"I am Canadian", and I engage in "Nice Racism"

I've been reading "NICE RACISM: How Progressive White People Perpetuate Racial Harm" by Robin DiAngelo.

As I read, I can't help but have that "I Am Canadian" Molson slogan and commercial from a few decades ago in my mind.

 

• I'm not a lumberjack, or a fur trader, but I support unrestricted resource extraction no matter what the harm
• I don't live in an igloo, or eat blubber, or own a dogsled, and I have no concerns about the genocidal policies by Canadian Governments against the people who do. (This ramped up in the 1950's, even after Europe started to grapple with the concept of genocide in the late 1940's)
• I live under a Constitutional Monarchy, not a self-determined responsible democracy
• I believe it is perfectly reasonable to require someone to "swear (or affirm), That I will be faithful, And bear true allegiance" to a White Supremacist institution as a condition of becoming a Canadian Citizen, or to hold a wide variety of positions of authority (member of parliament, senator, etc).
  
• I partly define my identity by thinking I, as a Canadian, am better than a citizen of the United States -- That Canada is better than the United States
  
• I believe Canadians are polite people
• I believe Racism is a US and not Canadian problem
  
• I believe Canada is a "just society" and respects human rights domestically and internationally, even thought I have never read the Canadian Constitution, Canadian Charter, or the reports of any Human Rights body discussing Canada
  
• I believe all Indigenous Nations on the northern part of this continent lost a war and ceded all their land to Britain and/or Canada in some distant past (that has nothing to do with today), even though nobody can name the wars, offer dates, or provide any documentation for these alleged events
  
• I believe "We are a multicultural society"
• I believe "We pay respect to Indigenous people"
• I believe "Canada never had slavery"
• My name is Russell, and I am Canadian!!!
  

The last three (before my name as the expected finale) were taken from page 98 of "Nice Racism", in a chapter discussing the moves to innocence of White progressives.

As a generalization, Canadians think of themselves as more "progressive" than citizens of the USA. Rather than this being a reason for Canadians to believe this book by a US author has nothing to do with them, it is actually part of what makes this book (as a percentage of the population) more about Canadians than US citizens.

US citizens tend to be more loud and proud patriotic people : Canadian identity includes the belief we are more "nice" and "polite".

I could go through each of the bullets I threw in above, but the ones from the book are a good start.

We are a multicultural society?

The Dominion of Canada is a bi-colonial (Britain, France) series of institutions.

During the P.E. Trudeau era, bi-colonialism was rebranded biculturalism (meaning English and French), and then dishonestly marketed as multiculturalism.

Even the notion that Canada is a "just society" was used as a rhetorical device by the Trudeau government as part of the marketing of what was essentially racist bi-colonial policies.

Culture is narrowly defined as food, clothing/fashion, and other more superficial things which people are allowed to maintain. When it comes to less superficial things it is made clear in the new so-called "Charter of Rights and Freedoms" passed as part of Canada Act 1982 that the official languages, worldviews and laws of Canada remain British and French.

Even though this continent has been a polyglot for tens of thousands of years, with many nations and worldviews, two foreign European worldviews are aggressively imposed by the Dominion of Canada governments.

While Canadian loyalists are quick to call Quebec's Bill 96 racist, they are generally unwilling to recognize that Canada's Charter and most of the core policies of the Trudeau government are far more racist. The Charter isn't a temporary provincial bill that can easily be changed, but part of the racist Canadian legal framework that other bills (including Bill 96) are judged by.


If you have done some of the work to learn about Racism and White Supremacy (systems, not about individuals), you will notice what qualifies as "Rights and Freedoms" has a clear White racial frame that is narrowly focused on the concerns of peoples that emerged from the unique history of Western Europe (a focus on Britain and France).

We pay respect to Indigenous people?

Also during the P.E. Trudeau Era, Trudeau's Minister of Indian Affairs, Jean Chrétien, tabled what ended up being called the "1969 White Paper". This was the then Liberal government's "final solution" to the so-called "Indian Problem". It would be a final "Kill the Indian, Save the Man" policy that wiped out any respect or recognition of Indigenous peoples.

The Trudeau Government tried this again in the 1980's during the so-called "patriation" of the Constitution, and required the Constitutional Express to ensure that the Trudeau's governments Racist/Genocidal ideology wasn't fully encoded in Canada Act 1982.

I mention P.E. Trudeau as many Canadians believe he was a "progressive" Prime Minister. His attitude towards Indigenous Peoples, who he regularly claimed were a conquered people and his support of many genocidal policies, is actually quite informative for understanding what qualifies as "progressive" by Canadians. The younger Trudeau uses more careful and "politically correct" language, but upholds the same general policy goals of his father's government.

I was born in 1968, the same year P.E. Trudeau first became Prime Minister. I believe that P.E. Trudeau was the most visibly racist Prime Minister during my lifetime, as the marketing of racist policies has radically changed over my lifetime even if the overall policy goals have not.


Some individuals may have stopped openly calling for "Kill the Indian, Save the Man" genocidal policies, and some believe in "Diversity, Equity & Inclusion" of Indigenous peoples into Canadian society.  They may not recognize that advocating for inclusion into colonial "Canadian" law/society is itself disrespectful, and is in fact the goal of most of Canada's "Kill the Indian, Save the Man" genocidal policies.


There are some individual Canadians who are advocating the recognition of the Right of Self-Determination of Indigenous peoples. This is a right recognized in the UN Charter that Canada has aggressively opposed starting before the (Eurocentric) League of Nations became the United Nations. Canada was one of the 4 offensive nations that voted against the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) which also recognizes the Right of Self-Determination.

As punishment for sending a representative to the League of Nations in 1923 to have their Right of Self-Determination recognized, Canada sent in the RCMP in 1924 to forcibly depose the Haudenosaunee Confederacy -- the oldest Participatory Democracy on the Planet. Canada still refuses to recognize the right of self-determination, or allow any responsible government to be seen to represent Indigenous nations to the Canadian government under Section 35 of Canada's own constitution. Opposing democracy and responsible governments, Canada still relies on the fundamentally racist section 91(24) of Canada's Constitution to determine who to limit "consultation" of Indigenous individuals to.

Imagine for a second if Germany had a section of their constitution that granted Power to a specific level of government for "Jews, and Lands reserved for the Jews". Once you do, you can begin to understand how Racist Canada's Constitution and laws derived from it are.


Note the "s" in peoples: This isn't related to individuals or Canada's alleged multiculturalism. This involves many different nations/peoples and not some pan-Indigenous concept. Canada was one of the Eurocentric "nations" that opposed the rights of "peoples" being protected in the so-called "Universal Declaration of Human Rights", which itself constituted a rejection of the notion that UN UDHR is universal. Rights recognized in that declaration are focused on individuals.

These are basic Human Right of peoples that Canada actively denies: Canada is not respectful of Indigenous peoples or their rights, and many genocidal policies are ongoing.

Some individual Canadian genocidal policies like Residential Schools have recently (within my lifetime) ended, but the overall genocidal policy goals simply moved to the child welfare and other systems.

Most Canadians, however, believe the myth that Canada (the system, the governments, etc) are a force for good and justice in the world, and do not feel any personal responsibility for ongoing genocidal policies that these governments do in their name (and thus they DO have responsibilities, even if they are unaware of the harm from their individual action or inaction).

Canada never had slavery?

I have heard this my entire life, and even when growing up the dates never matched up in my head. I assumed, because of what I now recognize as Autism, that I was somehow wrong and didn't understand.

In 1833 Britain started on a gradual project to abolish slavery. It was not made immediately illegal in the entire of the British Empire, and Britain even compensated so-called "owners" for this gradual policy change.

The USA claims they abolished slavery in 1865, at the end of what they called the "American Civil War", the second of such civil wars where British colonies on this continent fought each other to separate from each other.

Britain unilaterally created the Dominion of Canada in 1867: without the permission or even awareness of the vast majority of inhabitants of the lands that were alleged to be governed by "Canada" at the time. There was then the massive violent colonial expansion of Canada on this continent that happened after that date. (The gc.ca map shows the dates, but the explanations are pretty much propaganda.  Canada never legally acquired "Rupert's Land and the North Western Territory", etc).


A component of the belief Canada never had slavery is that anything that these individuals or their colonial governments did prior to the passage of the first of 11 BNA Acts doesn't count. Somehow what people in these colonies thought and did magically changed between that bill receiving Royal Assent on 29th March 1867 and going into effect 1st July 1867.


The Underground Railroad went both ways across the imaginary line drawn between colonies who remained loyal to Britain and the 13 British colonies that launched the first civil war between British colonies on this continent to separate (what the USA labels a War of Independence 1775-1783).

The primary differences between the United States, Canada, and the Confederate States was not morality, but economic: The economies of the most southern British colonies on this continent were more dependent on cheap labor (slavery is primarily an economic policy), while the more northern regions were moving into other industries.  Where the south relied on cheap labor, the north relied on cheap resources (and thus more aggressive dispossession of Indigenous jurisdiction over land from which these resources would be extracted without concern for any future consequences).

---

 

As I discuss each of these aspects of Canadian Culture, I am including myself. I have been part of and indoctrinated by Canadian Culture. It is only recently that I have become aware of and capable of questioning some of those myths.

One of the book chapters is titled "Let's talk about shame".

DiAngelo included a quote from an article by Joseph Burgo Ph.D..

Although many people use the two words "guilt" and "shame" interchangeably, from a psychological perspective, they actually refer to different experiences. Guilt and shame sometimes go hand in hand; the same action may give rise to feelings of both shame and guilt, where the former reflects how we feel about ourselves and the latter involves an awareness that our actions have injured someone else. In other words, shame relates to self; guilt to others.

DiAngelo discusses how White people are often more comfortable expressing shame than guilt as guilt suggests we are personally responsible and that they need to do something (do better, be better). Shame doesn't suggest there is anything to do -- you are what you are, and that's it.

I have realized that I don't feel shame or guilt when it comes to my Whiteness. It is possible that the way that I think might help fellow White people move away from trying to protect their personal comfort/feelings/reputation/etc and move on to helping fix structural problems.

I look at Racism and other systems/policies like I do technology.

What I am, my phenotype including my lack of melanin in my skin, is hardware. Biology is hardware.

Isms, like Capitalism, Socialism, Colonialism, Racism, Androcentrism, Anthropocentrism are software.

I personally categorize some of these systems as malware, and societies with these systems are in need of anti-virus and other anti-malware work.



I know for a FACT I'm deeply personally infected with Racism. This malware causes me to have harmed and continue to harm other people, and I have further infected other people because Racism is contagious.

I am publicly admitting I have engaged in Racist activities. For most of my life I have actively upheld Racist policies because I had not yet recognized this set of software/policies as malware.

It will take a long time, if it is even possible in my time remaining alive, to entirely rid myself of the impacts from the malware infection of Racism. That is not an excuse to do nothing, but a recognition that I must put considerable time into anti-malware work.



These systemic/software problems are not about biology/hardware, and they are not something that we are. This is all software which can (an in the case of malware, must) change.

We should not feel shame, and we should never feel like there is nothing we can do.

I am quite angry with "Canada" (A set of policies, not a place or a group of people) which not only actively spreads and enforces malware, but seeks to make it illegal to work on anti-malware strategies. There is so much funding to spread Canadian malware, including entire Canadian Federal government departments.





I Am Canadian, but not a loyal, patriotic or proud Canadian.

"terra nullius" continues: British North America ("Canada"), Denmark, Russia.

A friend asked me if they heard about Canada and Denmark sharing the land border?

I immediately thought: Here we go again.

I looked it up and found a CBC article with headline: Canada and Denmark reach deal to divide uninhabited Arctic island

Google Map:  Hans Island  Google Earth: Hans Island Note that the island is nowhere near Denmark or Britain, so no legitimate reason for those governments, or their subsidiaries/derivatives, to have title claims. If you look via Google Earth and look at the earth from the North Pole, you can see how there is a claim that this has something to do with Russia.

There is that phrase: "unihabited".

This is what Europeans look for.  It is a reminder that the "Doctrine of Discovery" and "terra nullius" are still current concepts for Europeans.  This is the notion that if a thing (which until recently included people) was not already "owned" in a Roman/European sense, then it could be claimed to be owned simply through seizure.

European notions of properly grant exclusivity, but without any responsibility.  Once "owned", the thing can be harmed or even destroyed without any responsibility to others (human, non-human living beings, differently animated beings).

When Europeans first started to visit this continent, which the peoples near where I live call "Turtle Island", they didn't recognize the people here as civilized and had an unwillingness to even treat them as humans. When Samuel de Champlain, a subject of the French kingdom, first came across a citizen of the Haudenosaunee in 1609, the Haudenosaunee Confederacy had already been an an advanced participatory democratic league of 5 nations possibly since 1192. While the Europeans lacked evidence of their odd claim to being more advanced in social sciences, they did have more advanced weaponry.  Typical of the thinking of Empire builders, might was believed to be right. They use their savagery to claim supremacy and "civilization".



I believe continuing to use this less advanced European way of thinking in this case makes no sense.

Apparently the concern is that Russia might claim ownership through seizure, so British North America (Canada) and Denmark jointly seized the land for themselves as they already made odd claims to neighboring lands. The assumption in all this European Supremacist thinking is that it is legitimate for any European government to lay exclusivity claims based on seizure, even to lands quite distant from Europe.


Europeans are constantly feuding or at war with each other. Even though "might was believed to be right" in the European seizure of this continent, somehow Russia (also part of Europe) doing the same thing to a much smaller area currently called Ukraine that was fairly recently part of the Soviet Union is supposed to be automatically understood as wrong.

Apparently the sovereignty of Europeans we are supposed to like is good, but the sovereignty of non-Europeans we are blindly supposed to ignore.

The correct thing is for the International community to protect further land outside of Europe being claimed to be controlled by European governments based on their uncivilized notions of seizure based exclusivity. It is the people and other more-than-human relations with connections to the lands which have a motivation to steward the lands which should be protected.

What is needed is for Indigenous peoples of the polar regions to be granted sovereignty from European governments in the south (especially those operating outside of Europe).  There are agreements to disallow any foreign government to claim Antarctica, and something similar should be done with the Arctic.

In the case of what Europeans renamed "North America", it would be the beginning of allowing the True North to become Strong and Free again -- without being subjugated to European dominion.

Starting with Inuit Nunangat 

What is needed is peacekeeping to protect the land from European ideologies (whether from Eastern or Western Europe), not further land seizures by Europeans.

Debate at Senate, and why not amend Bill C-15 to give definition to FPIC?

I have been watching the debates on C-15 in the House of Commons and the Senate.

Click "show sittings" on the different stages of the bill to read transcripts or watch video.  Please ask if you have never used this site, and have questions.

Some of the most interesting discussions are happening at the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples.

Study dates so far (click on webcast image to watch video):

• Friday, May 7, 2021
• Monday, May 10, 2021
• Friday, May 14, 2021

 

Most of the witnesses have been Indigenous.  They represent a wide variety of Indigenous perspectives from coast to coast, and into the north.

Most want the bill passed quickly so this policy won't be delayed again as happened when the bill had the C-262 number. This includes some witnesses that submitted amendments to the House of Commons that were not included.

Some witnesses have amendments that are a condition for their support, and a few want the entire process scrapped and start over.

Listening closely to the testimony, the primary division is what I've observed over the last few months of debate on social media.

• Those who believe that C-15 is a government initiative, oppose it because the government is untrustworthy.
• Those who believe this is an Indigenous initiative exerting pressure on Canada, support it because the government is untrustworthy.

 

I would have to listen to the many hours of testimony again, but I don't remember a single Indigenous person offer an opinion that suggested they trusted the government of Canada. This is regardless of which political party is in power, as this isn't a recent or a partisan issue.

I think it is important for fellow settlers to watch these videos, and listen closely to learn a more honest version of Canada.

See also: Who is, and isn't, behind UNDRIP and Bill C-15 in "Canada".



There is one common question/statement made by settler special interests I want to address.

Why not amend C-15 to give definition to FPIC?

The rhetoric around this question is ...ummm... interesting.

Some in the House of Commons and Senate will talk about the "mixed messages" around the Coastal GasLink pipeline, and how most "elected" chiefs supported it while "hereditary" chiefs did not.  They are trying to imply that democracies wanted it, but scofflaws were opposed.



All the bills I've seen to start the process to change laws to conform to UNDRIP include a verbatim copy of the declaration as passed on 13 September 2007  (Example from the version of the bill tabled in 2008 by Tia Keeper).


UNDRIP articles include:

Article 3

Indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

Article 4

Indigenous peoples, in exercising their right to self-determination, have the right to autonomy or self-government in matters relating to their internal and local affairs, as well as ways and means for financing their autonomous functions.

Article 5

Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinct political, legal, economic, social and cultural institutions, while retaining their right to participate fully, if they so choose, in the political, economic, social and cultural life of the State.

Article 6

Every indigenous individual has the right to a nationality.

The so-called "elected" band council system was created by colonial Canada as a deliberate way to disrupt existing Indigenous responsible governments.  Band councils are not examples of responsible governments, and are bureaucracies responsible to the Canadian crown.  The notion that just because there is an "election" that the body must be democratic is false.


I regularly write about how Canada sent in the RCMP to depose the centuries old democratic Haudenosaunee Confederacy, and impose a "band council" that is only responsible to the Canadian Crown.

See also:

• The Meaning of Elections for Six Nations by Alicia Elliot
• Why teachers, unions, and teachers unions should support 1492 Land Back Lane
• Provoking Bad Canadian Citizenship: Is Canada a democracy?

The question of who represents Indigenous peoples, and thus who can give consent, was disrupted by Canada.

While there are examples such as the Haudenosaunee Confederacy where the centuries old participatory democracy remains intact, and can take over from the "band council" once Canada properly recognizes it, this is not the case in other circumstances.  Colonialism and ongoing genocide has a huge impact on governance systems, and there are cases where all that remains is the "elected" band council.



The idea that Canada in consultation with Indigenous peoples can or should define FPIC at this point is to ignore (and seek to benefit from) the damage that Canada continues to do.

If the complexity of consent causes some business projects to be denied, then that isn't a bad thing.  That might cause industry to recognize an urgency and also push Canada to finally adequately resource the work required to move forward on the above UNDRIP articles.

It is the Canadian government that created these problems, and it is the Canadian government that needs to fix them.  If anyone has any problems with the uncertainty, please apply pressure against the Canadian government to fix their mess.





Some settlers (British loyalists, or something else) have even asked whether one chief along a pipeline saying "no" is a "veto" against the interests of all the other chiefs?

Switzerland and Austria are landlocked countries in Europe.  Nobody would ask if Switzerland wanted to put in a pipeline whether Germany or Italy had a "veto" in not letting Switzerland put a pipeline in another country.

Built into this question is their belief in the supremacy of the British created colonial governments of Canada, and the idea that these governments should be able to "veto" anyone else's views and impose their own.


I for one am not a British loyalist, and do not presume the supremacy of any of the British created colonial governments.  Canada should not have a "veto" when walking into negotiations with other nations they have treaties with.  This is especially true of places like BC and Quebec where Canada has been so disrespectful of human rights they didn't bother with a treaty.

Canada should never believe they don't need to get consent, and can just impose their will (with the barrel of a gun) if they don't always get their way.

In one case someone actually said out loud that Canada should impose restrictions on the structure of the self-governments that Indigenous nations are allowed to create for themselves.

Yes, that is something else.

Who is, and isn't, behind UNDRIP and Bill C-15 in "Canada".

Many people have drawn conclusions based on the notion that the Canadian government is behind Bill C-15, and thus because the Canadian government has demonstrated itself untrustworthy over generated, the bill also can't be trusted.

Knowing who helped create UNDRIP and C-15 may then help move the next steps forward once this bill is finally passed into law.

Who isn't behind this policy?

Canada (including its provinces) has been an opponent of this policy from the beginning.  The formal aspects of UNDRIP started in 1982 when the Working Group on Indigenous Populations was established, and Canada has been an opponent for the entire 39 years since.

There are individual politicians (Members of Provincial Parliaments, Members of the Federal Parliament, Senators) who support, and they are largely but not exclusively Indigenous. The governments of Canada has been an opponent regardless of which party happens to have formed a government.

The Conservative Governments and party spokespersons are more overtly opposed, using phrases suggesting UNDRIP is merely an "aspirational document" and not part of international human rights norms.

The Liberal Governments and party spokespersons will claim publicly to be supportive, but will do whatever it can do to confuse and delay work towards updating Canadian laws to come into compliance with these finally recognized human rights.

The NDP provincial governments and party spokespersons will also claim publicly to be supportive, but even once similar bills to C-15 are passed provincially as happened in British Columbia, they will actively seek ways to get around the policy.

The governments of Canada do not want to move this policy forward, but are receiving considerable international pressure to do so.  In the long run Canada has no choice, so the only tactic they really have is to delay for as long as possible.

Who is behind this policy?

As I wrote in my brief to the parliamentary committee studying the bill, this process can be seen as dating back to 1923 when Deskaheh, Chief of the Iroquois League, representing the Six Nations of the Iroquois Confederacy, left Canada to go on a mission to Geneva (Switzerland).

Many of those alive today who have been working for decades of their life on this policy have done interviews or participated in forums worthy of listening to. There are many other Indigenous people who have been actively working on this area of policy for decades.

Pam Palmater

Video created from her intervention as a witness in front of the Senate committee studying Bill C-15 on May 10th.

Truth and Reconciliation Commissioners Honourable Murray Sinclair, Dr. Marie Wilson, and Chief Wilton (Willie) Littlechild.

 

Event hosted by Faith in the Declaration on May 4'th, 2021

 

Professor Brenda Gunn and the Honourable Murray Sinclair

Interviewed as part of the Warrior Life Podcast (April 2021)

Kanienʼkehá꞉ka grassoots warrior and Onkwehón:we rights activist Ellen Gabriel

Interviewed as part of the Warrior Life Podcast (April 2021)

Romeo Saganash

Interviewed as part of the Warrior Life Podcast (January 2021)

Romeo Saganash, Brenda Gunn, and Grand Chief Littlechild

March 2021, Amnesty International town hall


 

 

Honourable Graydon Nicholas

Interviewed as part of the Warrior Life Podcast (Mar 2021)

Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond

Provided a great summary of Bill C-15 at the Indian Residential School History and Dialogue Centre's dialogue on implementing the UN Declaration through Bill C-15.

 

 

 

Leah Gazan

There are so many interviews, and she has her own YouTube Channel where she regularly discusses UNDRIP and C-15.

 

 

 

 

She spoke about her work in this area on an APTN interview in November 2019, before much of the current opposition emerged:

 

 

She also spoke on the One Dish One Mic radio show in February 2021. I highly recommend this weekly Indigenous talk radio show.

Why am I involved at all?

Part of White Privilege is the possibility of living in Canada and being entirely unaware of what this system is.  It is not that the settler-colonial systems of Canada give every white person a hand up, but that the systems aren't designed specifically to oppress what it declares "others" including BIPOC people generally and Indigenous peoples specifically.

I learned about UNDRIP as part of classes I took from the University of Alberta department of Native Studies in the fall of 2020 and spring of 2021. I continued to learn both from the people listed above, as well as closely listening to the Indigenous critiques. I have no sympathy for the settler critiques of UNDRIP I've heard, which amount to a desire to continue to violate human rights for profit.

In the Indigenous critiques I found justifiable critiques of the Governments of Canada, with the Canadian systems being dishonorable since the British created these systems to be part of the British Empire in 1867.

While reading the bill and the background I did not find evidence that this was policy that the Government of Canada wanted to pass. It is clearly the result of decades of international (including Indigenous nations) pressure against Canada.

I watched many presentations from opponents, and while I learned more and more why none of us should trust the systems of Canada, none of these presentations offered evidence to explain opposition to UNDRIP or C-15 as these aren't Canadian policies.


If anyone is curious, I wrote about how I analyse and why I support Bill C-15, the UNDRIP related bill.

 

Why don't I "stay in my lane"?

One thing opponents have been saying on social media to try to scare settlers into not advocating in support of UNDRIP is to suggest we should "stay in our lane" -- that this should only be a debate between Indigenous peoples.

I am not willing to do this for two primary reasons:

• Since Bill C-15 was tabled, certain Indigenous opponents have been asking settlers to also oppose C-15.
  
  In some cases opposition has come in the form of accusing some of the Indigenous people above of being sellouts (or worse).
  
  Some of these Indigenous opponents are individuals and groups that supported the same policy when it had the earlier numbering of Bill C-262. Bills of the same basic design have been tabled multiple times since 2008, always blocked or delayed by the government of the day.
  
  I consider it my duty as a settler to ensure that fellow settlers don't incorrectly believe there is a pan-indigenous opposition on this issue, and to point them toward the Indigenous people who have been working for decades on this policy. Settlers rarely understand the diversity within and between Indigenous nations.
  
  
• Since Bill C-15 regulates Canada, not indigenous peoples, this is my lane.
  
  While some opponents only want settlers to engage if they also oppose C-15, I hope everyone who is aware of all the work that has been done over the past nearly hundred years towards this policy will be engaged.
  
  I do not want Indigenous peoples to "stay in their lane".
  
  
• Finally getting UNDRIP passed through the general assembly in 2007 was an important step, but not the destination.
• Finally getting Bill C-15 style legislation passed into Canadian law after the delays of the last 13 years is an important step, but not the destination.
• This is going to be a long process to amend Canadian law to become less and less an ongoing expression of White Supremacy. This may be the destination for some, but I personally hope this process will eventually lead towards decolonization.
  
  Misinformation about who is pushing for these changes will only delay this process, to the benefit of the systems of Canada, so it is incumbent upon all of us to learn as much as we can.

 

Brief to The Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs, for the study of the Subject Matter of Bill C-15

I sent in a brief to the committee for their study on March 25'th (PDF), but it was a bit too long so was asked to send in a more brief brief on April 12'th (PDF, via OurCommons.ca).

I'm merging the footnotes from the earlier version for this blog.

Introduction

This is my ( My name is Russell McOrmond. Full contact information is at http://www.flora.ca/#contact ) first submission to parliament on this area of policy as I previously focused on technology law. I wish to offer myself as an example of a privileged white male who for most of my life was unaware of Canada's record on human rights. I believed what I was told, and now wants what I was told to match Canada's actions.


European worldviews were embedded within the UN's conceptualisation of Human Rights as encoded in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I do not believe UDHR was ever universal, and consider UNDRIP a critical step in that direction.


I am aware of opposition to UNDRIP as adopted by the UN General Assembly in 2007, as well to Bill C-15 which is the current incarnation of a bill to affirm and update domestic law to reduce violations of the rights of Indigenous Peoples. I disagree with this opposition.

My transition

I was born in 1968 in Sudbury, Ontario, moved to Ottawa to attend university in 1987, and have lived here since. (I acknowledge I have lived on land of an Anishinaabeg nation my entire life, but have never been given the opportunity to be naturalized.)


In 1990 I heard about the "Oka Crisis". I believed if the Canadian governments sent in the police and military that the "protesters" must have done something wrong. Over the years I have learned to question these assumed "truths". I initiated self-directed anti-racism training starting in the summer of 2020. I better understand what happened during the 1990 Kanesatake Resistance, and recognize it as one of many high profile examples of Canada violating the human rights of Indigenous peoples.

(I wrote an article titled "Help stop overt racism and white supremacy in Canada!" that discusses additional examples https://mcormond.blogspot.com/2021/01/white-supremacy.html )

Criticism: Bill proceeding too quickly

The process that eventually led to UNDRIP started in 1923. This is when Deskaheh, Chief of the Iroquois League, representing the Six Nations of the Iroquois Confederacy, left Canada to go on a mission to Geneva (Switzerland). At that time the elder league of nations (Iroquois 6 nations in 1722, and a confederacy of 5 nations possibly since 1142) wanted to address the younger league of nations (formed at the Paris Peace Conference, 1919, which later became the United Nations) to have the younger league adequately recognize the elder.

To put this in context, this process started only 18 years after the Dominion of Canada unilaterally passed the "Alberta Act" and "Saskatchewan Act'' in 1905. This has been interpreted to impose a British governance system over areas of land which Canada had purchased an exclusive business patent for from the Hudson's Bay Company. These Acts were to split off sections from what the British had been calling the Northwest Territories.


In response to the attempt to get appropriate international recognition for the Iroquois league of nations, the British subsidiary called Canada sent in the RCMP to depose the centuries old participatory democratic Confederacy Council. Canada installed an "Indian Act" band council which is only responsible to the Canadian crown and not citizens. This is not a Representative Government, and the ongoing refusal of Canadian governments to recognize the Confederacy Council and not fold the band council is in my mind an obvious violation of UNDRIP Article 3.

We can skip to the 1940's when the UN was drafting the so-called "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" and how there was a refusal from western nations with their narrow focus on individuality to entertain the idea of protecting "peoples" rather than only "people". Grand Chief Littlechild recently discussed that process during a Town Hall on UNDRIP and C-15 hosted by Amnesty International Canada. ( https://youtu.be/IXh2--pBDdA?t=4435 . This skips to the specific section where J. Wilton "Willie" Littlechild discussed the process. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Littlechild )

In 1982 the UN established the Working Group on Indigenous Peoples, the same year the United Kingdom passed the Canada Act 1982. The Canada Act, among other things, finally meant that UK law was not automatically Canadian law. The UK population being twice that of Canada had always meant that UK citizens had more influence over Canadian law than anyone actually living on Turtle Island. While new UK laws wouldn't automatically be Canadian law, the BNA and Canada Acts had already imposed a system based on thousands of years of foreign British history onto Turtle Island.


I don't expect anyone was surprised which countries voted against the UNDRIP resolution in 2007, 84 years after the process began. It is the 4 British colonies where non-naturalised settlers greatly outnumber Indigenous peoples: Canada, Australia, New Zealand, United States (collectively known as CANZUS).

These colonies are where the human rights violations against Indigenous peoples have been the greatest over a longer period of time. I put this area of policy into an important context with the following percentages of Indigenous populations remaining in regions currently under active colonialism. Colonialism almost inevitably leads to genocide. ( Dr. Kim TallBear indicates we should use the UN definition of genocide, and recognize Indigenous Peoples "Very Clearly" are suffering genocide.  https://www.facebook.com/407570359384477/videos/2226217140832714 )

Uyghuristan (Xinjiang, means 'new frontier' in Mandarin)	43.6%
Canada	5%
Australia	3%
New Zealand	17%
United States	2%

Given the Government of Canada was created 154 years ago, and for more than half that time this policy has been discussed, nobody can claim that this policy was "rushed".

Criticism: Canada can't be trusted to honour UNDRIP

I understand this criticism, but still disagree. Canada has been violating human rights since it was created by an act of the British Parliament in 1867. Passing Bill C-15 alone will not stop this ongoing violation.

Concurrent with debating Bill C-15, Canada is engaged in further violations of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This includes basic Article 3 right of self determination with Canada trying to restrict Jordan's Principle eligibility to a "status" criteria that is determined by Canada and not Indigenous peoples. I consider what is happening near Caledonia with "1492 Land Back Lane" to include violations by Canada and Ontario of several UNDRIP articles. This document could never be considered a "brief" if I tried to list all the violations of human rights by various levels of Canadian governments that I am aware of.

The hardest concept to understand with anti-racism is the difference between individual race based prejudices and the systems of racism ( The author that allowed me to best understand the difference was Ibram X. Kendi, primarily through his book Stamped from the Beginning. https://www.ibramxkendi.com/stamped-from-the-beginning ). Systemic racism isn't a system which contains racist individuals, but is a system which is itself racist. These are systems where "not racist" individuals will still carry out racist acts simply by obeying the law or following normal procedures or practices.



I don't think of Canada as a place, as this place had names long before Europeans visited.

I don't think of Canada as a group of people. At no time in the past did the inhabitants of this land come together and decide to be called Canada or to form the Government of Canada. A small group of white males in a white minority region of the world decided to ask the foreign British government to pass a law. That law created a subsidiary of the British government, created to be part of the British Empire.

What this means is that Canada is a system, and any attempt to make that system less racist must be focused on that system. Whether specific individuals can or cannot be trusted is entirely separate from the system. Far too many people are focused on individual people in indicating that those people cannot be trusted -- individuals following a system and believing they are individually "not racist". This regularly leads to the logical fallacy known as the Association fallacy (Guilt or honour by association, an ad hominem fallacy).


This bill needs to finally receive Royal Assent, after many incarnations being tabled since 2008 ( I discuss the dates within "How I analyse and why I support Bill C-15, the UNDRIP related bill" https://mcormond.blogspot.com/2021/01/c15-undrip-analysis.html ). This last 12 years is sufficient time for debating the exact wording of the bill. Anyone who has been paying attention to this issue at any level has had time to provide input.

Receiving Royal Assent is not a "Mission Accomplished" moment for Justin Trudeau or the Government of Canada. It is a critical but early step in recognizing the truth about Canada, and work that must happen long before we can start reconciliation. Truth comes before reconciliation, and it quickly became obvious to me while studying this area of policy that Canada and most Canadians have not yet come to grips with truth.

Criticism: Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) is too vague

Similar concepts to "Free, Prior and Informed" exist in contact law (mutual consent, contractual capacity, etc). You can't hold a gun to their head or force someone to sign, can't change the terms after agreement, or lie to one of the parties about the contents of an agreement (translations, etc).

What this really comes down to is that some people believe it is legitimate to debate whether there should be a need for consent for activities which are otherwise considered a violation of human rights.


I know of no other human rights that are so callously debated. Nobody would be asking if a "right to life" represented a "veto" for those who wanted to murder (especially for profit).


Is it a "veto" to disallow slavery or torture? What about narrow western notions of property in UN UDHR article 17 (western notions of property being exclusivity without responsibility)?

The context I have heard this debated most often is from individuals or politicians representing industries which wish to continue to violate human rights for profit. I find it disgusting that this conversation persists in the Canadian government, parliament and media.

Criticism: Indigenous Peoples should be consulted on C-15 and have FPIC

UNDRIP was primarily authored by Indigenous peoples, and wasn't authored by Canada. Bill C-15 itself regulates Canada, future Canadian governments, and not Indigenous peoples ( I offer a more extended version in https://mcormond.blogspot.com/2021/02/undrip-regulates-canada.html  ). This criticism is largely an example of the Association fallacy.


I believe this relates to the confusion about what Canada is (a system), where there is a belief that if the Government of Canada (parliamentarians) tables a bill that it must be in the interests of Canada (the system).


Canada markets itself domestically and internationally as a leader in protecting and promoting human rights. Canada rejecting international human rights norms would cause people to recognise this as a myth. Canada really doesn't have a choice if it wants to avoid sanctions against it for being a perennial violator of human rights. While Canada and the USA have Magnitsky legislation, the lack of understanding of what CANZUS countries are doing will likely surprise some when similar legislation in other countries is finally used to sanction Canada.

It makes perfect sense for Indigenous peoples globally to be critical of Canada for delaying affirmation and the process to correct the large body of "domestic" laws which encourage/induce human rights violations. It makes no sense to oppose the bill once it is understood that C-15 is not something the Canadian government wants to do, but is something that due to international pressure Canada must do.

Bill C-15 does not "implement" UNDRIP, the way most people understand the word "implement".

The bill affirms UNDRIP applies in Canada. This is an additional clarification of the status-quo, given UNDRIP should be understood to already apply once it was officially adopted by Canada in May 2016. Embarrassingly, Canada was the last of the 4 original CANZUS objector countries to finally adopt UNDRIP. (Australia 2009, New Zealand 2010, United States 2011)


Secondly, the bill creates a process to amend laws which is "in consultation and cooperation with Indigenous peoples". It is not in passing C-15 where FPIC might be violated, but with a dishonorable government carrying out the process in a way that gets this aspect wrong. This isn't a logical reason to oppose C-15 as this is not where the problem exists, but a reason to be aware that passing of C-15 is the beginning and not the end of a process.



Every time a government representative claims that C-15 "implements'' UNDRIP "in accordance with the Canadian Constitution" they are generating opposition and making it harder to move forward.


Canada is in violation of human rights prior to the passage of C-15, and will still be in violation after. Passing C-15 is about a process, and is not a magic wand that will immediately stop Canada from violating human rights.


Several government representatives discussing UNDRIP in context of Section 35 of the Canadian Constitution speak in a way that suggests the reverse of the non-derogation clause in Bill C-15. That clause is clearly intended to be read that C-15 can not be interpreted in a way to reduce any rights affirmed by Section 35, while UNDRIP is clearly intended to articulate new rights beyond Section 35. Language used by government representatives are being interpreted to mean that UNDRIP is subservient to Section 35 - that the only UNDRIP rights that remain when "domesticated" are those already confirmed by past Section 35 interpretations.

The constant use of the "implement" language, as well as confusion around the relationship between UNDRIP and Section 35, has caused many Indigenous peoples to oppose Bill C-15 due to the mixed messages the government is sending. I'm not sure if generating confusion and opposition is a deliberate action on the part of the government, or part of the ongoing mishandling of this area of policy.

Criticism: Provinces, municipalities, or business sectors should be consulted on C-15 and have FPIC

No.



Trade and other sanctions for ongoing human rights violations will be against Canada. Internal jurisdictional issues may be important to Canada, but are irrelevant at an international level.


This is true in the context of UNDRIP as well as the nation-to-nation relationships between Canada and First Nations. UNDRIP, as well as Section 35 of the Canadian Constitution, must always be understood to be at the national level, above the provincial level and beyond internal Canadian jurisdictional debates.

Provinces are creatures of the Government of Canada and/or Britain and should not have a say in whether they will honour internationational human rights instruments. Municipalities are provincial corporations, and as with any other corporation should simply honour international human rights norms or be held fully accountable for any non-compliance. Each level of government should be launching their own process to modify their own laws and procedures to come into compliance with international human rights, and not in any way slow down the federal process.


Businesses which have been profiting off violating human rights should be brought into compliance, or possibly folded as a consequence of continuing for-profit violations of human rights. They should be treated as organized crime. I noticed the witness list and am not sure how organisations such as the "Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers" could have anything fruitful to add to this human rights discussion.

Is Canada a democracy?

One of the articles assigned for NS 115 students this week is an essay by Jessica Kolopenuk titled Provoking Bad Biocitizenship. (https://doi.org/10.1002/hast.1152)

I do not have a background in biology or the medical sciences: that is the domain of my wife who teaches high-school biology to possible future doctors and scientists.

I have spent decades involved in democratic reform, starting in the 1990's. I am inspired by the essay to think about how I might slide it into a domain that I am more actively engaged in.

What is Democracy?

Everyone thinks they know it when they see it, but lets copy a dictionary definition to have a common start.

a : government by the people especially : rule of the majority

b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

Provocation 1: Canadian Confederation was not an example of a democracy

Prior to contact, Indigenous governance wasn't patriarchal. It wasn't narrowly about equality, but special roles granted to various genders. The genders were not binary or defined only by biology.

In most nations or tribes, land was the responsibility of women.   This caused no end of confusion to the patriarchal subjects of Christian Monarchs from Europe who thought of women more as property, and never who they should be negotiating with for use of land.

After disenfranchising Indigenous peoples and denying any women the right to vote, a small group of white males in a set of minority white regions decided they wanted their colonies to be united in a federation.

They asked the foreign country that they were actually citizens of to pass a law to make these colonies into a federation. The first British North America Act was passed on July 1, 1867.  Canadians celebrate the anniversary of the passage of this act of British Parliament yearly, often believing this is the anniversary of the date a democratic country was "created".

Given there were already established nations on Turtle Island (what many of the peoples from the regions I've lived call this contininent), Canada was never an example of nation building, but of often violent nation replacing.

This act created a subsidiary of the British government, incorporating all the laws and systems that were built up over thousand of years of British history. While this minority-controlled confederation was created in 1867, the systems which it imported represent thousands of years of foreign history.

Until the Statute of Westminster 1931 was passed in the UK parliament, Canada was only considered a colony of the British empire and thus had no foreign policy. It is technically false to suggest "Canada" fought in the first world war. Britain entered that war, and thus subjects of the British Empire living on this homeland were sent to war.

Until the Canada Act 1982 was passed in the UK parliament, there was no mechanism for a governing body on this side of the Atlantic to change the Canadian Constitution. While the Canadian Federal Government could change Federal law, and Canadian Provincial Governments could change Provincial law, the UK parliament could change any Canadian law. This was clearly not an example of a democracy given the citizens in the UK (with more than  twice the population of Canada in 1982) each had more control over the laws and systems that governed Canadians than Canadian citizens did.

 

Part of the myth of Canada is that it has always been here, has always existed in this form, and will always be here. I read George Orwell's book 1984 in 1984, and when thinking about this myth of Canada I always think of the line:
 

The past was alterable. The past never had been altered. Oceania was at war with Eastasia. Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia.

I was born in 1968. There are many other people alive today that were born before the British subsidiary government of Canada was solely responsible for passing its own laws. It was only after 1982 that Canada was finally potentially eligible for being considered a democracy, and I'm not convinced the changes made to this point are sufficient.

 

Whether Canada is less than 3 times my age, 37 years older, 14 years younger, or not yet independently born depends entirely on what you think is required for a country to be considered separate from the foreign nation that created and maintained it through Acts passed by that foreign nation's parliament.

Newfoundland and Labrador weren't part of Canada when my parents were born (in what was then and currently called Ontario). Take note of the separate references to Newfoundland in the Statute of Westminster 1931.

There were 11 "British North America Acts", which the British used to maintain Canada.

Note: Since the 1980's Canada has been returning to its European monarchist roots, allowing power to flow to a few individuals. See: Lets work to fix parliamentary flaws which block holding a Premier or Prime Minister accountable.

Provocation 2: Biased immigration policy and genocide are more offensive versions of gerrymandering

I am not going to describe here how many Canadian Government policies, not limited to the Indian Act and residential schools, represent a genocide against Indigenous peoples. Please do a bit of homework if this is news to you. The TRC final report and the Report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls offer a good start.

 

There have also been hundreds of policies which represented "Affirmative Action for Whites" and encouragement for foreign settlers, not limited to the Canadian Homestead Act which gave "free" land (stolen from Indigenous peoples) to males who would "cultivate" the land and build a permanent dwelling.  This form of government incentivized squatting was then used by the Canadian government to justify forced relocation of Indigenous populations and claims of land cession under clearly White Supremacist policies.

Canada is alleged to have "purchased" Rupert's Land from the Hudson's Bay Company (HBC), even though HBC didn't have legitimate title to any land on Turtle Island. What HBC had was a charter from the British Crown granting them a monopoly over trade between Indigenous nations and Europeans in a specific region, without that pesky possibility of competition. It was named by the British as "Rupert's Land" after Prince Rupert, the first governor of HBC appointed by King Charles II.

Indigenous individuals who swore allegiance to the British crown could become Canadian citizens and be stripped of their Indian status and face full assimilation into the foreign Canadian system. (Official "Kill the Indian, Save the Man" policy).

Over time these combined policies ensured that foreign peoples who were loyal to the British subsidiary greatly outnumbered the Indigenous population.

• Newfoundland and Labrador join Canada in 1949.
• Innuit gained the right to vote in 1950.
• Status Indians gain the federal vote in 1960.
  

Voter suppression, genocide, and biased immigration policy represent the worst possible forms of gerrymandering, not democracy.

Pretending that this is all in the past and suggesting that votes should now be counted "equally" is only an excuse to inherit benefit from genocide and voter suppression.  The foreign systems that Canada represent were never democratically decided upon, and should never be treated as if they were. The notion that people should inherit benefits, but never obligations, is a very narrow and problematic western worldview.

Provocation 3: If Canada was never intended to be a democracy, pro-democracy advocacy should be seeking to replace the systems called Canada

The claim that democracy (some comically even claim "civilization") was brought to Turtle Island, and that we need to take inspiration from Europe for any democratic systems, is part of the colonial propaganda.  It is a White Supremacist belief that I simply do not subscribe to.


The Europeans who traveled to Turtle Island to set up and join European colonies were subjects of Christian European Monarchs. These European nations were not democracies until quite recently, depending on whether you believe monarchies (constitutional or literal) can ever truly be considered democracies.

While something like the European Union didn't form until 1993 and with Brexit didn't survive a full 30 years before losing a member, the participatory democratic Haudenosaunee Confederacy became 6 nations in 1722, and was a confederacy of 5 nations possibly since 1142 or earlier.

I believe the British call this era the High Middle Ages, no longer being a province of the Roman Empire, but not remotely close to having a democracy.

If what we want is healthy democratic systems, we should start from Indigenous Turtle Island nations which have far more experience than Europeans. The goal should be, piece by piece, to replace the systems of Canada with something built upon domestic Indigenous Turtle Island worldviews and experience.

I know that this change will not happen overnight, and it might not be completed in my lifetime, but this is the direction I will be facing.

The Haudenosaunee Confederacy example

I regularly write about how Canada sent in the RCMP to depose the democratic Haudenosaunee Confederacy, and impose a "band council" that is only responsible to the Canadian Crown. The confederacy continued to operate in secret, but has made its continued presence known more recently. (See also: The Meaning of Elections for Six Nations by Alicia Elliott )


Let me be clear: Not only do I not believe Canada is legitimately thought of as a  democracy, but I recognize that Canada has send in the RCMP to forcibly depose centuries old democratic governments. The RCMP was formally called the North-West Mounted Police (NWMP), and was modeled after the Royal Irish Constabulary which the British used to enforce colonial rule against Ireland. (Listen to more via the Secret Life of Canada)

A first step towards responsible democratic government on this northern part of Turtle Island is for Canada to fully respect the confederacy as the only democratic government that represents the Haudenosaunee Confederacy in nation-to-nation dealings. Canada must also fold the Six Nations "band council" to avoid further confusion that it can represent the nation (especially in anything dealing with land).

After recognizing democracy, Canada should move quickly toward compliance with the Haldimand Proclamation, return misappropriated trust funds, etc.

 

I use the Six Nations of the Grand River as an example because it is the largest reserve by population on land claimed by "Canada" (See Google map). It badly needs room to expand in order to not force their citizens into more risky assimilation/genocide scenarios within lands more heavily occupied by settlers.

While Canada doesn't recognize the democratic confederacy government, it remains intact and ready to take over full governance. The land situation is also more clear given the proclamation, and all that it requires is for Canada to become the least bit an honorable law abiding nation.  The history of misappropriation of funds and land by the Canadian government is also better documented.  Journalists being arrested by the OPP for daring to report on Six Nations land defenders at "1492 Land Back Lane" trying to stop unlawful settler development on land the confederacy has title to is also well documented.

The Six Nations land defenders at "1492 Land Back Lane" must be properly recognized as pro-democracy Freedom Fighters against a repressive regime, not as protesters in what some consider a democracy.  I know it is uncomfortable for Canadians to use terms like this, as well as genocide, in the context of Canada -- but this is the truth of this system.

The process which lead to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) also started in 1923 when Deskaheh, Chief of the Iroquois League, representing the Six Nations of the Iroquois Confederacy, left Canada to go on a mission to Geneva (Switzerland). The need for this declaration itself provides proof of the ongoing human rights violations committed by Canada.


What is wrong with what Canada is currently doing, and what to do next, is far more cut-and-dry with Six Nations of the Grand River. Things get more complex in other parts of Turtle Island, with areas such as Quebec and British Columbia having no treaties and thus no claimed legitimacy for foreign settlements and their British created provincial governments to exist at all.


I discuss some more of the "What's Next" in: Evening with Desmond Cole. Time to put "Canada" to rest?

BTW: Coming into compliance with the Haldimand Proclamation doesn't mean settlers/squatters will be booted out of their homes.