Caledonia, had no interest in the dispute but to deliberately instigate violence)
I hope you can prove that I 'deliberately' (interesting that you know my motives) 'instigate violence'.
I have six weeks to serve you legal notice but I would hope you would post an apology instead of continuing to violate the law - as a lawyer/professor I would think you would respect the law more.
Gary McHale" (garymchale@mountaincable.net)
As this is a personal opinion blog and I have never done litigation, I can't offer the public any advice on the law with regards to either bringing or defending defamation claims. What I can do is share some of the information that is readily available on the internet. For legal advice, I suggest you contact a lawyer if you have any questions.
Defamation of character has been defined as the written (libel) or oral (slander) damaging of one's "good reputation". Some of you may be thinking - good reputation??? There are several ways in which such a claim may be defended, but one of those defences is referred to as "Fair Comment". I found the following definition online:
"Citizens are entitled to make fair comment on matters of public interest without fear of defamation claims. A good example of this is a letter to the editor on a matter of public concern. The author of the remarks may even go so far as to PRESUME MOTIVES on the part of the person who's actions are being criticized provided only that the imputation of motives is reasonable under the circumstances. The rule of thumb is that the fair comment must reflect an honestly held opinion based on proven fact and not motivated by malice." (emphasis added) (Duhaime Law)
My honestly-held, personal belief, and opinion about which I wrote this blog is based on countless books, articles, media, and internet sources, some of which I will highlight here for your interest:
(1) "What does Canada, Ontario or whoever the fools were who hired Gary McHale to INSTIGATE violence think of his colossal failure?" (emphasis added) (frostyamerindian);
(2) "McHale WANTED violence... He brought in skinheads, KKK and other professional instigators and mercenaries from both Canada and the U.S." (emphasis added)(frostyamerindian);
(3) "former politician, David Peterson... called McHale and his gang a 'bunch of wackos'." (Mohawk Nation News);
(4) Gary McHale is "NOT from Caledonia" (emphasis added). (Ryan Paul);
(5) Vigilante militia group set up by "an associate of anti-native sovereignty activist Gary McHale" and "Neo-Nazi groups have long participated in McHale's various protests". (peaceculture.org);
(6) "Gary McHale ... claims FN and 6 Nations are terrorists." (rabble.ca);
(7) OPP Commissioner Julian Fantino explained that: "I want every avenue explored by which we can now bring McHale into court seeking a court order to prevent him from continuing his agenda of INCITING PEOPLE TO VIOLENCE in Caledonia." (emphasis added) (CBC news);
(8) OPP Commissioner Fantino further stated: "We should be able to prove to court that McHale's forays into Caledonia have been PLANNED and executed for PURPOSES of breaching the peace which today also resulted in VIOLENCE. We can't allow this vicious cycle to continue...". (emphasis added) (CBC news).
Regarding his "reputation", McHale posts many negative comments about himself on his own website and could hardly claim he has any remaining reputation that could possibly be tarnished by my blog. I would post examples, but I prefer to keep my blogs profanity-free out of respect for the younger folks who read my blogs and cite them in their school work. :)
My father always told me that only narcissists think that the whole world revolves around them and that most "protests" are simply desperate attempts to get attention. I have had rare occassion to consider his specific advice, but can see now what he meant. This of course presents the dilemma of whether to respond and give the narcisist his desperately-desired attention or not respond and risk the public believing the hateful misinformation. I still wrestle with this dilemma.
Despite this brief update meant to address some petty non-sense, I would ask that readers please focus on the original message of my blog being about TVO and how they might learn from their mistake with this show and perhaps make an effort to do better the next time.
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Bill C-3: Senate Considerations More About Blood "Purity" and "Benefits" than Equality
This blog will serve as an update as to the current status of Bill C-3 - Gender Equity in Indian Registration Act. It will also serve to highlight the disturbing considerations that are being made by Senators and the Minister of INAC in passing this bill.
Here is the quick and dirty of the Bill's treatment to date:
(1) Bill C-3 passed first and second reading in the House;
(2) It was studied by the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development (AAON) where numerous Aboriginal witnesses testified that it did not address all gender discrimination or even that found in McIvor's case;
(3) I appeared as a witness and gave oral and written testimony against the Bill;
(4) The AAON voted on amendments to make the Bill more inclusive (at this point the Liberals, NDP and Bloc were all supporting the Aboriginal witnesses);
(5) These amendments were ruled out of scope;
(6) The House passed a new amendment to include back in the bill, section 9 which tries to insulate Canada from liability;
(7) The bill passed through the House (the Liberals, NDP and Bloc all flip-flopped and sided with conservatives);
(8) The bill was sent to Senate for consideration and passed first and second reading quickly;
(9) It was sent to Senate Standing Committee on Human Rights to study;
(10) Only two days were set aside to hear a small list of witnesses (Nov.29, Dec.6);
(11) I was invited by Senate to appear as witness and then disinvited at the last minute;
(12) The bill passed through the clause by clause quickly.
So that is where the Bill stands now. It will pass through both report stage and third reading fairly quickly as the conservatives are the majority in the Senate and we have seen what they will do when they like or dislike a bill. This bill will then have to receive Royal Assent and the Order in Council process takes about 6 weeks or so. Therefore, I fully expect that this Bill will become law before the court imposed deadline in January of 2011.
So that is the technical stuff. I have written previous blogs about my concerns about this bill, but I will summarize the main issues here:
(1) The new section 6(1)(c.1) will create a new form of discrimination between those with children and those without. Under this section, the only people entitled to section 6(1)(c.1) status are those currently registered under section 6(2) who have non-status Indian children. Anyone with status children or no children will not get the gender remedy.
(2) This bill does not address all gender inequality in the Indian Act. Canada argues it only addressed the inequality between double mother clause reinstatees and section 12(1)(b) reinstatees in the McIvor appeal case. Unfortunately, it does not even do that. The descendants of Indian men will still have better status than the descendants of Indian women.
(3) Canada has chosen to try to insulate itself from liability for the gender discrimination it imposed on the descendants of Indian women in section 9 of the bill. Indian women and their descendants will be the only group in Canada who have been discriminated against and for whom Canada refuses to allow them a Charter remedy.
There are many, many other concerns I have about the Bill, but anyone can read my past blogs to find out more. As you may have gathered from other blogs I have written on Aboriginal political issues, I am concerned about our National Aboriginal Organizations (NAO's) like the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples (CAP), the Native Women's Association of Canada (NWAC) and the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) actions on this issue. These NAO's all claim to represent some segment of the Aboriginal population in Canada, but their recent flip-flops should be cause for great concern by us grass roots folks. Even the National Association of Friendship Centres (NAFC) a non-political organization has weighed in.
First of all, the Senate only had two half-days of hearings and only heard from a handful of witnesses, most of whom were political in nature, compared to the AAON who had 6 days of hearings and heard from numerous witnesses with various expertise on the subject matter. Several witnesses, including myself were officially invited to appear before the Senate on Bill C-3 but were later disinvited at the last possible moment.
You will remember that in the House, all of the Aboriginal witnesses were unanimous in their opposition to Bill C-3 as it was written - yes, including CAP. The Liberals, NDP and Bloc all agreed that the Bill did NOT fully address either the gender discrimination found in McIvor or the larger gender discrimination issues. They all supported the amendment of this Bill to finally address gender discrimination once and for all. However, since Parliament recessed for the summer, CAP, NWAC, Native Women of Quebec and others all flip-flopped on their original positions and decided that "something was better than nothing" and supported the bill.
When we all got back to business in the fall, the Liberals, Bloc and NDP all flip-flopped and said they would now support the bill out of concern for those who wanted to be registered as soon as possible. Keep in mind also that INAC has been saying all along that the NAO's would ONLY receive funding for the joint process to discuss the other registration and band membership issues IF Bill C-3 passed. This means no money if the NAO's did not play ball.
The NAO's are not what they used to be - although they were all born out of the Indian political struggles of the early 1900's which culminated in the 1970's in response to the White Paper, their leadership of late has been described as "co-opted". Back then, the NAO's stood for what was just and not what was "just" in the best interests of the organizations they headed. Now, their concerns over funding to staff their organizations far outweighs any remaining concerns for what is best for our people.
It should be no surprise then that on Monday, Dec.6, 2010:
(1) the CAP did not even appear as a witness on Bill C-3 in Senate;
(2) the AFN testified that "the bill, with or without amendments must proceed";
(3) the NAFC's main concern was to ask for money to train their staff and to be compensated for answering questions to their clients;
(4) the NWAC said registering those under Bill C-3 would be acceptable to "our chiefs, our communities and our families";
Despite vigorous questioning from Senator Sandra Lovelace (the woman who took Canada to the UN on this issue and won) about the real issues at stake for Aboriginal peoples: full gender equality, the right to decide who we are, and compensation for discrimination, NONE of the NAO's would back down from their support of the bill. This made Senator Patrick Brazeau's job much easier.
INAC Minister John Duncan's testimony on Nov.29, 2010 seems confirm what is happening here:
"the department has invited and received proposals from national Aboriginal organizations in preparation for the possible launch of a separate exploratory process on these broader issues. This will move forward if Bill C-3 is passed."
"With five different national Aboriginal organizations ... the department will provide the appropriate funding for the process."
"the national Aboriginal organizations will be running the process."
Sharon McIvor's testimony pointed out what is really happening here - we are being offered a joint process without any mandate or commitment for future changes in exchange for NOT addressing the full issue of gender discrimination in the Indian Act. Specifically she said:
"what is being offered in exchange for the non-recognition of our basic human and equality rights... An exploratory process, so others - many of who will not be affected directly - have a say in whether our basic human and equality rights are recognized. To my mind, it is totally bizarre."
She also pointed out the disrespect of Justice Canada (DOJ) and INAC in dealing with her case. They keep referring to Sharon's "hypothetical brother" to do comparisons on charts, but in actual fact her brothers are real, living human beings with families of their own. It was all because of Sharon's quest to seek equality for Indian women and their descendants that her brothers even got registered and when they did, they all got better status than Sharon. How is that for irony?
She also pointed out the very disturbing position our NAO's have put us Indian women in - that we must fight this battle alone. Sharon explained the current situation very well:
"The Assembly of First Nations, the Native Women's Association of Canada, other groups, will get huge chunks of money. We women on the ground have done all of the groundwork. I can tell you I have done all of the work to get here. The Assembly of First Nations did not help me, and for the most part the Native Women's Association of Canada did not help me, and CAPP did not help me. I brought it this far, and now they have all jumped on board and they said, okay, whatever little piece of legislation you want to put through because of the time frame, we agree with that. You can go ahead and do it, but give us the money. I am outraged, as you can tell. I am outraged about what has been going on."
She went on to explain that many, many descendants of Indian women will be missed in Bill C-3 including: anyone born pre-1951, and the illegitimate daughters of Indian men, children of status women who have unstated paternity. There are many more who will be missed.
Gwen Brodsky who presented after Sharon made the point that gender equality in Canada is NOT something that should only be brought about incrementally - i.e. through small amendments gradually over time. It is a basic human right that requires immediate implementation. It has been over 150 years of legislated gender inequality for Indian women - how much longer should they wait? It cost Sharon over $250,000 and no one was there to help her. Discrimination is not a matter for debate or consultation - it simply needs to be remedied even if people want to continue discrimination.
Despite all of this, it was more than apparent that racist and sexist stereotypes and ideologies are what ruled the ultimate decision to pass this Bill. Here are a few examples of the questions and considerations made during these meetings:
(1) Senator Kochar to Sharon McIvor:
"How far do you think your status can go?"
"Senator Brazeau is my mentor when it comes to Indian Affairs, although I am more pure Indian than he is."
"If pure Indian marries a non-Indian... how far do you think you can take the status?"
"Nevermind about gender equality."
(2) Senator Brazeau to Gwen Brodsky:
"I think it is important to distinguish between a wish list... and the specific decision"
(3) Minister Duncan to Senator Brazeau:
"we probably would not be having any of this discussion if it were not for the fact that status confers certain benefits"
"There has not been as much debate and discourse of this area of the Indian Act as there should be."
Seriously?? Has INAC not read all the studies, research, articles, theses, books and reports on the subject? What an irresponsible thing to say - but it serves to justify funding NAO's to do more repetitive research.
Canada denies that financial considerations are a main issue in their control of status when they appeared before the courts in McIvor, yet their own motivations are admittedly financial. Even the evidence at court showed that Canada's interest in having a limited "1/4 blood" rule was primarily for financial reasons.
Why is it that when men are registered under the Act, they are considered the true Indians, but when women want to be registered they are characterized as gold diggers? We are not in this for money - we are in this for our equality and the rights of our children and grandchildren.
If anyone should be questioned about their financial interest, it is not Indian women and their excluded descendants who must fight these legal battles on their own and at their own cost. I think the grass roots people ought to be asking their NAO's what the hell they think they are doing with the future of our children and grandchildren? No study, staff position or research project is worth the exclusion of even a single child from their birthright and community.
I have been told that politics is about compromise and maybe I should give these NAO's a break. If that is the case, then perhaps these NAO's should get out of the business of politics and get back to the business of advocating for our people and standing up for what is just.
Bill C-3 is a discriminatory piece of legislation that appeals to Canada's desire to limit how much they have to share our resources with us; appeals to co-opted NAO's who see dollar signs in the joint process; and appeals to those colonized Aboriginal peoples who care more about their own individual interests than that of their communities, Nations, and most importantly, the futures of their children's children seven generations into the future.
Shame on Canada and shame on AFN, NWAC, CAP, NAFC for buying in. I can only hope that the UN addresses Sharon McIvor's long-standing fight for our rights.
Here is the quick and dirty of the Bill's treatment to date:
(1) Bill C-3 passed first and second reading in the House;
(2) It was studied by the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development (AAON) where numerous Aboriginal witnesses testified that it did not address all gender discrimination or even that found in McIvor's case;
(3) I appeared as a witness and gave oral and written testimony against the Bill;
(4) The AAON voted on amendments to make the Bill more inclusive (at this point the Liberals, NDP and Bloc were all supporting the Aboriginal witnesses);
(5) These amendments were ruled out of scope;
(6) The House passed a new amendment to include back in the bill, section 9 which tries to insulate Canada from liability;
(7) The bill passed through the House (the Liberals, NDP and Bloc all flip-flopped and sided with conservatives);
(8) The bill was sent to Senate for consideration and passed first and second reading quickly;
(9) It was sent to Senate Standing Committee on Human Rights to study;
(10) Only two days were set aside to hear a small list of witnesses (Nov.29, Dec.6);
(11) I was invited by Senate to appear as witness and then disinvited at the last minute;
(12) The bill passed through the clause by clause quickly.
So that is where the Bill stands now. It will pass through both report stage and third reading fairly quickly as the conservatives are the majority in the Senate and we have seen what they will do when they like or dislike a bill. This bill will then have to receive Royal Assent and the Order in Council process takes about 6 weeks or so. Therefore, I fully expect that this Bill will become law before the court imposed deadline in January of 2011.
So that is the technical stuff. I have written previous blogs about my concerns about this bill, but I will summarize the main issues here:
(1) The new section 6(1)(c.1) will create a new form of discrimination between those with children and those without. Under this section, the only people entitled to section 6(1)(c.1) status are those currently registered under section 6(2) who have non-status Indian children. Anyone with status children or no children will not get the gender remedy.
(2) This bill does not address all gender inequality in the Indian Act. Canada argues it only addressed the inequality between double mother clause reinstatees and section 12(1)(b) reinstatees in the McIvor appeal case. Unfortunately, it does not even do that. The descendants of Indian men will still have better status than the descendants of Indian women.
(3) Canada has chosen to try to insulate itself from liability for the gender discrimination it imposed on the descendants of Indian women in section 9 of the bill. Indian women and their descendants will be the only group in Canada who have been discriminated against and for whom Canada refuses to allow them a Charter remedy.
There are many, many other concerns I have about the Bill, but anyone can read my past blogs to find out more. As you may have gathered from other blogs I have written on Aboriginal political issues, I am concerned about our National Aboriginal Organizations (NAO's) like the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples (CAP), the Native Women's Association of Canada (NWAC) and the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) actions on this issue. These NAO's all claim to represent some segment of the Aboriginal population in Canada, but their recent flip-flops should be cause for great concern by us grass roots folks. Even the National Association of Friendship Centres (NAFC) a non-political organization has weighed in.
First of all, the Senate only had two half-days of hearings and only heard from a handful of witnesses, most of whom were political in nature, compared to the AAON who had 6 days of hearings and heard from numerous witnesses with various expertise on the subject matter. Several witnesses, including myself were officially invited to appear before the Senate on Bill C-3 but were later disinvited at the last possible moment.
You will remember that in the House, all of the Aboriginal witnesses were unanimous in their opposition to Bill C-3 as it was written - yes, including CAP. The Liberals, NDP and Bloc all agreed that the Bill did NOT fully address either the gender discrimination found in McIvor or the larger gender discrimination issues. They all supported the amendment of this Bill to finally address gender discrimination once and for all. However, since Parliament recessed for the summer, CAP, NWAC, Native Women of Quebec and others all flip-flopped on their original positions and decided that "something was better than nothing" and supported the bill.
When we all got back to business in the fall, the Liberals, Bloc and NDP all flip-flopped and said they would now support the bill out of concern for those who wanted to be registered as soon as possible. Keep in mind also that INAC has been saying all along that the NAO's would ONLY receive funding for the joint process to discuss the other registration and band membership issues IF Bill C-3 passed. This means no money if the NAO's did not play ball.
The NAO's are not what they used to be - although they were all born out of the Indian political struggles of the early 1900's which culminated in the 1970's in response to the White Paper, their leadership of late has been described as "co-opted". Back then, the NAO's stood for what was just and not what was "just" in the best interests of the organizations they headed. Now, their concerns over funding to staff their organizations far outweighs any remaining concerns for what is best for our people.
It should be no surprise then that on Monday, Dec.6, 2010:
(1) the CAP did not even appear as a witness on Bill C-3 in Senate;
(2) the AFN testified that "the bill, with or without amendments must proceed";
(3) the NAFC's main concern was to ask for money to train their staff and to be compensated for answering questions to their clients;
(4) the NWAC said registering those under Bill C-3 would be acceptable to "our chiefs, our communities and our families";
Despite vigorous questioning from Senator Sandra Lovelace (the woman who took Canada to the UN on this issue and won) about the real issues at stake for Aboriginal peoples: full gender equality, the right to decide who we are, and compensation for discrimination, NONE of the NAO's would back down from their support of the bill. This made Senator Patrick Brazeau's job much easier.
INAC Minister John Duncan's testimony on Nov.29, 2010 seems confirm what is happening here:
"the department has invited and received proposals from national Aboriginal organizations in preparation for the possible launch of a separate exploratory process on these broader issues. This will move forward if Bill C-3 is passed."
"With five different national Aboriginal organizations ... the department will provide the appropriate funding for the process."
"the national Aboriginal organizations will be running the process."
Sharon McIvor's testimony pointed out what is really happening here - we are being offered a joint process without any mandate or commitment for future changes in exchange for NOT addressing the full issue of gender discrimination in the Indian Act. Specifically she said:
"what is being offered in exchange for the non-recognition of our basic human and equality rights... An exploratory process, so others - many of who will not be affected directly - have a say in whether our basic human and equality rights are recognized. To my mind, it is totally bizarre."
She also pointed out the disrespect of Justice Canada (DOJ) and INAC in dealing with her case. They keep referring to Sharon's "hypothetical brother" to do comparisons on charts, but in actual fact her brothers are real, living human beings with families of their own. It was all because of Sharon's quest to seek equality for Indian women and their descendants that her brothers even got registered and when they did, they all got better status than Sharon. How is that for irony?
She also pointed out the very disturbing position our NAO's have put us Indian women in - that we must fight this battle alone. Sharon explained the current situation very well:
"The Assembly of First Nations, the Native Women's Association of Canada, other groups, will get huge chunks of money. We women on the ground have done all of the groundwork. I can tell you I have done all of the work to get here. The Assembly of First Nations did not help me, and for the most part the Native Women's Association of Canada did not help me, and CAPP did not help me. I brought it this far, and now they have all jumped on board and they said, okay, whatever little piece of legislation you want to put through because of the time frame, we agree with that. You can go ahead and do it, but give us the money. I am outraged, as you can tell. I am outraged about what has been going on."
She went on to explain that many, many descendants of Indian women will be missed in Bill C-3 including: anyone born pre-1951, and the illegitimate daughters of Indian men, children of status women who have unstated paternity. There are many more who will be missed.
Gwen Brodsky who presented after Sharon made the point that gender equality in Canada is NOT something that should only be brought about incrementally - i.e. through small amendments gradually over time. It is a basic human right that requires immediate implementation. It has been over 150 years of legislated gender inequality for Indian women - how much longer should they wait? It cost Sharon over $250,000 and no one was there to help her. Discrimination is not a matter for debate or consultation - it simply needs to be remedied even if people want to continue discrimination.
Despite all of this, it was more than apparent that racist and sexist stereotypes and ideologies are what ruled the ultimate decision to pass this Bill. Here are a few examples of the questions and considerations made during these meetings:
(1) Senator Kochar to Sharon McIvor:
"How far do you think your status can go?"
"Senator Brazeau is my mentor when it comes to Indian Affairs, although I am more pure Indian than he is."
"If pure Indian marries a non-Indian... how far do you think you can take the status?"
"Nevermind about gender equality."
(2) Senator Brazeau to Gwen Brodsky:
"I think it is important to distinguish between a wish list... and the specific decision"
(3) Minister Duncan to Senator Brazeau:
"we probably would not be having any of this discussion if it were not for the fact that status confers certain benefits"
"There has not been as much debate and discourse of this area of the Indian Act as there should be."
Seriously?? Has INAC not read all the studies, research, articles, theses, books and reports on the subject? What an irresponsible thing to say - but it serves to justify funding NAO's to do more repetitive research.
Canada denies that financial considerations are a main issue in their control of status when they appeared before the courts in McIvor, yet their own motivations are admittedly financial. Even the evidence at court showed that Canada's interest in having a limited "1/4 blood" rule was primarily for financial reasons.
Why is it that when men are registered under the Act, they are considered the true Indians, but when women want to be registered they are characterized as gold diggers? We are not in this for money - we are in this for our equality and the rights of our children and grandchildren.
If anyone should be questioned about their financial interest, it is not Indian women and their excluded descendants who must fight these legal battles on their own and at their own cost. I think the grass roots people ought to be asking their NAO's what the hell they think they are doing with the future of our children and grandchildren? No study, staff position or research project is worth the exclusion of even a single child from their birthright and community.
I have been told that politics is about compromise and maybe I should give these NAO's a break. If that is the case, then perhaps these NAO's should get out of the business of politics and get back to the business of advocating for our people and standing up for what is just.
Bill C-3 is a discriminatory piece of legislation that appeals to Canada's desire to limit how much they have to share our resources with us; appeals to co-opted NAO's who see dollar signs in the joint process; and appeals to those colonized Aboriginal peoples who care more about their own individual interests than that of their communities, Nations, and most importantly, the futures of their children's children seven generations into the future.
Shame on Canada and shame on AFN, NWAC, CAP, NAFC for buying in. I can only hope that the UN addresses Sharon McIvor's long-standing fight for our rights.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)