LEGAL
This is a Federal Issue
These instances exist within a political framework that has not yet addressed the existence of apartheid and genocide as defined by Canada's Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act.
Akikodjiwan (Chaudiere Islands, and Chaudiere Falls) is one of the many instances across Canada in which the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Constitution are not being respected.
POLITICAL FRAMEWORK DIAGRAM
Akikodjiwan
What do all these have in common? If we repeat the same actions, why would we expect different results?
In what ways are the charter and constitution not being respected?
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
-
Traditional Algonquin people are asking for protection from state action which would render their religious practices devoid of any spiritual or religious nature.
-
They are asking for protections under Section 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (religious freedom)
Constitutional Act 1982
-
Traditional Algonquin people are asking consultation and accommodation of their asserted indigenous rights to exercise religious practices which are dependent upon a sacred site under Section 35 of the Constitutional Act 1982
What does it mean for an area to be sacred?
What does sacred mean?
The oxford dictionary defines sacred as: “dedicated to a religious practice and so deserving veneration”
What does profane mean?
The oxford dictionary defines profane as: "Treat something sacred with irreverence or disrespect.”
Who says the area is sacred?
Today
-
A vast number of First Nations across Canada and local have claimed the Chaudiere Falls and Islands to be sacred.
Early Chronicle
-
In 1610 Chaudiere noted in his journal the sacred tobacco ceremony performed by the Algonquins at Chaudiere Falls and Islands.
How has the area been treated?
Desecration came about by years of industrial uses. This was carried out by:
-
Philemon Wright
-
Jr. R. Booth
-
Jr. B. Eddy comapny
-
Domtar
It is now proposed to continue that desecration by Windmill's proposal to build condos and commercial space to permanently privitize and destroy the sacredness of the place.
"The Anishinabe, each and all, once looked to Asinabka with as equal respect and spiritual reverence as Pope Francis of the Catholic church today looks upon the altar of the Vatican’s greatest house of worship. The Falls of our grand river (Ottawa River) were truly seen by the People as an altar touched by the goodness of Kichi Manido, the Great Spirit." - Albert Dumont
HAS CANADA COMMITED GENOCIDE?
DEFINITION OF GENOCIDE
[from the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide]
ACTS COMMITED IN CANADA
[In 2000, Canada passed the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act, which contains all 5 definitions]
-
Killing members of the group;
-
Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
-
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
-
Inquiring measures intended to prevent births within the group;
-
Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Frog Lake Massacre / hanging of Louis Riel / 1998 Ipperwash Crisis: unarmed Ojibwa man was sot to death by an OPP sniper
The Indian Act and Reservation System
Mercury Poisoning at Grassy Narrows symptoms include loss of motor function, difficulty speaking and swallowing
Sterilization of indigenous women in BC, Alberta, and Saskatchewan
Residential Schools and the "sixties scoop"
Why has no one investigated or prosecuted?
Because they can't;
Proceedings under Crimes against Humanity and Criminal Code provisions may not be commenced unless they have the personal consent in writing of the Attorney General or Deputy Attorney General of Canada, and these proceedings may only be conducted by the Attorney General of Canada or counsel acting on their behalf.
The perpetrator is not likely to investigate itself.
What is Apartheid?
Definition of the 'Crime of Apartheid'
from Canada's Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act
"The crimes of apartheid means inhumane acts of a character similar to those refferred to in paragraph 1, committed in the context of an institutaionalized regime or systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime."
"A primary goal of the Indian Act is to undermine the traditional governance structures of Indigenous societies. Only by restoring inherent systems of governance can Indigenous people be self-determining once again." - Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, 2016
Is the Indian Act imposing Apartheid in Canada?
Indian Act Restrictions and Impacts (some have since been removed in revisions of the Act)
Until 1951 the Indian Act defined a 'person' as "an individual other than an Indian". Aboriginal peoples were considered wards of the state.
'Enfranchisement' was a process whereby an Aboriginal person would renounce their heritage and culture and embrace the 'benefits' of civilized society, to become a 'person' in Canadian law.
In 1920 a law passed to authorize forced enfranchisement and many Aboriginal peoples were involuntarily enfranchised. They lost their Indian status if they became professionals such as doctors or ministers, or even if they obtained university degreses, and with it, their right to reside on reserves, further tearing at the social fabric of Aboriginal communities.
"Our object is to continue until there is not a single Indian in Canada that has not been absorbed into the body politic, and there is no Indian question and no Indian Department" - Duncan Campbell Scott, Deputy Superintendent of Indian Affairs, 1920
What is Enfranchisement?
How did the Indian Act define 'person'?
Is the Indian Act imposing Apartheid in Canada?
-
denied women status;
-
introduced residential schools;
-
created reserves;
-
renamed individuals with European names
-
implemebted the Pass System: restricted First Nations from leaving reserve without written permission from Indian Agent; it was never an Order In Council or Regulation but was designed to keep First Nations on the reserve
-
enforced enfranchisement of any First Nation admitted to university [1];
-
could expropriate portions of reserves for roads, railways and other public works, as well as to move an entire reserve away from a municipality if it was deemed expedient;
-
could lease out uncultivated reserve lands to non-First Nations if the new leaseholder would use it for farming or pasture;
-
forbade First Nations from forming political organizations;
-
prohibited anyone, First Nation or non-First Nation, from soliciting funds for First Nation legal claims without special license from the Superintendent General. (this 1927 amendment granted the government control over the ability of First Nations to pursue land claims);[2]
-
prohibited the sale of alcohol to First Nations;
-
prohibited sale of ammunition to First Nations;
-
prohibited pool hall owners from allowing First Nations entrance;
-
imposed the “band council” system;
-
forbade First Nations from speaking their native language;
-
forbade First Nations from practicing their traditional religion;
-
forbade western First Nations from appearing in any public dance, show, exhibition, stampede or pageant wearing traditional regalia; [3]
-
declared potlatch and other cultural ceremonies illegal; [4]
-
denied First Nations the right to vote
-
created permit system to control First Nations ability to sell products from farms;
-
is a piece of legislation created under the British rule for the purpose of subjugating one race - Aboriginal people.
Historical restrictions and impacts that the Indian Act has imposed
How did Aboriginal people become 'persons'?
How did the Indian Act define 'person'?
Until 1951 the Indian Act defined a 'person' as "an individual other than an Indian". Aboriginal peoples were considered wards of the state.
'Enfranchisement' was a process whereby an Aboriginal person would renounce their heritage and culture and embrace the 'benefits' of civilized society, to become a 'person' in Canadian law.
In 1920 a law passed to authorize forced enfranchisement and many Aboriginal peoples were involuntarily enfranchised. They lost their Indian status if they became professionals such as doctors or ministers, or even if they obtained university degreses, and with it, their right to reside on reserves, further tearing at the social fabric of Aboriginal communities.
"The great aim of our legislation has been to do away with the tribal system and assimilate Indian peoples in all respects with the other inhabitants of the Dominion as speedily as they are fit to change." - Sir John A. Macdonald 1887
What was the initial purpose of the Indian Act?
What about the Indian Act today?
Does the Indian Act protect First Nations Land?
No, it does not.
Section 35 of the Constitution Act 1982 recognizes Aboriginal and treaty rights, and protects First Nations Land.
Reserves are tracts of lands set apart by treaty.
A Nation-to-Nation relationship based on Section 35(1) would protect reserve lands to ensure lands are not mortgaged, pledged or seized by any legal process.
What will happen to First Nations services and programs if they no longer operate under the Indian Act?
Majority of programs and services currently funded by Indian Affairs are universal policy or policy related programs such as:
-
social assistance
-
fiscal transfer arrangements (Band Support Funding)
-
health services and benefits
-
child and family services
-
child tax benefits
-
housing programs
-
youth employment programs
Canada is obligated to fund these programs regardless of Indian Affairs.
Programs directly related to Indian Affairs include:
-
education and schools
-
land management
-
taxation and wills and estates
These would be addressed through negotiations to ensure these programs and rights continue to benfit First Nations and are part of the fiscal arrangement under a nation-to-nation relationship.
Those of us who are committed to the cause of indigenous rights and human rights
must be vigilant in introducing into the
on-going dialogue the existence of the consciousness of genocide and apartheid in the relationship between indigenous peoples and the dominant society.
present court action
Dates
Strategy
November, 2015
Rejected by the Ontario Municipal Board
May 26, 2016
Application to Divisional Court dismissed
Lawyers for Windmill and the City of Ottawa are seeking $60,000 in costs against the five Appellants who appealed the OMB decision to the Divisional Court
A circle of traditional Algonquin Elders, grandmothers and grandfathers has been formed to provide guidance in our next steps and to be involved in the development of further legal strategies designed to protect this sacred site.
October 26, 2016
10am
161 Elgin Street
Hearing before the full panel of the Divisional Court. Open to the public
Douglas Cardinal's Affidavit: Submitted to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice
JUDGEMENT PENDING
"The consciousness of genocide and apartheid inform the relationship between Indigenous
Peoples and the dominant society. This is an untenable situation for Indigenous Peoples and
must become part of the dialogue in conflicts between Indigenous Peoples and the dominant
society, before any form of reconciliation can take place. It is within this context that the
Courts must be informed in order to properly adjudicate on legal issues affecting Indigenous
Peoples in these proceedings.
I am a Sweat-lodge Keeper, a Pipe Carrier and a recognized Anishinaabe Elder. I have a
duty to speak this way, in order to educate the public, the courts, the legislators, and the
administrators as to the truth of the existence of the Indigenous Peoples. The consciousness
of genocide and apartheid can no longer inform the relationship between Indigenous Peoples
and the dominant society in Canada. It must be taken into account in all the various
relationships between Indigenous Peoples and the dominant society. We are entitled to have
the Courts afford us the protection of all the principles expressed in the United Nations
Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and specifically, the right to be heard."
There needs to be a recognition of this site as sacred and of indigenous peoples to practice their ceremonies and carry out spiritual practices. The vision of Algonquin Elder William Commanda needs to be implemented.
As William Commanda often said, it is time for us all to be of one mind, one heart, one vision, one prayer and realize the dreams of the Ancestors to preserve this as a sacred site.