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
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
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.
Saturday, November 27, 2010
The Canadian Tax Payers Federation's Chief-Bashing Campaign
Ok, so my last blog was a slight departure from my usual serious commentary, but I needed the humour to help insulate my soul from all the negativity. While it was intended as a spoof of the issue, I also wanted readers to see the issue from our perspective. My spoof may have sounded ridiculous, but that reflects the insanity of the situation, not the blog.
Since the Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF) and others have released various media statements accusing Chiefs of being paid exorbitant salaries while their people suffer in misery, I have been fielding questions from students, the public, media, and others to answer for this alleged injustice. In answering these questions from mostly non-Indigenous people, I have heard endless stereotypes about Indigenous peoples, faced pent-up anger about "special" rights and been asked to accept ludicrous solutions like "doing away with s.35" of the Constitution Act, relocating all reserve residents to the cities, and told that since these alleged injustices to our people happened so long ago, to simply "get over it".
I consider myself a strong Indigenous woman who has won life's lottery - I have good health, two healthy, happy children, a large supportive family and my Mi'kmaq culture. I have never taken for granted the power of being able to fall back to a safe place where my brothers and sisters will guide me, support me, and offer a sympathetic ear during hard or stressful times. None of us are rich, but it has never been money that we needed from one another - it has always been the advice, guidance, support, and unconditional love. Not everyone is so fortunate to be in this circumstance.
Many Indigenous peoples were taken away from their families in residential schools, the 60's scoop or even the current child welfare system. Many others are subjected to racial profiling by the police, and subsequently arrested, detained and imprisoned at a higher rate than non-Indigenous peoples. Still other Indigenous peoples, like our women, are murdered or missing at an alarming rate or subjected to high rates of family violence. Others live in homes without water, sanitation, power or homes which are contaminated with mold and asbestos. They have all been subjected to colonial laws and policies which desperately seek our assimilation.
Despite these similarities and differences, we have some very important factors in common - our Indigenous cultures and identities and the fact that every insult, racist stereotype, neglected community or suicide of one of our own children destroys a piece of our soul. The public telling me that all our leaders are corrupt, hurts me no less than it does one of those accused leaders. Having to defend our people against uninformed members of the public, wears on me just as much as it wears on Maliseet, Cree or Mohawk peoples.
This is the reason why I wrote my last blog as a spoof. Humour is what keeps my family moving forward in this battle that we inherited from the colonizers. If we could not make fun of ourselves and laugh at our troubles, we could not repair our souls. It is never meant to make light of the situation, but to force us to remember that we have an obligation to our children to be optimistic, to be hopeful, and help inspire our people to action. This is a lot to ask of our people, many of whom are forced to manage the kind of poverty seen in third world countries, but our future depends on their hope. Humour has traditionally been our way of moving forward.
But our ability to cope and resist are constantly challenged by Canada's assimilatory laws, policies and actions. We are forever dealing with broken treaty promises, empty apologies, conditional rights, two-faced politicians, and those who wish to keep us in our position of poverty and submission. This crisis in our communities could have been addressed decades ago. There have been endless research projects, studies, surveys, reports, and commissions identifying both our issues and the solutions.
The solutions that have been suggested by Royal Commissions, Justice Inquiries, court cases and expert reports have largely been ignored. Solutions like post-secondary education which the greatest economists advise would be a solution that would require a relatively small investment now to obtain great returns in the future for our country, are also ignored. Suggestions that we strengthen the use of our culture, traditions and languages in our communities, schools, and institutions are placed low on the priority list. The obvious funding inequities for essential social services like child welfare, water, and housing are ignored in favour of public misinformation campaigns which vilify our leaders. We know what needs to be done to address this crisis in our communities, but the political will by Canada to do it is what is lacking.
This means that for the sake of our people, we have no choice but to address these right-ring fringe groups who constantly help the government detract public attention from the real issues. So, in order to prevent this blogs from turning into a book (as I could write alot about this issue), here is a brief list of points to keep in mind when reading ANYTHING that comes from the CTF and various TV, radio and print media, regarding their allegations of "exorbitant" chiefs' salaries:
(1) Confirm the accuracy and type of information that is being offered as "truth". If you look at the information posted online at CTF, the information is related to chief and council - not chiefs. Therefore all the conclusions drawn about chiefs is not necessarily accurate. The same can be said of the print media which contains a great deal of inaccurate and sensationalized reports.
(2) The information they do post is the "taxable equivalent" which means it is not their ACTUAL pay, but a figure inflated by CTF to make the situation look far worse than it actually is. As readers may or may not know, ALL status Indians who live and work on reserve are entitled to not have to pay income tax.
This is not a special or extra benefit given to Chief and Council. This is a legislative right which stems from the fact that Canada stole the rest of our lands and agreed that we should not be taxed on what little lands we have left. So what the CTF and others are doing is comparing apples and oranges. It would be no different than if they added another column and said that Chiefs in Atlantic Canada have more fish than the PM. Well, I hope so - after all they have constitutionally protected Aboriginal and treaty right to fish.
The real issue for CTF and others is that status Indians have the right to tax free income in certain circumstances and they are using Chiefs as their bulls eye to keep debating the issue. They have never accepted that status Indians have this benefit or section 35 benefits and this is the real issue - not their actual salaries. Even so-called academics like Tom Flanagan are still belly-aching over these constitutionally protected rights.
(3) The comparison of chief and council salaries with that of the Prime Minister (PM) is hypocrisy at its worst. When the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP) said that our people should be treated as a third order of government, Canada rejected this. When our leaders demand to negotiate with the PM, we are told that First Nations are no more than mere municipalities. Our leaders are forced to meet with clerks, assistants and low level bureaucrats. Yet, when they want to find a way to exaggerate a situation to make Indigenous peoples look bad, First Nations are suddenly on par with the PM??
This is an insane comparison which lacks any kind of empirical credibility and solely reflects political spin. The PM is a unique position that can hardly be compared with most positions, let alone that of First Nations. The PM's job guarantees certain benefits not offered First Nations leaders like: long-term disability in the event of serious illness, a pension, business and political connections which are priceless, and long after a PM is finished, he will have no end of paid speaking engagements, consulting contracts and business offers. A point which is often left out is that the PM is supported by literally thousands of well-paid bureaucrats who do all the real work.
Chiefs and councillors on the other hand, have no long-term disability protections, despite the fact that they have higher incidences of diabetes, heart attack, stroke, TB, and other serious illnesses. They have no pensions to support them once they are out of office. They would not have business and political connections which would ensure their financial well-being post-office. Equally as important is that the chiefs are not surrounded by thousands or even hundreds of well-paid bureaucrats, with the skills, training, education and expertise needed to do all the actual work needed to support a community. Justice Canada alone is the largest law firm in this country - there is simply no competing with that.
(4) It is impossible to do any kind of credible comparison between colonized Indigenous peoples and the colonizers. There is a massive power imbalance and laws which both create the current situation and policies which promote it. Any comparison is misleading at best. However, if one were to make a comparison between chiefs and councillors and municipalities, one would find that standards are being imposed on First Nations that are not imposed on municipalities.
For example, if one refers to the salaries of employees, managers, directors and leaders of municipalities, you will find a surprising number of those who make more than $100,000 some of which have a portion of their salary which is tax-free. Yet, many of the municipalities have hundreds if not thousands of homeless people, people living in shelters and increasing numbers of families and children who rely on food banks.
How could a librarian be paid $100,000 when their own community members do not have enough to eat? Those librarians are not even leaders. One Entertainment manager makes over $250,000. How could a municipality prioritize entertainment over a safe place for their residents to sleep at night? Should a director of entertainment make almost as much as the PM when residents are dying in the cold?
(5) The double standards which are placed on our people must be identified for what they are - right-wing reactions to our constitutionally protected rights which they reject and can't accept. There is no way for us to win in their perverse logic. We are rejected as welfare dependent bums who use up all tax-payers hard-earned taxes, yet when any of us make a living we are demonized as an industry of elite, overpaid, corrupt individuals who suck our communities dry of funds while we leave the rest behind to suffer.
Not all of us are like the rare few who sell their souls for a Senate seat or fame. In our tradition, people like that would have been labelled a traitor and lost his/her citizenship and no longer been considered part of the community. The problem is not that there are people like this, its that we don't deal with them as we should according to our cultural laws and values. THe majority of us don't fall into this category and we should not let a few bad apples lead to stereoptypes about all of us.
The fact of the matter is, there should be no double standards. If no leader should be paid a salary higher than its poorest resident, then let that apply to ALL leaders in Canada including the PM.
(6) This public misinformation campaign is nothing more than a strategic ploy engaged to do two very important and dangerous things: (a) to deflect attention away from the current crisis in our communities which was created and extended by Canada and (b) to divide our people and communities irrevocably. Recent reports show that community members are already up in arms and battling amongst each other and their leaders over this issue. This is in addition to the Indian Act which has divided our people into on and off-reserve, status and non-status, band member and non-band member, and men and women. Now, Bills C-3 (Status) and S-4 (MRP) will further widen the divide as those of us who are colonized fight for individual wealth and sacrifice their communities in the process.
We have to rise above this. We have to better inform ourselves against this right-wing misinformation campaign. We have to make our families, communities and Nations our priority over everything else they tempt us with - including money and power. It does not cost a cent to stay united, nor does it require thousands of dollars for us to assert our sovereignty in meaningful and powerful ways. These right wing groups, academics and governments do NOT have our best interest at heart. They all desperately want our assimilation. Why on earth would we accept what they say at face value and help them speed up the process? We can collectively deal with the issues in our communities - we don't need wealth, greed, and fame to do it. We have everything we ever needed in our own cultures - we just need to have faith in it again.
Since the Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF) and others have released various media statements accusing Chiefs of being paid exorbitant salaries while their people suffer in misery, I have been fielding questions from students, the public, media, and others to answer for this alleged injustice. In answering these questions from mostly non-Indigenous people, I have heard endless stereotypes about Indigenous peoples, faced pent-up anger about "special" rights and been asked to accept ludicrous solutions like "doing away with s.35" of the Constitution Act, relocating all reserve residents to the cities, and told that since these alleged injustices to our people happened so long ago, to simply "get over it".
I consider myself a strong Indigenous woman who has won life's lottery - I have good health, two healthy, happy children, a large supportive family and my Mi'kmaq culture. I have never taken for granted the power of being able to fall back to a safe place where my brothers and sisters will guide me, support me, and offer a sympathetic ear during hard or stressful times. None of us are rich, but it has never been money that we needed from one another - it has always been the advice, guidance, support, and unconditional love. Not everyone is so fortunate to be in this circumstance.
Many Indigenous peoples were taken away from their families in residential schools, the 60's scoop or even the current child welfare system. Many others are subjected to racial profiling by the police, and subsequently arrested, detained and imprisoned at a higher rate than non-Indigenous peoples. Still other Indigenous peoples, like our women, are murdered or missing at an alarming rate or subjected to high rates of family violence. Others live in homes without water, sanitation, power or homes which are contaminated with mold and asbestos. They have all been subjected to colonial laws and policies which desperately seek our assimilation.
Despite these similarities and differences, we have some very important factors in common - our Indigenous cultures and identities and the fact that every insult, racist stereotype, neglected community or suicide of one of our own children destroys a piece of our soul. The public telling me that all our leaders are corrupt, hurts me no less than it does one of those accused leaders. Having to defend our people against uninformed members of the public, wears on me just as much as it wears on Maliseet, Cree or Mohawk peoples.
This is the reason why I wrote my last blog as a spoof. Humour is what keeps my family moving forward in this battle that we inherited from the colonizers. If we could not make fun of ourselves and laugh at our troubles, we could not repair our souls. It is never meant to make light of the situation, but to force us to remember that we have an obligation to our children to be optimistic, to be hopeful, and help inspire our people to action. This is a lot to ask of our people, many of whom are forced to manage the kind of poverty seen in third world countries, but our future depends on their hope. Humour has traditionally been our way of moving forward.
But our ability to cope and resist are constantly challenged by Canada's assimilatory laws, policies and actions. We are forever dealing with broken treaty promises, empty apologies, conditional rights, two-faced politicians, and those who wish to keep us in our position of poverty and submission. This crisis in our communities could have been addressed decades ago. There have been endless research projects, studies, surveys, reports, and commissions identifying both our issues and the solutions.
The solutions that have been suggested by Royal Commissions, Justice Inquiries, court cases and expert reports have largely been ignored. Solutions like post-secondary education which the greatest economists advise would be a solution that would require a relatively small investment now to obtain great returns in the future for our country, are also ignored. Suggestions that we strengthen the use of our culture, traditions and languages in our communities, schools, and institutions are placed low on the priority list. The obvious funding inequities for essential social services like child welfare, water, and housing are ignored in favour of public misinformation campaigns which vilify our leaders. We know what needs to be done to address this crisis in our communities, but the political will by Canada to do it is what is lacking.
This means that for the sake of our people, we have no choice but to address these right-ring fringe groups who constantly help the government detract public attention from the real issues. So, in order to prevent this blogs from turning into a book (as I could write alot about this issue), here is a brief list of points to keep in mind when reading ANYTHING that comes from the CTF and various TV, radio and print media, regarding their allegations of "exorbitant" chiefs' salaries:
(1) Confirm the accuracy and type of information that is being offered as "truth". If you look at the information posted online at CTF, the information is related to chief and council - not chiefs. Therefore all the conclusions drawn about chiefs is not necessarily accurate. The same can be said of the print media which contains a great deal of inaccurate and sensationalized reports.
(2) The information they do post is the "taxable equivalent" which means it is not their ACTUAL pay, but a figure inflated by CTF to make the situation look far worse than it actually is. As readers may or may not know, ALL status Indians who live and work on reserve are entitled to not have to pay income tax.
This is not a special or extra benefit given to Chief and Council. This is a legislative right which stems from the fact that Canada stole the rest of our lands and agreed that we should not be taxed on what little lands we have left. So what the CTF and others are doing is comparing apples and oranges. It would be no different than if they added another column and said that Chiefs in Atlantic Canada have more fish than the PM. Well, I hope so - after all they have constitutionally protected Aboriginal and treaty right to fish.
The real issue for CTF and others is that status Indians have the right to tax free income in certain circumstances and they are using Chiefs as their bulls eye to keep debating the issue. They have never accepted that status Indians have this benefit or section 35 benefits and this is the real issue - not their actual salaries. Even so-called academics like Tom Flanagan are still belly-aching over these constitutionally protected rights.
(3) The comparison of chief and council salaries with that of the Prime Minister (PM) is hypocrisy at its worst. When the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP) said that our people should be treated as a third order of government, Canada rejected this. When our leaders demand to negotiate with the PM, we are told that First Nations are no more than mere municipalities. Our leaders are forced to meet with clerks, assistants and low level bureaucrats. Yet, when they want to find a way to exaggerate a situation to make Indigenous peoples look bad, First Nations are suddenly on par with the PM??
This is an insane comparison which lacks any kind of empirical credibility and solely reflects political spin. The PM is a unique position that can hardly be compared with most positions, let alone that of First Nations. The PM's job guarantees certain benefits not offered First Nations leaders like: long-term disability in the event of serious illness, a pension, business and political connections which are priceless, and long after a PM is finished, he will have no end of paid speaking engagements, consulting contracts and business offers. A point which is often left out is that the PM is supported by literally thousands of well-paid bureaucrats who do all the real work.
Chiefs and councillors on the other hand, have no long-term disability protections, despite the fact that they have higher incidences of diabetes, heart attack, stroke, TB, and other serious illnesses. They have no pensions to support them once they are out of office. They would not have business and political connections which would ensure their financial well-being post-office. Equally as important is that the chiefs are not surrounded by thousands or even hundreds of well-paid bureaucrats, with the skills, training, education and expertise needed to do all the actual work needed to support a community. Justice Canada alone is the largest law firm in this country - there is simply no competing with that.
(4) It is impossible to do any kind of credible comparison between colonized Indigenous peoples and the colonizers. There is a massive power imbalance and laws which both create the current situation and policies which promote it. Any comparison is misleading at best. However, if one were to make a comparison between chiefs and councillors and municipalities, one would find that standards are being imposed on First Nations that are not imposed on municipalities.
For example, if one refers to the salaries of employees, managers, directors and leaders of municipalities, you will find a surprising number of those who make more than $100,000 some of which have a portion of their salary which is tax-free. Yet, many of the municipalities have hundreds if not thousands of homeless people, people living in shelters and increasing numbers of families and children who rely on food banks.
How could a librarian be paid $100,000 when their own community members do not have enough to eat? Those librarians are not even leaders. One Entertainment manager makes over $250,000. How could a municipality prioritize entertainment over a safe place for their residents to sleep at night? Should a director of entertainment make almost as much as the PM when residents are dying in the cold?
(5) The double standards which are placed on our people must be identified for what they are - right-wing reactions to our constitutionally protected rights which they reject and can't accept. There is no way for us to win in their perverse logic. We are rejected as welfare dependent bums who use up all tax-payers hard-earned taxes, yet when any of us make a living we are demonized as an industry of elite, overpaid, corrupt individuals who suck our communities dry of funds while we leave the rest behind to suffer.
Not all of us are like the rare few who sell their souls for a Senate seat or fame. In our tradition, people like that would have been labelled a traitor and lost his/her citizenship and no longer been considered part of the community. The problem is not that there are people like this, its that we don't deal with them as we should according to our cultural laws and values. THe majority of us don't fall into this category and we should not let a few bad apples lead to stereoptypes about all of us.
The fact of the matter is, there should be no double standards. If no leader should be paid a salary higher than its poorest resident, then let that apply to ALL leaders in Canada including the PM.
(6) This public misinformation campaign is nothing more than a strategic ploy engaged to do two very important and dangerous things: (a) to deflect attention away from the current crisis in our communities which was created and extended by Canada and (b) to divide our people and communities irrevocably. Recent reports show that community members are already up in arms and battling amongst each other and their leaders over this issue. This is in addition to the Indian Act which has divided our people into on and off-reserve, status and non-status, band member and non-band member, and men and women. Now, Bills C-3 (Status) and S-4 (MRP) will further widen the divide as those of us who are colonized fight for individual wealth and sacrifice their communities in the process.
We have to rise above this. We have to better inform ourselves against this right-wing misinformation campaign. We have to make our families, communities and Nations our priority over everything else they tempt us with - including money and power. It does not cost a cent to stay united, nor does it require thousands of dollars for us to assert our sovereignty in meaningful and powerful ways. These right wing groups, academics and governments do NOT have our best interest at heart. They all desperately want our assimilation. Why on earth would we accept what they say at face value and help them speed up the process? We can collectively deal with the issues in our communities - we don't need wealth, greed, and fame to do it. We have everything we ever needed in our own cultures - we just need to have faith in it again.
Friday, November 26, 2010
NEWSFLASH - Bill T-666 to Deal with Exorbitant Municipal Salaries
NEWSFLASH from P.A.M. News:
Today, our official news correspondent for the Official Opposition of the Third Order of Government (OOTOG), Pamela Palmater, has brought to light the extreme abuses being made of First Nation taxpayers and land-holders money. Palmater's informative, yet disturbing report calls into question whether Canadian peoples who sit in positions on municipalities across Canada are accountable for the taxes and income they receive from our traditional lands.
As readers know, the lands in Canada are the traditional territories of the Indigenous peoples of Turtle Island. Our Nations have lived here since time immemorial with their own cultures, languages, practices, traditions and customs. Just as important, our Nations had their own governments, laws, dispute resolution mechanisms, systems of trade and treaty-making with other Indigenous Nations. We were then and remain now, the ultimate governing authority of our territories often referred to as Turtle Island.
The peoples who immigrated here from what we believe to be the Lost City of Atlantis and its surrounding land masses, are now referred to as Canadian peoples. They are more commonly known as Atlanteans, although many take offence to that terminology. Given that they had just lost their city which sank into the sea, our Nations decided to assist them for a short time until they were well enough to find new homelands. Many of them wanted to stay, so some of us signed treaties with these uncultured, violent, and greedy peoples so that they would not one day become extinct from their poor sailing, planning, governance, and other ineptitudes.
For some time now, they have been making claims that they own our lands and the resources on our traditional territories. At the same time, they refuse to accept any responsibility for the protection of these lands and seek only to exhaust of the resources for their own selfish ends. In order to build capacity in their divided and warring communities, they also created many schools in which they would teach their own children; one of which being the infamous Sun-burned Neck Thought School (SNTS). They refused to adopt our Indigenous languages and teachings and instead sought to preserve their dying ways.
At SNTS, their students are taught the backward ways of their primitive thinkers who believe in class systems where some of their people are better than others, homelessness where the sick, poor, elderly, and mentally ill must fend for themselves, individual wealth where individuals looks out for themselves and not the community, and male-dominated systems of governance where women and children are treated like the cattle they brought with them on their ships.
As odd as we all thought these ways of living were, we allowed them to engage in their "traditional" ways for fear they might start sending us blankets filled with small pox in the mail or other terrorist-like activity. Indeed, controlling them has been very difficult. We have had to be very passive so as not to send them into a rage where they might send in their radicals known as the police, armies and tactical squads. We have seen how angry they can get.
Well, today, after reading the latest financial report from their peoples government led by Steven Hypocriseese, it has become evident that the Third Order of Government must take action. I refer readers to the report they call the "Public Sector Salary Disclosure" which can be found at this website:
http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/publications/salarydisclosure/2010/munic10a.html
Here readers will note the extreme abuses to which their peoples have been making of our hard-earned taxes, lands and natural resources. For example, in the municipality of Hamilton, Ontario, their Director of Entertainment makes a salary of $259,113.77!! This is absolutely outrageous! It is dangerously close to the salary of their leader Steven Hypocriseese who makes around $300,000. The manager of Hamilton makes nearly $200,000. Yet, the rate of homelessness in Hamilton is increasing. In 2006, the small municipality of Hamilton had nearly 3000 people stay in homeless shelters and for extended periods of time. Here is a link to their report:
http://intraspec.ca/OnAnyGivenNight2007.pdf
This is an absolute outrage and these incidents are not isolated. From the looks of the report, the abuse is wide-spread and confirms what we have been saying all along. The Canadian peoples' sense of entitlement and claims of special powers has spread to their other communities as well. In Brampton, the city manager makes $254,000 as does the manager in Burlington. Other positions like librarians, mechanics and directors of litter also make well over $100,000. Yet, how many of their children still read books? How many of their children struggle with reading? How much effort did librarians make to inspire their children to read? How many books were purchased? Were these books of value?
There is absolutely no accountability or transparency in these positions. Why have they not brought their librarians before the Third Order of Government to account? These librarians have now become renegades in their own communities. They make thousands of dollars in salaries, work in warm, comfortable surroundings, have more than enough to eat and clothes to wear, while homelessness in Turtle Island is on the rise. How could they possibily justify such exorbitant salaries while their own people live in such abject poverty without food, clothes or a warm safe place to sleep at night?
These peoples are obviously not spending our money where and how they should. How could these so-called leaders justify paying themselves salaries in excess if $100,000 which in Indigenous equality dollars equates to well over $1,000,000 when you include the decades of privilege and control, education and employability, business and political connections, and the use of our lands and resources on a tax-free basis. We will no longer stand for this. The Third Order of Government will bring this situation under control as we promised.
I will be introducing Bill T-666 which will ensure that steps are taken to get the Canadian peoples spending of our taxes and resources from our lands under control. We will start by implementing third party management of their funds which they will pay for out of their own budgets. We will cap funding on all their essential services like schools, child welfare and missing and murdered female Canadian peoples. Then we will force them to publish the addresses of these librarians and litter directors , how many people are in their families, whether their family members benefited from their exorbitant salaries, how many books they purchased, and whether they spent money on travel instead of reading to children. This will be done for every municipal position across Turtle Island!
I urge all citizens of the Third Order of Government to support this bill. I strongly encourage even those from the Canadian peoples communities to support this bill. It is time these Canadian peoples pulled up their socks, started going to regular Indigenous schools like everyone else and got over the loss of their Lost City of Atlantis. I mean, it is called the Lost City of Atlantis for a reason - it is lost - forever. GET OVER IT!! We, the Third Order of Government simply cannot afford to keep giving them all of our taxes and natural resources. If we cannot get support for this bill, our only alternative will be to relocate these peoples to another continent where they will be better able to support themselves on their own lands.
Please write to your local municipal librarian, mechanic or director of litter and demand better for their peoples.
Today, our official news correspondent for the Official Opposition of the Third Order of Government (OOTOG), Pamela Palmater, has brought to light the extreme abuses being made of First Nation taxpayers and land-holders money. Palmater's informative, yet disturbing report calls into question whether Canadian peoples who sit in positions on municipalities across Canada are accountable for the taxes and income they receive from our traditional lands.
As readers know, the lands in Canada are the traditional territories of the Indigenous peoples of Turtle Island. Our Nations have lived here since time immemorial with their own cultures, languages, practices, traditions and customs. Just as important, our Nations had their own governments, laws, dispute resolution mechanisms, systems of trade and treaty-making with other Indigenous Nations. We were then and remain now, the ultimate governing authority of our territories often referred to as Turtle Island.
The peoples who immigrated here from what we believe to be the Lost City of Atlantis and its surrounding land masses, are now referred to as Canadian peoples. They are more commonly known as Atlanteans, although many take offence to that terminology. Given that they had just lost their city which sank into the sea, our Nations decided to assist them for a short time until they were well enough to find new homelands. Many of them wanted to stay, so some of us signed treaties with these uncultured, violent, and greedy peoples so that they would not one day become extinct from their poor sailing, planning, governance, and other ineptitudes.
For some time now, they have been making claims that they own our lands and the resources on our traditional territories. At the same time, they refuse to accept any responsibility for the protection of these lands and seek only to exhaust of the resources for their own selfish ends. In order to build capacity in their divided and warring communities, they also created many schools in which they would teach their own children; one of which being the infamous Sun-burned Neck Thought School (SNTS). They refused to adopt our Indigenous languages and teachings and instead sought to preserve their dying ways.
At SNTS, their students are taught the backward ways of their primitive thinkers who believe in class systems where some of their people are better than others, homelessness where the sick, poor, elderly, and mentally ill must fend for themselves, individual wealth where individuals looks out for themselves and not the community, and male-dominated systems of governance where women and children are treated like the cattle they brought with them on their ships.
As odd as we all thought these ways of living were, we allowed them to engage in their "traditional" ways for fear they might start sending us blankets filled with small pox in the mail or other terrorist-like activity. Indeed, controlling them has been very difficult. We have had to be very passive so as not to send them into a rage where they might send in their radicals known as the police, armies and tactical squads. We have seen how angry they can get.
Well, today, after reading the latest financial report from their peoples government led by Steven Hypocriseese, it has become evident that the Third Order of Government must take action. I refer readers to the report they call the "Public Sector Salary Disclosure" which can be found at this website:
http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/publications/salarydisclosure/2010/munic10a.html
Here readers will note the extreme abuses to which their peoples have been making of our hard-earned taxes, lands and natural resources. For example, in the municipality of Hamilton, Ontario, their Director of Entertainment makes a salary of $259,113.77!! This is absolutely outrageous! It is dangerously close to the salary of their leader Steven Hypocriseese who makes around $300,000. The manager of Hamilton makes nearly $200,000. Yet, the rate of homelessness in Hamilton is increasing. In 2006, the small municipality of Hamilton had nearly 3000 people stay in homeless shelters and for extended periods of time. Here is a link to their report:
http://intraspec.ca/OnAnyGivenNight2007.pdf
This is an absolute outrage and these incidents are not isolated. From the looks of the report, the abuse is wide-spread and confirms what we have been saying all along. The Canadian peoples' sense of entitlement and claims of special powers has spread to their other communities as well. In Brampton, the city manager makes $254,000 as does the manager in Burlington. Other positions like librarians, mechanics and directors of litter also make well over $100,000. Yet, how many of their children still read books? How many of their children struggle with reading? How much effort did librarians make to inspire their children to read? How many books were purchased? Were these books of value?
There is absolutely no accountability or transparency in these positions. Why have they not brought their librarians before the Third Order of Government to account? These librarians have now become renegades in their own communities. They make thousands of dollars in salaries, work in warm, comfortable surroundings, have more than enough to eat and clothes to wear, while homelessness in Turtle Island is on the rise. How could they possibily justify such exorbitant salaries while their own people live in such abject poverty without food, clothes or a warm safe place to sleep at night?
These peoples are obviously not spending our money where and how they should. How could these so-called leaders justify paying themselves salaries in excess if $100,000 which in Indigenous equality dollars equates to well over $1,000,000 when you include the decades of privilege and control, education and employability, business and political connections, and the use of our lands and resources on a tax-free basis. We will no longer stand for this. The Third Order of Government will bring this situation under control as we promised.
I will be introducing Bill T-666 which will ensure that steps are taken to get the Canadian peoples spending of our taxes and resources from our lands under control. We will start by implementing third party management of their funds which they will pay for out of their own budgets. We will cap funding on all their essential services like schools, child welfare and missing and murdered female Canadian peoples. Then we will force them to publish the addresses of these librarians and litter directors , how many people are in their families, whether their family members benefited from their exorbitant salaries, how many books they purchased, and whether they spent money on travel instead of reading to children. This will be done for every municipal position across Turtle Island!
I urge all citizens of the Third Order of Government to support this bill. I strongly encourage even those from the Canadian peoples communities to support this bill. It is time these Canadian peoples pulled up their socks, started going to regular Indigenous schools like everyone else and got over the loss of their Lost City of Atlantis. I mean, it is called the Lost City of Atlantis for a reason - it is lost - forever. GET OVER IT!! We, the Third Order of Government simply cannot afford to keep giving them all of our taxes and natural resources. If we cannot get support for this bill, our only alternative will be to relocate these peoples to another continent where they will be better able to support themselves on their own lands.
Please write to your local municipal librarian, mechanic or director of litter and demand better for their peoples.
Sunday, November 21, 2010
The Silent War - Government Control of Indigenous Identity
This blog represents excerpts from the talk that I gave last week on the issue of Indigenous Identity. I realize, however, that many of Indigenous peoples can't access public lectures, conferences, and other similar forums for information and debate. I therefore decided to include this information in my blog, knowing that there are still many of us who do not have access to computers or the Internet.
Canada's cutting off the water supply at Constance Lake First Nation so that the community has barely enough to drink but not bathe, despite Canada's "endorsement" of UNDRIP, is but one example of how many of us are forced to manage our extreme poverty and do not have computers, Ipads or TVs. Thus, many do not have the ability to access the kinds of information found on the Internet which many of us get to take for granted - like blogs.
So, here are some excerpts from my discussion about Indigenous identity:
I wear my Indigenous identity proudly, but have to carry on my back the other identities imposed by government through law and policy. I am forced therefore, to explain my Indigeneity as being comprised of two separate but conflicting sides which are constantly at "war".
The first is my identity as experienced by me internally – within my own heart as an individual and communally with my family, extended family, community and Nation. The second is my "lived experience of Indigenous identity" - i.e. my identity as experienced externally - through relations with both Canadian society and the state.
My own identity has shaped by the histories, stories, lessons, and practices passed on to me by my large extended family. This has shaped my worldview, values, and aspirations – it is essentially what some might refer to as my cultural identity. My experience of identity on the other hand, has been shaped entirely by others – by school mates, teachers, employers, friends, neighbors, historians, judges, politicians and governments.
While my own Indigenous identity is strong and has survived the test of time, it is scarred and bruised by my lived experience of identity and the ongoing attack on my identity through government law and policy designed to assimilate Indigenous peoples into the body politic.
So who am I? I am a Mi'kmaq woman. That is my identity, recognizing however that Indigenous identity is a relationship – a two-way street between myself and my nation. What I mean by this is that my nation cannot exist unless its citizens, like me, both recognize it AND support it. Similarly, I can assert my Mi'kmaq identity but it requires my nation to both recognize AND support me as a citizen.
This mutually dependent relationship has been the way of the Mi’kmaq Nation and its citizens since time immemorial. Yet, this relationship is also where Canada has chosen to erect barriers in order to divide, conquer, and destabilize us, with the ultimate goal of reducing our numbers until we are assimilated.
My identity as a MI’KMAQ WOMAN has been in constant conflict with these barriers. My identity as a Mi'kmaq woman means that I am a Teacher who is responsible to pass on our history, language, culture, and laws. I am a Warrior who is responsible to protect our nations, territories, trees, animals, and citizens. I am a Caregiver who is responsible to care for my children, mothers, grandmothers, and aunties. I am also responsible to be a Leader in my own life - to stand up for what is just regardless of the consequences. I am responsible to be a Living Example - to live our values for our young ones to see so that they know how to live in balance. We are not to live in wealth that destroys the earth nor in poverty that destroys our spirit.
Some have discounted our Indigenous values and traditions as being ancient and irrelevant in modern times. In my opinion, these traditional values are more important today than ever before. I believe they are what will inspire our people to action, stand up against the current injustices and reclaim our spirit and identities.
However, despite my own identity as Mi'kmaq, I have been labeled as “ABORIGINAL" by others. This is a legal and social construct of the Canadian state which lumps my Mi’kmaq identity in with the generic terms of Indians, Inuit and Metis as if we were all just one race of people with the same cultures and world views.
Taiaike Alfred, in his book Wasase, explains that "aboriginalism" amounts to little more than "racialized violence and economic oppression meant to bring about a silent surrender" of who we are as Indigenous peoples. I have resisted surrender – but the battle seems to be never-ending and I fear that most Canadians are not even aware of what is at stake for us. They see our identity only in terms of unfair entitlements and special treatment.
Yet, my identity is primarily about my responsibilities and relations with my Nation and my connections with our traditional territory of MI’KMAKI. Mi’kmaki represents the seven distinct districts of Mi’kmaq territory including NB, NS, PEI, NFLD, parts of Quebec and Maine. With the exception of the last two years, I have spent my entire life living within my traditional territory and those lands are an essential part of my identity. My heart aches if I am far from home for too long as I know that my responsibilities to my territory does not diminish when I live elsewhere.
However, the Crown has put limits on my ability to fully enjoy my Mi’kmaq identity through the imposition of provincial boundaries and policies that restrict my rights on a provincial basis. I am considered a NB MI’KMAQ and therefore not entitled to hunt or fish in NS; enjoy my treaty rights in PEI; or have a say in what happens in Mi’kmaq territory in NFLD. Even within NB, the provincial government has drawn an arbitrary line called the Ganong Line telling my Nation and the Maliseet Nation whose territory is whose. These barriers are all externally imposed and designed to divide our Nation.
Within Mi’kmaki, my home community (or band) is EEL RIVER BAR FIRST NATION located in northern NB. Yet this is not even the location of our true community. It is the location to which my original community was relocated, as the lands on which they had originally occupied for their more permanent settlements were considered too valuable to be occupied by Indians. However, my family has now lived at Eel River Bar for many generations and therefore we have strong connections to that specific part of our territory as well.
Yet, despite my own identity as a Mi'kmaq woman and the essential role that my connections to the land play in that identity, INAC (Indian and Northern Affairs Canada) has determined that I am a NON-BAND MEMBER and therefore not entitled to live in my home community or have a say in its governance or future. Unfortunately for many Indigenous peoples, our own communities have now taken over Canada's role and exclude our own people on the same basis.
I have learned how to survive in this war against my identity and live my Mi'kmaq identity despite the fact that I am a non-band member. I proudly assert that I am an ON-TERRITORY MI’KMAQ citizen. After all, I have always lived on my traditional Mi’kmaq territory and have acted always in protection of it.
This is an important part of my identity and is really inseparable from it. Even now that I live in Toronto, I still have a strong connection to Mi’kmaki and maintain those connections. This is not easy to do when I am legally excluded from my community, but is necessary to ensure that identity for my children.
As I explained earlier, there is consistent conflict between my personal identity and my lived experience of identity. I may feel like I am an on-traditional territory Mi'kmaq, but am still dismissed as an OFF-RESERVE INDIAN or URBAN ABORIGINAL. Non-Indigenous writers like Tom Flanagan, Alan Cairns and others try to persuade Canadians that because I don’t live on reserve, that this somehow makes me less of a Mi’kmaq person. To them, the movement of Indigenous peoples off-reserve is as inevitable as their corresponding loss of identity which is prophecized.
Yet, there were never any reserves for the many thousands of years that we have existed as Mi’kmaq peoples. Reserves are an artificial creation and imposition of the government which were meant to control us and dispossess us of our traditional territories. The goal was to open up our lands for settlement. Why would I ever define myself in a way which legitimizes Canada’s theft of our lands? What kind of message would that be to my children?
All of that lived experience of Indigenous identity which has been imposed from those outside my Nation ignores the fact that my identity also comes from the many great Mi’kmaq people who have made up our Nation, like my GREAT GRANDFATHER LOUIS JEROME. He is said to be one of the last traditional Chiefs of my home community and dedicated his life to travelling throughout Mi’kmaki to maintain relations amongst the seven districts.
His daughter, my GRANDMOTHER MARGARET JEROME was a well-known healer of our community and had extensive knowledge of the traditional uses of plants and herbs in healing our people. She was so good at what she did that even non-Indigenous doctors asked for assistance in times of disease. Her son, my father, FRANK PALMATER quit school in grade three to care for his large family and then fought in the WWII to protect our territories. To him, the treaties we made with Britain were worth fighting to protect.
Yet external determinations of my identity by the Canadian state ignore those connections. To INAC, because my grandmother married a non-Indian, she was no longer considered an Indian and therefore, not entitled to be a band member – nor were her children or grandchildren. Canadian laws turned my grandmother from a Mi’kmaq to an Indian to a non-status Indian and then back to Indian again in 1985.
They are now referred to as BILL C-31’ers - those who got their Indian status restored in 1985 when the United Nations found Canadian laws discriminatory. My relations are considered lesser Indians than other Indians and often discriminated against because of their Bill C-31 status. As a result, this has meant no membership in our home community, no residency rights, or ability to participate in our government.
All of these external laws create divisions, inequities and injustices that focus our attention on our externally imposed identities. Canada has successfully diverted our attention from our real identities. We are so busy trying to combat discrimination in Canadian laws that some of us have forgotten that that we must put as much energy, if not more, into protecting our Mi’kmaq identities.
Growing up, I did not link my Mi’kmaq identity to my registration status under the Act. My family thankfully protected me from that hurt for as long as they could. I often identified myself as a TREATY INDIAN because the Mi’kmaq signed numerous peace and friendship treaties with the Crown. My family made sure I knew those treaties very well.
These treaties, like those signed in 1725, 1726, 1752, etc, protect many of our Indigenous rights to hunt and fish for example, but are not the source of those rights. I therefore grew up knowing that our hunting, fishing, and gathering activities in which my large extended family participated were an essential part of who we were as Mi'kmaq peoples.
Yet, the assertion of myself as a Treaty Indian is often met by a swift denial from federal and provincial governments. It is their position that I am nothing more than a NON-STATUS INDIAN. Since they only recognize status Indians as having treaty rights, governments tell me I don’t have a right to call myself Treaty Indian.
Why do they call me a non-status Indian? Because there is a preference in the Indian Act for those who descend from the male line versus a female line. Had my grandmother been a grandfather, I would be registered under the Indian Act as an Indian (i.e. have status) as would my children. The changes that were made in 1985 in Bill C-31 did not fully remedy this legislated form of gender discrimination.
Again Canada has directed our attention away from my status as a treaty descendant to one of non-status as an Indian. For every identity I assert in this battle, Canada has created another one to counter it.
So, some say, well that’s OK Pam, soon under Bill C-3 you will be a STATUS INDIAN.
In fact, I will be a section 6(2) status Indian, which is the lesser form of status.
That status cannot be transmitted to my children. Even if my home community of Eel River Bar First Nation "allows" me to become a band member, my children will be excluded. Why? It's not because Canada will exclude them from band membership under the Indian Act - Eel River Bar now controls its own membership and does the excluding for Canada.
Layered on top of that lesser type of status will be the fact that it results from Bill C-3, I will be known as a BILL C-3’er, which is just as bad, if not worse, as being known as a Bill C-31’er. I will be considered a “new” Indian which discounts my lifelong identity and contributions as a Mi’kmaq woman and citizen.
Furthermore, Indigenous women and their children impacted by Bill C-3 will NOT get to make claims for lost treaty, land claim, or other benefits despite the court finding of gender discrimination. Some of us have experienced the same kinds of loss of language, culture, and identity as those is residential schools, but because those affected are primarily Indigenous women and their children, they are treated as less worthy of being compensated for severe breaches of their Charter equality rights.
So, again some might argue that government control over our identities only impacts my Indigeneity and there are many other aspects of my identity on which I could focus. After all, I am the MOTHER of two of the most amazing Mi’kmaq men - Yet even that identity is challenged by the state.
Remember the 60’s scoop? Just as residential schools were being shut down all over the country, during the 1960-80’s, child welfare agencies were empowered to literally scoop up thousands of Indigenous children from their homes and place them in foster homes or permanently adopted them out without the knowledge or consent of the parents. Over 11,000 status Indian children were scooped and that number obviously does not account for all those children never registered as status Indians.
These children denied their identities, languages, cultures, families, communities & Nations. Many Canadians misunderstand that period in our history to be over, which is the reason why it is labeled as the 60's scoop - something that happened in the past. Yet Indigenous children NOW make up 60% of all children in care despite the fact that they are less than 4% of the population. We have HIGHER levels of our children in care now than in the 1960s!!!
Canada and the provinces have continued with their policies of assimilation by TAKING OUR CHILDREN from us. Bill C-3 might not be directly physically removing our children, but will legally, socially, and politically remove them from us. Under Bill C-3, MY CHILDREN will be denied their status and thus their band membership, Mi’kmaq citizenship; and treaty rights. On some First Nations, no band membership means you can’t live on reserve and will be evicted. In that way, my children and many others could be prevented from physically being with their family.
It is like Canada is taking away my right to parent my children and raise them as Mi’kmaq. This is not because they are any less Mi’kmaq than any status Indian person, but is solely because Canada has never shifted its position of assimilation.
Canada is saying that they are not Mi’kmaq, but instead Canadian citizens who must adopt a different culture, identity, world view and even potentially a different place to live.
Canada is ensuring that those children who are not stolen from us by Child Welfare agencies will still be removed from us by the Indian Act. This kind of law and policy which targets our children is one of the greatest threats to our future.
Some of the more superficial persuasion might tell me to ignore all that and focus on my career and professional identity as a lawyer, but even my professional identities are challenged and belittled by state actors and society simply because of my Indigeneity.
As an Indigenous person, my being a lawyer means that I am automatically part of Flanagan’s ABORIGINAL ELITE who are assumed to have never suffered the poverty and discrimination of “real” Indians but take advantage of all their benefits and affirmative action programs.
Similarly, as a lifelong VOLUNTEER AND ACTIVIST, I have dedicated a great deal of my life to advancing our cause and helping to build capacity within our communities. However, in the Flanagan, Widdowson, Gibson, Tax Payer’s Federation and National Post world, I am part of the ABORIGINAL INDUSTRY that is allegedly “sucking First Nations dry”.
With all of these battles, I can see how so many Indigenous peoples become confused about their identities, their relations with their communities and Nations, and with Canada generally. It feels like I have been engaged in this SILENT WAR MY ENTIRE LIFE which began so early that I can’t remember a time when I wasn’t in it.
Something as essential to our individual and collective well-being as identity should not be part of the spoils of war. Liberal democracies pride themselves on fostering conditions that allow individuals to live the good life – the life we choose for ourselves. Why then can’t Indigenous peoples choose their own lives?
Indigenous peoples have suffered enough with the loss of lands, natural resources, and water ways. They have survived wars against them, relocations, residential schools, the 60’s scoop, overrepresentation in jails, wrongful deaths, murdered and missing Indigenous women, and a whole host of assimilatory laws and policies. Attacking their identities hits us at our core.
What is the solution? There are far too many complexities to get into in this blog, which is already too long, but certainly our Indigenous identities must be clearly and completely within our own hands – no more legislative control over who we are. We will likely still have internal struggles to de-colonize ourselves and rid of the divisions within our Nations, but they will be our struggles and we can work it out.
In the meantime, legislation like the Indian Act simply cannot endorse gender or other forms of discrimination. Any initial cost that there might be to Canada will be far outweighed by the costs saved down the road. Poor health, violence, and suicide that results from people without an identity – people without hope or purpose - cost Canadians far more than healthy, secure communities.
I aspire to be a contributing citizen of a strong, vibrant, inclusive Mi’kmaq Nation, which is self-determining and encourages participatory governance over our land and resources, international and inter-tribal relations, and economies that are based on our traditional values and principles that have evolved to address modern situations. That’s my aspiration for myself and my children so that my grandchildren and great grandchildren will never have to serve in this war against our identities and can instead focus on re-building the spirits and relations of our Nations.
Canada's cutting off the water supply at Constance Lake First Nation so that the community has barely enough to drink but not bathe, despite Canada's "endorsement" of UNDRIP, is but one example of how many of us are forced to manage our extreme poverty and do not have computers, Ipads or TVs. Thus, many do not have the ability to access the kinds of information found on the Internet which many of us get to take for granted - like blogs.
So, here are some excerpts from my discussion about Indigenous identity:
I wear my Indigenous identity proudly, but have to carry on my back the other identities imposed by government through law and policy. I am forced therefore, to explain my Indigeneity as being comprised of two separate but conflicting sides which are constantly at "war".
The first is my identity as experienced by me internally – within my own heart as an individual and communally with my family, extended family, community and Nation. The second is my "lived experience of Indigenous identity" - i.e. my identity as experienced externally - through relations with both Canadian society and the state.
My own identity has shaped by the histories, stories, lessons, and practices passed on to me by my large extended family. This has shaped my worldview, values, and aspirations – it is essentially what some might refer to as my cultural identity. My experience of identity on the other hand, has been shaped entirely by others – by school mates, teachers, employers, friends, neighbors, historians, judges, politicians and governments.
While my own Indigenous identity is strong and has survived the test of time, it is scarred and bruised by my lived experience of identity and the ongoing attack on my identity through government law and policy designed to assimilate Indigenous peoples into the body politic.
So who am I? I am a Mi'kmaq woman. That is my identity, recognizing however that Indigenous identity is a relationship – a two-way street between myself and my nation. What I mean by this is that my nation cannot exist unless its citizens, like me, both recognize it AND support it. Similarly, I can assert my Mi'kmaq identity but it requires my nation to both recognize AND support me as a citizen.
This mutually dependent relationship has been the way of the Mi’kmaq Nation and its citizens since time immemorial. Yet, this relationship is also where Canada has chosen to erect barriers in order to divide, conquer, and destabilize us, with the ultimate goal of reducing our numbers until we are assimilated.
My identity as a MI’KMAQ WOMAN has been in constant conflict with these barriers. My identity as a Mi'kmaq woman means that I am a Teacher who is responsible to pass on our history, language, culture, and laws. I am a Warrior who is responsible to protect our nations, territories, trees, animals, and citizens. I am a Caregiver who is responsible to care for my children, mothers, grandmothers, and aunties. I am also responsible to be a Leader in my own life - to stand up for what is just regardless of the consequences. I am responsible to be a Living Example - to live our values for our young ones to see so that they know how to live in balance. We are not to live in wealth that destroys the earth nor in poverty that destroys our spirit.
Some have discounted our Indigenous values and traditions as being ancient and irrelevant in modern times. In my opinion, these traditional values are more important today than ever before. I believe they are what will inspire our people to action, stand up against the current injustices and reclaim our spirit and identities.
However, despite my own identity as Mi'kmaq, I have been labeled as “ABORIGINAL" by others. This is a legal and social construct of the Canadian state which lumps my Mi’kmaq identity in with the generic terms of Indians, Inuit and Metis as if we were all just one race of people with the same cultures and world views.
Taiaike Alfred, in his book Wasase, explains that "aboriginalism" amounts to little more than "racialized violence and economic oppression meant to bring about a silent surrender" of who we are as Indigenous peoples. I have resisted surrender – but the battle seems to be never-ending and I fear that most Canadians are not even aware of what is at stake for us. They see our identity only in terms of unfair entitlements and special treatment.
Yet, my identity is primarily about my responsibilities and relations with my Nation and my connections with our traditional territory of MI’KMAKI. Mi’kmaki represents the seven distinct districts of Mi’kmaq territory including NB, NS, PEI, NFLD, parts of Quebec and Maine. With the exception of the last two years, I have spent my entire life living within my traditional territory and those lands are an essential part of my identity. My heart aches if I am far from home for too long as I know that my responsibilities to my territory does not diminish when I live elsewhere.
However, the Crown has put limits on my ability to fully enjoy my Mi’kmaq identity through the imposition of provincial boundaries and policies that restrict my rights on a provincial basis. I am considered a NB MI’KMAQ and therefore not entitled to hunt or fish in NS; enjoy my treaty rights in PEI; or have a say in what happens in Mi’kmaq territory in NFLD. Even within NB, the provincial government has drawn an arbitrary line called the Ganong Line telling my Nation and the Maliseet Nation whose territory is whose. These barriers are all externally imposed and designed to divide our Nation.
Within Mi’kmaki, my home community (or band) is EEL RIVER BAR FIRST NATION located in northern NB. Yet this is not even the location of our true community. It is the location to which my original community was relocated, as the lands on which they had originally occupied for their more permanent settlements were considered too valuable to be occupied by Indians. However, my family has now lived at Eel River Bar for many generations and therefore we have strong connections to that specific part of our territory as well.
Yet, despite my own identity as a Mi'kmaq woman and the essential role that my connections to the land play in that identity, INAC (Indian and Northern Affairs Canada) has determined that I am a NON-BAND MEMBER and therefore not entitled to live in my home community or have a say in its governance or future. Unfortunately for many Indigenous peoples, our own communities have now taken over Canada's role and exclude our own people on the same basis.
I have learned how to survive in this war against my identity and live my Mi'kmaq identity despite the fact that I am a non-band member. I proudly assert that I am an ON-TERRITORY MI’KMAQ citizen. After all, I have always lived on my traditional Mi’kmaq territory and have acted always in protection of it.
This is an important part of my identity and is really inseparable from it. Even now that I live in Toronto, I still have a strong connection to Mi’kmaki and maintain those connections. This is not easy to do when I am legally excluded from my community, but is necessary to ensure that identity for my children.
As I explained earlier, there is consistent conflict between my personal identity and my lived experience of identity. I may feel like I am an on-traditional territory Mi'kmaq, but am still dismissed as an OFF-RESERVE INDIAN or URBAN ABORIGINAL. Non-Indigenous writers like Tom Flanagan, Alan Cairns and others try to persuade Canadians that because I don’t live on reserve, that this somehow makes me less of a Mi’kmaq person. To them, the movement of Indigenous peoples off-reserve is as inevitable as their corresponding loss of identity which is prophecized.
Yet, there were never any reserves for the many thousands of years that we have existed as Mi’kmaq peoples. Reserves are an artificial creation and imposition of the government which were meant to control us and dispossess us of our traditional territories. The goal was to open up our lands for settlement. Why would I ever define myself in a way which legitimizes Canada’s theft of our lands? What kind of message would that be to my children?
All of that lived experience of Indigenous identity which has been imposed from those outside my Nation ignores the fact that my identity also comes from the many great Mi’kmaq people who have made up our Nation, like my GREAT GRANDFATHER LOUIS JEROME. He is said to be one of the last traditional Chiefs of my home community and dedicated his life to travelling throughout Mi’kmaki to maintain relations amongst the seven districts.
His daughter, my GRANDMOTHER MARGARET JEROME was a well-known healer of our community and had extensive knowledge of the traditional uses of plants and herbs in healing our people. She was so good at what she did that even non-Indigenous doctors asked for assistance in times of disease. Her son, my father, FRANK PALMATER quit school in grade three to care for his large family and then fought in the WWII to protect our territories. To him, the treaties we made with Britain were worth fighting to protect.
Yet external determinations of my identity by the Canadian state ignore those connections. To INAC, because my grandmother married a non-Indian, she was no longer considered an Indian and therefore, not entitled to be a band member – nor were her children or grandchildren. Canadian laws turned my grandmother from a Mi’kmaq to an Indian to a non-status Indian and then back to Indian again in 1985.
They are now referred to as BILL C-31’ers - those who got their Indian status restored in 1985 when the United Nations found Canadian laws discriminatory. My relations are considered lesser Indians than other Indians and often discriminated against because of their Bill C-31 status. As a result, this has meant no membership in our home community, no residency rights, or ability to participate in our government.
All of these external laws create divisions, inequities and injustices that focus our attention on our externally imposed identities. Canada has successfully diverted our attention from our real identities. We are so busy trying to combat discrimination in Canadian laws that some of us have forgotten that that we must put as much energy, if not more, into protecting our Mi’kmaq identities.
Growing up, I did not link my Mi’kmaq identity to my registration status under the Act. My family thankfully protected me from that hurt for as long as they could. I often identified myself as a TREATY INDIAN because the Mi’kmaq signed numerous peace and friendship treaties with the Crown. My family made sure I knew those treaties very well.
These treaties, like those signed in 1725, 1726, 1752, etc, protect many of our Indigenous rights to hunt and fish for example, but are not the source of those rights. I therefore grew up knowing that our hunting, fishing, and gathering activities in which my large extended family participated were an essential part of who we were as Mi'kmaq peoples.
Yet, the assertion of myself as a Treaty Indian is often met by a swift denial from federal and provincial governments. It is their position that I am nothing more than a NON-STATUS INDIAN. Since they only recognize status Indians as having treaty rights, governments tell me I don’t have a right to call myself Treaty Indian.
Why do they call me a non-status Indian? Because there is a preference in the Indian Act for those who descend from the male line versus a female line. Had my grandmother been a grandfather, I would be registered under the Indian Act as an Indian (i.e. have status) as would my children. The changes that were made in 1985 in Bill C-31 did not fully remedy this legislated form of gender discrimination.
Again Canada has directed our attention away from my status as a treaty descendant to one of non-status as an Indian. For every identity I assert in this battle, Canada has created another one to counter it.
So, some say, well that’s OK Pam, soon under Bill C-3 you will be a STATUS INDIAN.
In fact, I will be a section 6(2) status Indian, which is the lesser form of status.
That status cannot be transmitted to my children. Even if my home community of Eel River Bar First Nation "allows" me to become a band member, my children will be excluded. Why? It's not because Canada will exclude them from band membership under the Indian Act - Eel River Bar now controls its own membership and does the excluding for Canada.
Layered on top of that lesser type of status will be the fact that it results from Bill C-3, I will be known as a BILL C-3’er, which is just as bad, if not worse, as being known as a Bill C-31’er. I will be considered a “new” Indian which discounts my lifelong identity and contributions as a Mi’kmaq woman and citizen.
Furthermore, Indigenous women and their children impacted by Bill C-3 will NOT get to make claims for lost treaty, land claim, or other benefits despite the court finding of gender discrimination. Some of us have experienced the same kinds of loss of language, culture, and identity as those is residential schools, but because those affected are primarily Indigenous women and their children, they are treated as less worthy of being compensated for severe breaches of their Charter equality rights.
So, again some might argue that government control over our identities only impacts my Indigeneity and there are many other aspects of my identity on which I could focus. After all, I am the MOTHER of two of the most amazing Mi’kmaq men - Yet even that identity is challenged by the state.
Remember the 60’s scoop? Just as residential schools were being shut down all over the country, during the 1960-80’s, child welfare agencies were empowered to literally scoop up thousands of Indigenous children from their homes and place them in foster homes or permanently adopted them out without the knowledge or consent of the parents. Over 11,000 status Indian children were scooped and that number obviously does not account for all those children never registered as status Indians.
These children denied their identities, languages, cultures, families, communities & Nations. Many Canadians misunderstand that period in our history to be over, which is the reason why it is labeled as the 60's scoop - something that happened in the past. Yet Indigenous children NOW make up 60% of all children in care despite the fact that they are less than 4% of the population. We have HIGHER levels of our children in care now than in the 1960s!!!
Canada and the provinces have continued with their policies of assimilation by TAKING OUR CHILDREN from us. Bill C-3 might not be directly physically removing our children, but will legally, socially, and politically remove them from us. Under Bill C-3, MY CHILDREN will be denied their status and thus their band membership, Mi’kmaq citizenship; and treaty rights. On some First Nations, no band membership means you can’t live on reserve and will be evicted. In that way, my children and many others could be prevented from physically being with their family.
It is like Canada is taking away my right to parent my children and raise them as Mi’kmaq. This is not because they are any less Mi’kmaq than any status Indian person, but is solely because Canada has never shifted its position of assimilation.
Canada is saying that they are not Mi’kmaq, but instead Canadian citizens who must adopt a different culture, identity, world view and even potentially a different place to live.
Canada is ensuring that those children who are not stolen from us by Child Welfare agencies will still be removed from us by the Indian Act. This kind of law and policy which targets our children is one of the greatest threats to our future.
Some of the more superficial persuasion might tell me to ignore all that and focus on my career and professional identity as a lawyer, but even my professional identities are challenged and belittled by state actors and society simply because of my Indigeneity.
As an Indigenous person, my being a lawyer means that I am automatically part of Flanagan’s ABORIGINAL ELITE who are assumed to have never suffered the poverty and discrimination of “real” Indians but take advantage of all their benefits and affirmative action programs.
Similarly, as a lifelong VOLUNTEER AND ACTIVIST, I have dedicated a great deal of my life to advancing our cause and helping to build capacity within our communities. However, in the Flanagan, Widdowson, Gibson, Tax Payer’s Federation and National Post world, I am part of the ABORIGINAL INDUSTRY that is allegedly “sucking First Nations dry”.
With all of these battles, I can see how so many Indigenous peoples become confused about their identities, their relations with their communities and Nations, and with Canada generally. It feels like I have been engaged in this SILENT WAR MY ENTIRE LIFE which began so early that I can’t remember a time when I wasn’t in it.
Something as essential to our individual and collective well-being as identity should not be part of the spoils of war. Liberal democracies pride themselves on fostering conditions that allow individuals to live the good life – the life we choose for ourselves. Why then can’t Indigenous peoples choose their own lives?
Indigenous peoples have suffered enough with the loss of lands, natural resources, and water ways. They have survived wars against them, relocations, residential schools, the 60’s scoop, overrepresentation in jails, wrongful deaths, murdered and missing Indigenous women, and a whole host of assimilatory laws and policies. Attacking their identities hits us at our core.
What is the solution? There are far too many complexities to get into in this blog, which is already too long, but certainly our Indigenous identities must be clearly and completely within our own hands – no more legislative control over who we are. We will likely still have internal struggles to de-colonize ourselves and rid of the divisions within our Nations, but they will be our struggles and we can work it out.
In the meantime, legislation like the Indian Act simply cannot endorse gender or other forms of discrimination. Any initial cost that there might be to Canada will be far outweighed by the costs saved down the road. Poor health, violence, and suicide that results from people without an identity – people without hope or purpose - cost Canadians far more than healthy, secure communities.
I aspire to be a contributing citizen of a strong, vibrant, inclusive Mi’kmaq Nation, which is self-determining and encourages participatory governance over our land and resources, international and inter-tribal relations, and economies that are based on our traditional values and principles that have evolved to address modern situations. That’s my aspiration for myself and my children so that my grandchildren and great grandchildren will never have to serve in this war against our identities and can instead focus on re-building the spirits and relations of our Nations.
Saturday, November 13, 2010
The Illusion of Justice in Canada - The Conservatives Conditional Support of UNDRIP
I was having a hard time deciding between several important issues that I wanted to write about in my blog this week. I was really struggling between the injustices against our Indigenous peoples noted in Howard Saper's Corrections report, the fact that Sharon McIvor is forced to take the plight of Indigenous women to the United Nations or Canada's hollow endorsement of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). All of these issues are important and deserve far more critical attention than they are getting.
That is when I realized that these issues are part of a shameful pattern on the part of the Conservatives. The Conservatives have created an illusion that they are addressing justice issues faced by Indigenous peoples here in Canada by promoting their pretend platform on human rights and equality. Some readers might think this is an overly critical assessment of what seems to be a very progressive agenda - but I would ask those readers to look beyond the media hype and dig deeper to what is ACTUALLY being promised and what is not.
I have to start with UNDRIP because Canada's alleged "endorsement" of it is the biggest illusion of all. As we all know, Canada was one of 4 states that refused to sign UNDRIP along with the USA, Australia and New Zealand. These are some of the countries with the largest Indigenous populations who suffered greatly under the colonial laws, rules, and policies implemented by these States. Their collective refusal to endorse UNDRIP sent a strong message to Indigenous peoples that their colonial rule would continue for some time to come.
Australia subsequently changed its mind and decided afterwards to issue a conditional Statement of Support for UNDRIP and New Zealand soon followed suit. That left Canada and the United States on the hot seat, so to speak, and their failure to endorse UNDRIP a major political impediment to Indigenous-Crown relations. Therefore, the Conservative government made a commitment in its speech from the throne in the spring of 2010 to endorse UNDRIP:
"A growing number of states have given QUALIFIED RECOGNITION to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Our Government will take steps to endorse this aspirational document in a manner fully consistent with Canada’s Constitution and laws."(emphasis added)
It is now November 2010 and we are only just getting the alleged "endorsement" now. I say "alleged" because words mean everything in the world of politics. We know from our collective experiences with treaty making and implementation, that the Crown does not always act honourably in its dealings with Indigenous peoples. In a letter from T. Bannister to the Council of Trade and Plantations, one European colonist wrote about the shameful ways in which treaties were being "negotiated" with Indigenous peoples:
"Their quarrels and wars were not for ambition, empire or bloodthirstiness but to defend their property and bounds...
Their injuries have been very great, as divesting them of their land by force or fraud, first making them drunk and then to sign what they knew not what...
Ad to this our inhumanity to them ... We vilify them with all manner of names, and opprious language, cheat abuse and beat them, sometimes to the loss of limbs, pelt them with stones and set dogs upon them ... too often an Article of Peace has run in one sense in English and quite contrary in Indian, by the Governor’s express order...".
I would like to think that Canada has moved past some of its double-dealings of the past, but this limited endorsement of UNDRIP by the Conservatives proves otherwise. From one side of their face they promise to make changes to address our issues and from the other side, they rally public support against us and find creative political spin to keep from acting on their promises. Canada did not truly, in letter and spirit, endorse UNDRIP - they issued a "Statement of Support" that does not change Indigenous rights (or lack thereof) in Canada. This is not my own personal opinion that I am espousing; I am taking this straight from the horse's mouth. What follows is a summary of Canada's "Statement of Support":
(1)"The Declaration is as ASPIRATIONAL document..." (the definition of "aspirational" is a "cherished desire"; something for which one "wishes")
(2)"the Declaration is a NON-LEGALLY BINDING document that does not reflect customary international law NOR CHANGE Canadian laws" (emphasis added)
(3)"Canada placed on record its concerns with various provisions of the Declaration, including provisions dealing with lands, territories and resources; free, prior and informed consent when used as a veto; self-government without recognition of the importance of negotiations; intellectual property; military issues; and the need to achieve an appropriate balance between the rights and obligations of Indigenous peoples, States and third parties. THESE CONCERNS ARE WELL KNOWN AND REMAIN." (emphasis added)
(4) "We are now confident that CANADA CAN INTERPRET THE PRINCIPLES expressed in the Declaration in a manner that is consistent with our Constitution and legal framework." (emphasis added)
Those are the highlights of what Canada ACTUALLY signed. These are the limits under which it "supports" UNDRIP - i.e., so long as it has NO legal affect in Canada. For those who might think that I am somehow misinterpreting what Canada means by their conditional support, INAC's own press release again clarified that:
(1) "the Declaration is not legally binding" and
(2) they are only endorsing it as "an aspirational document" and NOT as a legally binding document.
For those who have any further questions about what this all means, INAC also provides a section entitled "Frequently Asked Questions". In answer to the question of whether a State which originally voted against UNDRIP can change its mind, INAC very clearly says "There is no official way for a State to change its position on a declaration". All it can subsequently do is issue a Statement of Support. Canada knew this when it originally voted against UNDRIP. In answer to the question of what UNDRIP means: "The UNDRIP is a non-legally binding aspirational document". I am not sure how much clearer they could have made their position.
So, at the end of the day, all Canada has done is publicly support the cherished wish list of Indigenous peoples but that wish list will not have any legal application or effect in Canada. Regardless of this striking fact, one might argue that Canada could still make significant and substantive changes to its relationship with Indigenous peoples and take transformational action to address serious social, economic, political, cultural and legal issues impacting on the well-being of Indigenous peoples, the majority of which it caused through its colonial laws and policies.
Sure....Canada "could" do that - the question is will it? Well, let's see what Minister of INAC John Duncan had to say:
http://aptn.ca/pages/news/2010/11/12/canada-finally-backs-un-indigenous-declaration/
You will note in the above interview with APTN, that Minister Duncan re-affirms that UNDRIP is an "aspirational" document only that has NO legal application in Canada. Furthermore, on whether Canada's endorsement of UNDRIP will bring about significant changes for Indigenous peoples in Canada, Minister Duncan responds that Canada has its "own agenda" and as a result does not "anticipate any significant change".
So, once again I am still asking myself what the heck is everyone so excited about? Why on earth would the Assembly of First Nations celebrate this announcement? Why would First Nations leaders appear in the media and praise Canada for making such a significant commitment to the rights of Indigenous peoples? Did anyone take the time to actually read what the Statement said or what INAC said its alleged "endorsement" means?
Here is a brief overview of the state of Indigenous peoples in Canada right now:
(1) Indigenous peoples have the lowest socio-economic conditions of all groups in Canada - meaning the lowest education and employment rates coupled with the highest disease, poverty and violence rates;
(2) Funding for essential social services like post-secondary education, drinking water infrastructure, and child welfare are all so grossly underfunded and unequal when compared to non-Indigenous funding, that even Canada's Auditor General has criticized Canada for its lack of action in addressing it;
(3) Indigenous women in Canada do not enjoy even BASIC equality rights that are enjoyed by non-Indigenous women and now Sharon McIvor is being forced, after 25 years of litigation and struggle, to seek redress at the United Nations for Canada's lack of action;
(4) Hundreds of land claims remain unresolved despite Canada's promise years ago to bring about "revolutionary" change to the ways in which claims were handled; and
(5) Our people are homeless on their own traditional territories, our women are murdered and missing at alarming rates, our children are taken from our families and communities at rates as high or higher than during the 60's scoop, our men and women are incarcerated at a higher rate that non-Indigenous people, and racism is still prevalent within our justice system and leads to deaths while in custody, starlight tours, and utter neglect.
If Minister Duncan is right and Canada will not make any significant changes to how it deals with Indigenous issues and will simply continue to advance its own agenda, then what good does their conditional support of UNDRIP do for us? Why would our political leaders be so quick to praise Canada for agreeing to do literally nothing on our behalf?
At this rate, our reserves will be turned into private property and sold to big business by the Flanagan-Jules plan; those remaining reserves will all be occupied by non-Indians through Bill S-4 MRP laws; and if anyone remains after that, they will all be legislated out of extinction by Bill C-3's discriminatory status provisions.
The Conservative's conditional support of UNDRIP creates an illusion of justice in Canada - it is our choice whether we stand beside them and accept it. If our leaders won't stand up for us then it is time that the people told their leaders to step aside and let our people stand up for themselves.
That is when I realized that these issues are part of a shameful pattern on the part of the Conservatives. The Conservatives have created an illusion that they are addressing justice issues faced by Indigenous peoples here in Canada by promoting their pretend platform on human rights and equality. Some readers might think this is an overly critical assessment of what seems to be a very progressive agenda - but I would ask those readers to look beyond the media hype and dig deeper to what is ACTUALLY being promised and what is not.
I have to start with UNDRIP because Canada's alleged "endorsement" of it is the biggest illusion of all. As we all know, Canada was one of 4 states that refused to sign UNDRIP along with the USA, Australia and New Zealand. These are some of the countries with the largest Indigenous populations who suffered greatly under the colonial laws, rules, and policies implemented by these States. Their collective refusal to endorse UNDRIP sent a strong message to Indigenous peoples that their colonial rule would continue for some time to come.
Australia subsequently changed its mind and decided afterwards to issue a conditional Statement of Support for UNDRIP and New Zealand soon followed suit. That left Canada and the United States on the hot seat, so to speak, and their failure to endorse UNDRIP a major political impediment to Indigenous-Crown relations. Therefore, the Conservative government made a commitment in its speech from the throne in the spring of 2010 to endorse UNDRIP:
"A growing number of states have given QUALIFIED RECOGNITION to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Our Government will take steps to endorse this aspirational document in a manner fully consistent with Canada’s Constitution and laws."(emphasis added)
It is now November 2010 and we are only just getting the alleged "endorsement" now. I say "alleged" because words mean everything in the world of politics. We know from our collective experiences with treaty making and implementation, that the Crown does not always act honourably in its dealings with Indigenous peoples. In a letter from T. Bannister to the Council of Trade and Plantations, one European colonist wrote about the shameful ways in which treaties were being "negotiated" with Indigenous peoples:
"Their quarrels and wars were not for ambition, empire or bloodthirstiness but to defend their property and bounds...
Their injuries have been very great, as divesting them of their land by force or fraud, first making them drunk and then to sign what they knew not what...
Ad to this our inhumanity to them ... We vilify them with all manner of names, and opprious language, cheat abuse and beat them, sometimes to the loss of limbs, pelt them with stones and set dogs upon them ... too often an Article of Peace has run in one sense in English and quite contrary in Indian, by the Governor’s express order...".
I would like to think that Canada has moved past some of its double-dealings of the past, but this limited endorsement of UNDRIP by the Conservatives proves otherwise. From one side of their face they promise to make changes to address our issues and from the other side, they rally public support against us and find creative political spin to keep from acting on their promises. Canada did not truly, in letter and spirit, endorse UNDRIP - they issued a "Statement of Support" that does not change Indigenous rights (or lack thereof) in Canada. This is not my own personal opinion that I am espousing; I am taking this straight from the horse's mouth. What follows is a summary of Canada's "Statement of Support":
(1)"The Declaration is as ASPIRATIONAL document..." (the definition of "aspirational" is a "cherished desire"; something for which one "wishes")
(2)"the Declaration is a NON-LEGALLY BINDING document that does not reflect customary international law NOR CHANGE Canadian laws" (emphasis added)
(3)"Canada placed on record its concerns with various provisions of the Declaration, including provisions dealing with lands, territories and resources; free, prior and informed consent when used as a veto; self-government without recognition of the importance of negotiations; intellectual property; military issues; and the need to achieve an appropriate balance between the rights and obligations of Indigenous peoples, States and third parties. THESE CONCERNS ARE WELL KNOWN AND REMAIN." (emphasis added)
(4) "We are now confident that CANADA CAN INTERPRET THE PRINCIPLES expressed in the Declaration in a manner that is consistent with our Constitution and legal framework." (emphasis added)
Those are the highlights of what Canada ACTUALLY signed. These are the limits under which it "supports" UNDRIP - i.e., so long as it has NO legal affect in Canada. For those who might think that I am somehow misinterpreting what Canada means by their conditional support, INAC's own press release again clarified that:
(1) "the Declaration is not legally binding" and
(2) they are only endorsing it as "an aspirational document" and NOT as a legally binding document.
For those who have any further questions about what this all means, INAC also provides a section entitled "Frequently Asked Questions". In answer to the question of whether a State which originally voted against UNDRIP can change its mind, INAC very clearly says "There is no official way for a State to change its position on a declaration". All it can subsequently do is issue a Statement of Support. Canada knew this when it originally voted against UNDRIP. In answer to the question of what UNDRIP means: "The UNDRIP is a non-legally binding aspirational document". I am not sure how much clearer they could have made their position.
So, at the end of the day, all Canada has done is publicly support the cherished wish list of Indigenous peoples but that wish list will not have any legal application or effect in Canada. Regardless of this striking fact, one might argue that Canada could still make significant and substantive changes to its relationship with Indigenous peoples and take transformational action to address serious social, economic, political, cultural and legal issues impacting on the well-being of Indigenous peoples, the majority of which it caused through its colonial laws and policies.
Sure....Canada "could" do that - the question is will it? Well, let's see what Minister of INAC John Duncan had to say:
http://aptn.ca/pages/news/2010/11/12/canada-finally-backs-un-indigenous-declaration/
You will note in the above interview with APTN, that Minister Duncan re-affirms that UNDRIP is an "aspirational" document only that has NO legal application in Canada. Furthermore, on whether Canada's endorsement of UNDRIP will bring about significant changes for Indigenous peoples in Canada, Minister Duncan responds that Canada has its "own agenda" and as a result does not "anticipate any significant change".
So, once again I am still asking myself what the heck is everyone so excited about? Why on earth would the Assembly of First Nations celebrate this announcement? Why would First Nations leaders appear in the media and praise Canada for making such a significant commitment to the rights of Indigenous peoples? Did anyone take the time to actually read what the Statement said or what INAC said its alleged "endorsement" means?
Here is a brief overview of the state of Indigenous peoples in Canada right now:
(1) Indigenous peoples have the lowest socio-economic conditions of all groups in Canada - meaning the lowest education and employment rates coupled with the highest disease, poverty and violence rates;
(2) Funding for essential social services like post-secondary education, drinking water infrastructure, and child welfare are all so grossly underfunded and unequal when compared to non-Indigenous funding, that even Canada's Auditor General has criticized Canada for its lack of action in addressing it;
(3) Indigenous women in Canada do not enjoy even BASIC equality rights that are enjoyed by non-Indigenous women and now Sharon McIvor is being forced, after 25 years of litigation and struggle, to seek redress at the United Nations for Canada's lack of action;
(4) Hundreds of land claims remain unresolved despite Canada's promise years ago to bring about "revolutionary" change to the ways in which claims were handled; and
(5) Our people are homeless on their own traditional territories, our women are murdered and missing at alarming rates, our children are taken from our families and communities at rates as high or higher than during the 60's scoop, our men and women are incarcerated at a higher rate that non-Indigenous people, and racism is still prevalent within our justice system and leads to deaths while in custody, starlight tours, and utter neglect.
If Minister Duncan is right and Canada will not make any significant changes to how it deals with Indigenous issues and will simply continue to advance its own agenda, then what good does their conditional support of UNDRIP do for us? Why would our political leaders be so quick to praise Canada for agreeing to do literally nothing on our behalf?
At this rate, our reserves will be turned into private property and sold to big business by the Flanagan-Jules plan; those remaining reserves will all be occupied by non-Indians through Bill S-4 MRP laws; and if anyone remains after that, they will all be legislated out of extinction by Bill C-3's discriminatory status provisions.
The Conservative's conditional support of UNDRIP creates an illusion of justice in Canada - it is our choice whether we stand beside them and accept it. If our leaders won't stand up for us then it is time that the people told their leaders to step aside and let our people stand up for themselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)