mediaINDIGENA

Blog

  • The utility of debate to Idle No More is beyond dispute

     

    “We are stronger together”
    – Shawn Atleo

    “[Many] remain silent in keeping with
    the     older non-confrontational
    traditions     of the Ojibwe”
    – Anton Trueur

    “You want to talk about god and hippies
    and not do a god-damned thing”
    – Saul Alinsky

    +     +    +

    Recently, the University of Victoria hosted a panel discussion on how the Idle No More movement could potentially serve as the foundation for an Indigenous Nationhood Movement. And while it was an interesting discussion with dynamic speakers, I found what stuck with me the most afterward was what was going on “off-camera.”

    INMuvic
    (Click on image to enlarge.)

    As many of these sorts of discussions are these days, this forum was live-streamed. To the immediate right of the video, there was a window where viewers could simultaneously chat in real-time. And, for a brief moment, that conversation addressed the utility of debate among those in the Idle No More movement. More specifically, it was suggested that we shouldn’t criticize our leaders or each other, that it’s disrespectful. I’m not sure how fully the point was addressed then but, to me, it’s worth exploring more in depth now, especially at this moment of transition (or transformation) for the movement.

    This concern over critiques seems to have emerged with growing anger directed at the Assembly of First Nations and National Chief Shawn Atleo for their perceived failure to effectively push-back against federal policy. Many have also criticized Chiefs and band councils generally, so much so that Chief Isadore Day of Serpent River began tweeting multiple times a day using the hash-tag #DividedNoMore (indeed a very good blog of the same name later emerged). And Atleo and his supporters echoed the calls for unity. The argument was that we’re all in this together and should direct our energies towards Canada, not each other.

    I thought then, and continue to think, that this anti-critique perspective is misguided. Indeed, I’ve written about the impossibility of unity among nations and the problematic nature of the AFN (and band council chiefs generally), so it’s no surprise that I feel we need to re-think (even replace) our institutions in order to do a better job at holding our leaders accountable. That means public debate and public criticism, and not just of the AFN or chiefs and councils.

    That disagreement exists at all, or that perspectives on goals and strategies vary, is a reality that requires exploration and inevitably leads to much needed debate and critique. Some of that work is already underway in the academic community. As Taiaiake Alfred and Jeff Corntassel write in “Being Indigenous: Contemporary Resurgences Against Colonialism,” there are “Aboriginal” and “Indigenous” people. The former pursue a legal relationship with Canada and couch their demands within the political and economic discourses of the state (since those legal, political and economic discourses are unlikely to change). The latter, Indigenous peoples are rooted in the land, bound together by spirituality and united in struggle against colonial psychosis. They act on the basis of rights and responsibilities that derive from sources independent of (and pre-existent to) Canadian institutions.

    More recently, Scott Richard Lyons addresses the same issue in his book, “X-Marks: Native Signatures of Assent,” although he distinguishes between Indigenous political groups as being either “traditionalists” or “modernists.” According to Lyons, conservatives aspire to decolonization via a “new society,” one rooted in real or imagined Native nations, while progressives reject this pure or essentialist view, and instead seek to navigate Canadian and American societies in hopes of finding a place that accommodates the unique nature of contemporary Indigenous identities.

    Without reducing the discussion to such terms, it is nonetheless important for us to acknowledge that there are significant political differences in Native politics (and within the Idle No More movement as well) with correspondingly divergent strategies for action. Where do we fall on questions about: whether to vote in Canadian elections; physical reclamation of land; patriarchy in our ceremonies; blockading road and rail lines; the role of allies; the importance of the Indian Act; resource development, and on and on and on?

    While these discussions go on within academic circles, they have not yet seemed to penetrate the Idle No More movement to any significant degree. This may be partly due to an unwillingness to critique or confront each other. Indeed, these debates can be difficult when we say things like economic development means ‘selling out,’ or that people who vote are ‘assimilated,’ or that the notion of an Indigenous nation is a ‘fairytale.’ These are heavy issues, after all, and there can be a tendency to be… unpleasant (though hopefully still respectful and constructive).

    So non-confrontation or abandoning the discussion when it gets too heated is the easier path to take, one many in fact take by citing the need for unity (and maybe the fear of hurt feelings as well). But the hard truth is that refraining from attempts to address and answer difficult questions in the quest to find solutions to challenging problems effectively endorses stasis.

    An even harder truth is that promoting and pursuing such artificial notions of unity and its corresponding implication of muted debate will ultimately mean the death of the movement.

  • Residency and identity: Bringing the Senate problem “home”

    square pegFor the pod of senators facing pressure to prove their residential identity, the squeeze is on. Pressure to prove where they live, i.e., where they “reside,” according to the forms some senators have used to file expense claims.

    And while claiming a $22,000 a year allowance for a ‘second’ residence when you no longer live outside Ottawa plays like a wink and a finger alongside one’s nose, it’s not the thread pulling of the loophole that struck me as the big problem, it’s the notion of identity-by-residency. I say that because Senators are considered representatives of a province based on their ownership of property in that province.

    (The same set-up also applies to Prime Ministers not originally from Canada but who became Canadian or hyphenated Canadian, e.g., Sir John A. Macdonald, Alexander Mackenzie, John Turner. But I digress.)

    Put it this way: If you once lived in P.E.I., are you still an Islander if you now only visit there? If you didn’t come from there but have lived there for the last decade, does that make you an Islander?

    Indigenous peoples face their own versions of these questions. Questions like: if you come from a reserve but now live far away in the city in order to be closer to your job, school and/or partner, is the reserve still “home?” Should you be classified as a band member if you don’t live or play with the band? Should you have to reside in, and contribute to the welfare of, the community in order to be ethically counted as a full-fledged member of the community?

    The two scenarios aren’t precise equivalents because housing shortages and next-to-jobless economies make residence on most reserves a non-starter for many band members. So although you aren’t able to live on the reserve, you’re still with the band: your band affiliation travels with you. You’re Maliseet or Algonquin or Blackfoot wherever you live, no matter how long you’re gone. Might the same logic not hold true for our aforementioned Islanders?

    What happens to your identity if you don’t have a home territory with distinct boundaries? That’s the situation confronted by most Métis people. Yes, your Métis identity travels with you wherever you go, but if you’re Métis from outside the Canadian historically-recognized Red River area of Manitoba — a myopic view according to some historians — where, then, is “home?” And effectively absent such a territory, what are we to make of the Federal Court’s recent decision that Métis people should be constitutionally regarded as “Indian” when it comes to what rights that decision confers?

    To many non-native people, the court’s decision meant potentially worrisome payouts. But payouts linked to what? Establishing entitlement is generally tied to territory and to membership in a recognized community. Yes, some Métis were accorded territory over a century ago on the basis of “scrip,” an ill-intentioned extinguishment effort based on a land-for-identity swap. But how do you establish what to pay out to Métis claimants of no specific territory (if it is indeed money that’s being sought)? And though the federal government once sought to be the arbiter of “Métis-ness,” we have yet to resolve the question of who is, and who is not, Métis — or by whom. You can expect that discussion to come to a boil as we move closer to Ottawa’s appeal of the Federal Court ruling.

    metis nation bcThe concern is that, if there’s a purely financial benefit to somehow be had just from being called “Métis,” everyone will be filing for a Status card to get a piece of that pie. The Métis of BC are taking a shot at minimizing the confusion with an upcoming conference in April on what does, and does not, constitute membership. But expect the ‘threat’ of burgeoning numbers to spark a flurry of warnings of false claims, where some unqualified people simply fill in a form, pay a processing fee (ranging from $10 to $110) and swell the membership rolls as they rush to feed off a tasty settlement from Ottawa.

    As I see it, applicants (and those who know they’re Métis) would do well not to expect a real meal. As the Senate experience teaches us, the money’s already been spent on some other dubious identity claims.

  • Why is the house of “sober, second thought” the first line of attack on Indigenous rights?

    Proecting democracy?Why has the Canadian Senate been the birthplace for so many new pieces of legislation undermining the rights of Indigenous peoples? Indeed, the chamber has attracted a lot of attention of late, and for all the wrong reasons, as names like Duffy, Brazeau, Wallin and Harb star in a bizarre bit of reality TV called “Senators Behavin’ Badly.” But despite their apparent misbehaviour appearing nightly on our newscasts, this many-splendored spectacle has actually served as a distraction from what are even more serious questions about this cushy, pre-retirement home for Conservative and Liberal bagmen and women. Questions that don’t look to resolve well for Indigenous peoples.

    A closer examination of tPrecrimehe Harper Government’s larger legislative agenda reveals that, thus far, it’s passed 35 bills —with about 30 more on the waiting list. These bills-in-progress deal with everything from mega-trials to back-to-work legislation at Canada Post and Air Canada — ending one strike before it ever really began. (That’s right, Ottawa’s version of “pre-crime,” in all its bizarre glory.)

    Most of these so-called bills originated in the House of Commons and carry a “C.” Take the two infamous “omnibus” money bills, C-38 and C-45. Ostensibly “budget” bills, both actually bundled in all kinds of nifty stuff adversely affecting the rights of every Canadian as well as Indigenous peoples; among other things, the bills removed federal environmental protections from tens of thousands of lakes and rivers, deleting any mention of Aboriginal fisheries in the process. Rammed through without any prior consultation of Indigenous peoples (violating their constitutional rights), both bills were weaseled into law by the Harper government: their passage helped to spark the fire that first lit up the Idle No More movement.

    But the bills don’t stop there. Bill C-27 is called the First Nations Financial Transparency Act. According to Toronto law firm Olthius, Kleer, Townshend LLP, C-27 is “based on a common, racist assumption that First Nations’ officials are all corrupt — an assumption that is factually and statistically incorrect.” But the bill does a lot more than require band councils to post financial information and reveal the salaries of band c0uncillors: it also serves to tighten even more the federal fiscal handcuffs on First Nations that Canada’s Auditor-General, former Indian Affairs ministers and numerous commissions have long condemned.

    Bill C-428, or the Indian Act Amendment and Replacement Act, was introduced as a private member’s bill. It changes the Indian Act but, once again, does so without consulting the peoples it affects — First Nations. This way, the Harper government weasels out of its constitutional “duty to consult.”

    (If I may digress, Harper also says he won’t reopen the abortion debate but allows a backbencher to call in the RCMP to investigate abortion as murder, and another to introduce a private member’s bill that attempted to redefine when life begins. Weasel ways to reopen the abortion issue without getting one’s political paws dirty.)

    The following list of bills have been introduced in the Senate (note the tell-tale ‘S-‘), all of which implicate and impact Indigenous rights:

    • S-2 (the Family Homes on Reserve and Matrimonial Interests or Right Act)
    • S-6 (First Nations Elections Act)
    • S-8 (Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act)
    • S-207 (An Act to amend the Interpretation Act)
    • S-212 (First Nations Self-Government Bill)

    Here too, every one of these bills has been drafted and introduced with little or no consultation with First Nations. Consequently, the bills individually and collectively serve to:

    • undermine First Nation authorities and jurisdictions
    • violate treaty and Aboriginal rights
    • impose unknown costs on First Nations and individuals
    • abrogate to the federal government even more authority over First Nation lands and resources
    • deny benefits and trade-offs to First Nations in return for access to their lands and resources

    In the case of S-207, the Harper government says this bill won’t undermine or violate Aboriginal rights but in fact the changes instituted under S-207 would effectively enable the other laws and bills to do exactly that.

    Aboriginal Rights may be damaged.All of the bills appear to violate the Aboriginal and Treaty Rights protected by Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Moreover, all of these bills appear to violate the spirit and intent of the UN’s Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, to which Canada is a signator. With the exception of Bill C-27 (First Nations Financial Transparency Act) most were introduced in the Senate. Leaving me to ponder this question: Why does the Senate seem to be the vehicle of choice for so much of Harper’s “Indian” agenda?  Enquiring minds want to know.

  • Number 64: Waiting for the next Aboriginal Affairs Minister appointment

    We’ve been here before.

    Sixty-three times since 1867, a figurehead has been named for the file once known as ‘Indian Affairs,’ now doctored (in name only, not in legal documents because that would require constitutional reform) to Aboriginal Affairs. As of last Friday, John Duncan became ex-Minister number 63.

    Duncan was the third such minister under the current Conservative government. There have been 21 others before him since 1966. Prior to that, the file was the responsibility of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (nine were also serving as the stewards of Indian concerns). Prior to that, the Minister of Mines and Resources (four handling the file in this incarnation). And prior to that — before 1936 — the Minister was actually called the Superintendent-General of Indian Affairs. (There were 28 of them.)

    In these various roles, there have been men — and three women. Most, unlike Ellen Fairclough, slipped virtually unnoticed into history within a decade of serving. Those most easily remembered probably stay top of mind because they simultaneously held the job of Prime Minister or, like Jean Chrétien, eventually migrated to that top job.

    Maybe it’s the fate of that particular job holder, independent of the individual character holding the spot, to vanish from memory. Maybe because the job has been a rubber stamp position rather than a place to stand out for bold thinking.

    You might have thought the role of the person in the job was to act as a “steward” for native people. Acting on behalf of native people, looking out for the people’s best interests, upholding rights, combating efforts to undermine or eliminate those rights.

    But if the role has involved any kind of stewardship, it has proven to be as the steward of Ottawa’s position vis-a-vis native people. The Aboriginal Affairs Minister is the government’s representative, not the other way around. And in that, in recent years, the same devolution has occurred in the environment and health portfolios as well.

    So who will be the next Aboriginal Affairs Minister? Does it matter?

  • A day both bitter and sweet for Indigenous women — and those who love them

    St. Valentine
    The still-intact St. Valentine

    Today is Valentine’s Day. But what we know as ‘a day for love’ is really just a creation of industry, of the modern greeting card, flower delivery and chocolate companies. St. Valentine was a real person though. According to the Catholic Online web site:

    Valentine was a holy priest in Rome, who, with St. Marius and his family, assisted the martyrs in the persecution under Claudius II. He was apprehended, and sent by the emperor to the prefect of Rome, who, on finding all his promises to make him renounce his faith ineffectual, commanded him to be beaten with clubs, and afterwards, to be beheaded, which was executed on February 14, about the year 270.

    Some 17 centuries and change later, Feb. 14 has taken on yet another meaning: as a day for a relatively new group to borrow a page out of Idle No More’s activist playbook and join hands with Indigenous women. According to rabble.ca, noted author Eve Ensler (the Vagina Monologues) wants people to come together in song and dance to end violence against all women in a global event called ‘One Billion Rising.’

    With its simple, activist slogan “Strike, Dance, Rise!,” OBR has quickly gone viral and is being marked in about 100 countries around the world. (See for yourself: they live-streamed events as I wrote this, and you may find an event close to you on the OBR web site.) Here are the main elements of what drives OBR:

    • One in three women on the planet will be raped or beaten in her lifetime
    • One billion women violated is an atrocity
    • One billion women dancing is a revolution

    This all comes one day after the release of a report about the mistreatment of First Nations women in northern British Columbia by RCMP officers. It was researched and released by Human Rights Watch, a respected international organization that monitors human rights abuses.

    HRW: Those Who Take Us AwayEntitled “Those Who Take Us Away,” the 89-page report is a chilling indictment of the RCMP’s failure to follow up or investigate complaints of abuse against First Nations women and girls — even rape by other police officers. It describes a long history of abuse, sexual exploitation, and violence against Indigenous women, committed by and covered up by police, judges, lawyers and others in the provincial judicial system. The force simply did not do its job to protect Indigenous women.

    In fact, the report had its origins in an invitation from a Vancouver group frustrated with the refusal of B.C.’s Pickton Inquiry to include complaints about police conduct toward missing and murdered Indigenous women in the northern part of the province. What they subsequently discovered while interviewing nearly 90 Indigenous women and girls last summer clearly came as a shock to investigators, as detailed in this Canadian Press report:

    “In 5 of the 10 towns Human Rights Watch visited in the north, we heard allegations of rape or sexual assault by police officers,” the report states.

    “Human Rights Watch was struck by the level of fear on the part of women we met to talk about sexual abuse inflicted by police officers.”

    [Lead researcher Meghan Rhoad] said about a dozen young women cancelled interviews with researchers because they were too scared of repercussions from police officers working in their small communities.

    Samer Muscati, a Canadian co-researcher, said the level of fear among the women interviewed was on par with what he’s encountered while researching abuses by security forces throughout the Middle East, Iraq, Libya and Sudan. “You expect that level of fear when you’re in a place like Iraq, in a post-conflict country where security forces are implicated in horrible abuses,” said Muscati. “But in Canada, where police are known to protect citizens, it is quite alarming to hear the stories of women and girls, particularly.”

    Indeed, many of the women who spoke to Human Rights Watch only did so anonymously for fear of police reprisals. Now, the group is calling on the federal government to launch an inquiry into missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls across Canada, adding its voice to the Native Women’s Association of Canada’s long-standing campaign for the very same thing.

    Confronted with such threats to their lives, even from those sworn to protect them, Indigenous women would no doubt think little of flowers and chocolate on this wholly-manufactured day; it is both bitter and sweet then, that new attention has brought the details of their troubled existence to the surface. For those of us who love them — as grannies and mothers, daughters and sisters, friends and lovers — it is wider recognition long, long past due.