Anishinaabe, Bill C-51 - Essay Example

ANISHINAABE Introduction The Anishinaabe is a collective term for the indigenous peoples of the world. (intercontinentory.org). In North America it includes the Ottawa, Algonquin and other Indian tribes. The Europeans who first came in the 1950s can l be divided into 2 main categories, first, those came to exploit the natural resources and were indifferent if not overtly hostile to the Indians and only interested in using them for their own ends such as guides, etc. The second category included priests, teachers and farmers who were more apt to settle. Many of them, especially the clergy, had a more paternalistic attitude toward the Indians. They sought to pacify the “savages” by converting them to Christianity and many felt sincerely that this was what God wanted them to do. However they were not conscious of the negative effects this had on their culture. They acquired land from the Indians by negotiating treaties in exchange for services and products such as medical although many treaties were broken when the Europeans felt they had sufficient power to overcome any Indian resistance. When Canada became a country in 1867 this paternalistic attitude was continued by the federal government as it organized the remaining Indian population, decimated by war with the invaders and deadly European diseases, under the Indian Act. The Indian Act In keeping with the government’s paternalistic attitude, they micromanaged Indian life under the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs with no input from the aboriginals.(Hanson) This authority has ranged from overreaching political control such as imposing government structures on Indian communities in the form of land councils to control over the rights of Indians to practice their culture and traditions. The Indian Act has also enabled the government to determine the land base of these groups in the form of reserves and even define who qualifies as an Indian in the form of Indian status. Although reserve Indians do not have to pay federal taxes, they do not have the right to vote in federal elections. The original Indian Act was passed in 1876 as a consolidation of the Gradual Civilization Act and the Gradual Enfranchisement Act. The primary aim of this legislation was to do away with the tribal system and assimilate Indians with other inhabitants of Canada as the melting pot theory in the US until recently attempted to assimilate immigrants. The primary difference of course is that in Canada the Indians, although in the minority, were the original inhabitants and the Europeans the immigrants. In any event in both cases I would argue such policies have failed to promote successful integration. While the Gradual Enfranchisement Act established elective band councils that remains in the India Act today, it’s decisions could easily be overridden by the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs, For example the Superintendent had the power to regulate alcohol consumption and arbitrarily determine if a woman was of “good oral character” and therefore deserve certain benefits such as being able to keep her children in the event of the father’s death. It also marked the beginning of gender based restrictions to status and the marginalization of aboriginal women. Statistics show that they are 3 times more likely to be victims of murder and rape than non Indian women and crimes against them less likely to be thoroughly investigated and solved. (Falcon 2015) I suspect that their status limitations were related to their stigmatizing much in the same way as prostitutes have been. Although Indians are of many different tribes and cultures, they have been treated under the Act as children in a homogenous and paternalistic relationship with their interests and treaty rights disregarded. Aboriginal people have sought participation in defining and establishing their rights, petitioning federal political leadership and the British monarchy without success. This has driven their practices underground. An example of an outlawed practice is the potlatch law. This was forbidden on the grounds it was excessive and wasteful as a means of sharing wealth and food and disrupted assimilation efforts promoting private property ownership. One judge lamented that the 75 year old ban prevented the passing down of aboriginal oral history and values such as mutual respect and dispute resolution . When aboriginal political became more extensive in the 1920s section 141 was added to the Indian Act outlawing the hiring of legal counsel by Indians effectively baring them from pursuing their rights through the legal system. Eventually these laws were expanded so that virtually every gathering would be strictly prohibited. In 1951 due to public pressure in view of Indians’ contributions to the World War II efforts and the contradictions to Canada’s support of UN human rights declarations, amendments of the Indian Act such as the ban against customs such as potlatch , having legal counsel and women voting in band councils returned the Act to the original 1876 provisions. Although Prime Minister Trudeau in 1969 proposed the abolishment of the Indian Act and the Department of Indian Affairs, this was opposed by the aboriginals who felt it would enforce assimilation into mainstream society and would not achieve equality. Instead they wanted to maintain a legal distinction as Indian people something akin to distinct society status Trudeau enacted for French Canadians. Finally the Indian Act has been criticized for its’ gender bias against women including making aboriginal women’s status and right to live on a reserve, treaty and health benefits entirely dependent on their husband. In the 1920s Indian women began to battle the discriminatory legislation on the basis it violated Canada’s Bill of Rights and although they lost at the Supreme Court of Canada, the UN Human Rights Committee found Canada in breach of the Covenant of Civil and Political Rights. The discriminatory provisions against women were at least partially repealed by Bill C-31. Although there have been calls for repeal of the Indian Act in it’s present form, Indians fear a repeal could cause them to lose what few rights they have. They will only agree to repeal of this Act if it is replaced by one that more adequately respects their rights and in which they participate in drafting. Bill C-51 Currently the Harper Conservative government is bringing Bill C-51before the Canadian parliament. (Barrera 2015) It is presented as an anti terrorism legislation to give police and security agencies greater monitoring and arrest powers to thwart terrorism plots before they can be activated. There is a broader definition of terrorism than was previously used to include plans to disrupt Canada’s economy and vital infrastructure. This leads to a concern for example that environmentalists who protest the construction of an oil pipeline could be brought under the terrorist label. While many Canadians have concerns, Indians are especially nervous that such enlarged powers will increase what they regard as harassment for peacefully protesting laws and federal policies they consider unjust given their past experiences as previously outlined in this essay. They also object to the increased ability for various government departments to share personal information they have and that such information would be limited to terrorism plots as the legislation states. For example if an activist peacefully argues fo better protection o women’s rights a covert smear campaign could be launched to discredit that person. Although the NDP opposes this legislation it will likely pass with the Conservative majority, perhaps with a parliament committee oversight as proposed by the Liberals. While of course I support the aim of the bill, there is the possibility the increased powers could help the government gather non terrorism related information and plot strategies to thwart the plans of those of opposing political views. Perhaps a multiparty oversight committee could help ensure this doesn’t happen. Conclusion and Suggestions re Where We Go From Here What is the best form of governance for Indians who do not want to live in mainstream society but prefer the psychological comfort of living with others who share the same race, culture and values? First of all unless reserves actually become tiny independent countries, I would cease using the term First Nation as they obviously no longer have the nation characteristics of sovereignty and independence. I would suggest the term First Peoples be used instead,. For the same reason I would substitute “agreements” for “treaties”. While Indians may feel a sense of identity and pride to have their own nations most of them realize they could not sustain themselves economically Assuming they remain in Canada I don’t think it is a viable option for the courts to decide aboriginal rights sometimes based on ancient “treaties and sometimes not if there are none in place even though the federal government may feel that in this way they are being fairer to the Indians by having a “neutral” third party decide rather than impose their will. Sixteenth century treaties often do not reflect present day realities and ironically court decisions can produce inequitable results with non treaty claims faring better for Indian than those based on treaties. (Price 2015).Diablo argues that Harper is launching a First Nations Termination Plan legitimatizing Canada’s colonialism by reducing reserves to municipality status(Diablo 2012) This is strong rhetoric but I do think there should be a new framework for the relationship between reserve Indians and the federal government. I propose the following. 1) Termination of the Indian Act and the Department of Indian Affairs; 2) In it’s place I would recommend the dissolution of powers so that local band councils would have exclusive jurisdiction over purely local matter5s such as potlatch ceremonies and property rights. 3) in matters of national relevance such as oil pipeline construction the federal government should retain control but be required to required to satisfy the band council as to it’s necessity, demonstrate it is taking all steps possible to protect the environment and guarantee adequate compensation in the event of a disaster.4) The Canadian Criminal Code should apply with some flexibility in sentencing especially if Indian methods have proven to reduce recidivism for example .requiring compensation for victims of burglary rather than incarceration. There should be aboriginal police and courts 5) Indians should have the right to vote in federal elections but required to pay taxes on the same basis as other Canadians.6) Since it is unlikely reserves can sustain themselves with traditional hunting and fishing economies the federal government should encourage alternative viable enterprises such as casinos and provide start up financial assistance to reduce federal unemployment and welfare costs. In short a healthy government Indian relationship must be based on mutual knowledge and respect with full participation in decision making by Indians as adults. References 1). Barrera Jorge “Canadian spies can access Indian Status records under BillC-51. Public Safety” aptn National News Mar. 20, 2015 retrieved from aptn.ca/news/2015/03/20/canadian-spies-can-access-Indian-status-records-bill-C-51-pub. 2) Hanson, Erin “The Indian Act” retrieved from Indegenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca. 3) Diablo, Russell “Termination Plan As Negotiating Tables Legitimatize Canada’s Colonialism” November 9, 2012 retrieved from http://intercontinentalery.org. 4, Falcon, Deidre “Groundbreaking Report Reveals Canada’s Utter Failure on Indigenous Women” Jan. 14, 2015 retrieved from http://intercontinentalory.org 5. Price, Scott “Hayden King on Treaties and Treaty Relations in Canada” Jan. 21 retrieved from http://intercontinentalory.org. . Read More