Universal Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Passed...

The Kichesipirini Algonquin First Nation Continues Claims of Traditional Title and Jurisdiction

Federal representatives, provincial representatives, Indian Act bands, contemporary communities or their amalgamated tribal councils are not qualified to negotiate away unceded traditional Aboriginal territory or jurisdiction, no matter how much the government pays them.

January 26, 2008

Kichesipirini Algonquin First Nation is continuing in their struggle for the protection of the constitutionally protected rights of the traditional Algonquin Nation, through the examination by competent experts, and protection of the traditional title of the Kichesipirini / Kichi Sibi Anishnabe, and their traditional jurisdiction within the Canadian nation state.

Even despite tremendous challenges generated by cancerous internalized oppression and government funded divisions the Kichesipirini Algonquin First Nation valiantly continues to draw attention to the terrible injustices visited upon the traditional Algonquin Nation and continues now in its struggle to educate and inform Algonquins about their full inherent rights and responsibilities.

The Kichesipirini legal actions in no way pose a threat to the integrity of “Canada” as the fear-mongers attempt to imply. Nor is the proper recognition of the Kichesipirini rights and jurisdiction a threat to the security or democracy of the people of Canada. Such fear-mongering are the feeble attempts to control by those in positions of corporate power threatened by any genuine social change that has the potential to level the economic playing field and actually bring balance to the actual exercise of grassroots democracy within Canada.

The Kichesipirini contend that Canadian law and internal policy are inconsistent in their response to Aboriginal issues and that Canadian domestic policy is in fact used to abrogate or derogate inherent international and constitutionally protected Aboriginal rights. The Kichesipirini Algonquin First Nation in their legal actions assert that the unilateral application of faulty domestic policy supports the creation of contemporary "Indian" or "First Nations" that qualify for modest recognition at the expense of destroying the actual sovereign Aboriginal polities. The Kichesipirini Algonquin First Nation insists that the continued discrimination against the Kichesipirini is the Canadian government’s attempt to eradicate this Aboriginal polity through numerous forms of genocidal policy and breaches of human rights.

Detailed research confirms that sadly Canadian policy and federal and provincial monetary distributions to Aboriginal organizations has also contributed to creating an environment of oppression and discrimination within the Aboriginal community. Vast amounts of Canadian taxpayers’ dollars are being wasted to facilitate processes that have no lasting legitimacy and will not stand the test of time or the courts.

While adherence to domestic law, procedures and policies have been used for centuriies to oppress and rob the Aboriginal peoples of Canada of their inherent rights new case law and international principles such as those articulated in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (DRIP), adopted on 13 September 2007 by the UN General Assembly offer some hope for genuine reconciliation and legitimacy, ending decades of corruption and lost productivity.

Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon described the approval of the Declaration as a "historic moment when UN Member States and indigenous peoples have reconciled with their painful histories and are resolved to move forward together on the path of human rights, justice and development for all."
Despite the Canadian government, along with New Zealand, Australia and the United States, rejecting the Declaration and trying to emphasize that it is not considered legally binding it must be noted that the principles are widely supported within the global community and international principle is considered to have increasing weight within Canadian case law. Many Canadian officials say the country takes any international commitment it makes seriously, whether written in law or not.

It is interesting to note that while the Canadian state opposes the Declaration Louise Arbour, a Canadian citizen currently serving as the UN's High Commissioner for Human Rights, expressed satisfaction at the hard work and perseverance that had finally "borne fruit in the most comprehensive statement to date of indigenous peoples' rights.” Her comments give a clear example of the disparity of the Canadian state and the will of the Canadian people regarding Aboriginal issues.

It should also be noted that those states refusing the Declaration have a long history of colonization, violations and manipulations of Aboriginal rights. "Their inability to vote for the declaration is more a reflection on the countries than it is on the declaration itself," said Les Malezer, chair of the Global Indigenous Caucus. "In this case, Canada [and the others] are finding themselves in a situation where their policies are being found out, and are showing they are not prepared to commit themselves to fair treatment of indigenous peoples in their countries." A critical examination of the Kichesipirini Algonquin First Nation experience clearly exposes Canada’s discrimination and duplicity.

Contrary to Margot Geduld, a spokeswoman for Indian and Northern Affairs Canada statement that "Canada has a strong record of advancing aboriginal rights at home and abroad," (Canada Set to Oppose UN Native Rights Deal, National Post, Steven Edwards, CanWest News Service, September 13, 2007). Canada has actually been alleged to have possibly attempted to use undue influence to negatively affect the passing of the Declaration. Canada’s desperation to attempt to oppress the traditional Aboriginal people of this nation, through attempted blockade of the Declaration, was also possibly exposed after the African countries announced their support for the revised document and a senior official with the African Indigenous Caucus accused Canada of having tried to use aid as a bribe to keep them on side. "By approaching Africa, which had so many problems, and trying to use aid as a tool, Canada was committing a crime," said Joseph Ole Simel, caucus co-ordinator, according to UN note takers. "Many poor countries did not have the ability to negotiate because they were dependent on aid from developed countries. "Canada had tried to use any kind of sweet language for the declaration to be blocked," he added.

A Clever Game of Semantics and Deception

Margot Geduld goes on to rationalize Canada’s dubious policy and duplicity Aboriginal relations claiming "We take that commitment very seriously. But because of the constitutionally entrenched protections for aboriginal rights, Canada takes the precise wording of that draft declaration very seriously [as well]." Canada pays very careful attention to wording in documents because it has exercised a game of semantics for centuries. The use of ambiguously worded documents and then conveniently interpreting or drafting policy that is not clearly defined or accurately understood to oppress the Aboriginal population of Canada has been an old trick, thereby hoodwinking the citizens of the broader nation into a state of ignorance and compliance as well. It is through these cleverly crafted documents; hidden under carefully placed poisonous “sweet language” that Canada commits bloodless genocide, theft and fraud.

The Kichesipirini Algonquin First Nation legal assertions clearly expose Canada’s colonial skeletons still attempting to rule from the closet. The Conservative government says the Universal Declaration of Indigenous Peoples' Rights is simply inconsistent with Canadian law. Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development Chuck Strahl described the document as "unworkable in a Western democracy under a constitutional government." Really? You would have thought that Louise Arbour, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, a former justice of the Supreme Court of Canada , former Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, would have caught that.

Of course Mr. Strahl, Conservative Minister responsible for application of Canada’s infamous racist Indian Act and other domestic policy as well as the distribution of billions of dollars being poured into reserves and other federally funded Aboriginal identities and organizations in compliance with domestic policy would know best and be much more objective. Right?

Mr. Strahl continues, "In Canada ... you negotiate on this ... because (native rights) don't trump all other rights in the country. ….The Universal Declaration of Indigenous Peoples' Rights is inconsistent with Canadian legal tradition, and signing on to it would have given native groups an unfair advantage.” (Native rights declaration inconsistent with legal tradition: Strahl, Steven Edwards, CanWest News Service Published: Thursday, September 13, 2007)
Really? Canada uses negotiations as a means of avoiding legal realities and robbing Aboriginal peoples the opportunity to clearly establish their legal rights within the democracy and constitutional framework.

Unfortunately, until recently, that type of oppression and discrimination has been for the most part the legal and political tradition of this country, imposed by the state. Is that something to be proud of? Are such unjust systems of justice and policy worthy of maintaining? Are such systemic injustices really a reflection of the will of an informed Canadian nation? The Kichesipirini think not. We contend that after detailed examination of the actual history of this nation and the Algonquin Aboriginal contributions to its formation that most citizens of the Canadian polity would be shocked and ashamed by the actions of their government regarding the misrepresentation of truth and law.

But of course the actions and policy of the federal government are accountable. Canada must uphold the “Honour of the Crown.” We inherited that obligation with the Constitution Act, 1982. Speaking on behalf of the United Kingdom government, UK Ambassador and Deputy Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Karen Pierce, "emphasized that the Declaration was non-legally binding and did not propose to have any retroactive application on historical episodes. National minority groups and other ethnic groups within the territory of the United Kingdom and its overseas territories did not fall within the scope of the indigenous peoples to which the Declaration applied. The United Kingdom had, however, long provided political and financial support to the socio-economic and political development of indigenous peoples around the world.” By strange coincidence, after they were done using the traditional Algonquin Nation, and it’s political centre the Kichesipirini, for the War of 1812, when Britian subsequently needed large timber resources taken primarily from Kichesipirini territory and floated down the Kichi Sibi river for ships masts for wars in Europe the Kichesipirini and the original Algonquin Nation as it had existed for thousands of years were conveniently erased from the public record, and the Algonquin people were never compensated for their loses. How honourable is that?

Associated with the approval of the Declaration is also an independent international commitment to investigate the relations of States with their affected indigenous peoples. Taking into consideration the major human rights concerns faced by indigenous peoples worldwide, and in consultations with, among others, indigenous organizations, Governments, experts of the WGIP and other specialists several particular topics that deserve special attention and in-depth research have been identified. Specialized thematic research will examine such issues as the evaluation of the implementation of recent legislation at the national level related to the rights of indigenous peoples; human rights issues for indigenous people in the realm of administration of justice, including, where relevant, the relationship between positive and customary (non-written) legal systems; participation of indigenous peoples in decision-making processes, autonomic arrangements, governance and policy-making, with special regard to the full implementation of civil and political rights; old and new forms of discrimination against indigenous people, allegations of violations of the human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous peoples, as well as measures and remedies undertaken to combat discrimination and implement the human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous peoples.

It must be understood that issues affecting the reconciliation of Aboriginal issues in Canada are not an internal domestic “problem.” These are issues of global significance. These are issues regarding the setting straight, the bringing justice to the first crimes of the earliest waves of globalization. These are human rights issues. These are legal issues. These are huge socio/political/economic justice issues. Do not let the Canadian state and it’s corporate profit agendas dominate the people of the Canadian nation into becoming ignorant accomplices in the state’s refusal to genuinely comply with international law and obligations.

The fox has been guarding the hen house for far too long. The Kichesipirini Algonquin case demands genuine consultation of the relevant groups, competant examination of the facts and the application of internationally agreed upon laws and good governance principles to Aboriginal Canadian relations. How is that a threat to real democracy? Who actually rules here? Is it the state or the nation? Is the tail wagging the dog? The Algonquin situation has the opportunity to set global precedent for genuine de-colonization. How is that bad for Canada? Or is it just bad for a selct elite few, Aboriginals included. This is a social justice movement against systemic injustice and exploitive domination systems. This is a social justice movement towards systemic justice defined by structural, social, substantive and distributive justice.

Watch us prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, if given the chance and the proper resources, that an Aboriginal people can develop world class governance that is fair, accountable, transparent, sustainable, respectful of law, friendly relations and human rights, complimentary to Canadian law and Constitution, and in the best interests of all Canadians.

Give us the resources. Do not deny us our history, our heritage, our identity. Why are we being denied?

The same challenges have plagued the human race for all of recorded history.

Radix omnium malorum avaritia.
Greed is the root of all evil.

Paula LaPierre
Principal Sachem
Kichesipirini Algonquin First Nation

Kichesipirini Algonquin First Nation

By Honouring Our past We Determine Our Future
algonquincitizen@hotmail.com
http://www.esnips.com/web/kichesipirini

Canada voted no because this aspirational document would force them to revisit their domestic legislative policies regarding First Nations self-determination rights, access to land, resources and economic opportunities. Voting no has shown the true colors of Canada as a dominant colonial entity that will not in any way shape or form compromise their interests which lie in the resource rich land and the ongoing employment of non-native beaureacrats through the Department of Indian Affairs. It is in their interest to continue the six billion dollar indiustry of misery in which close to a million First Nations people survive and countless non-natives maintain meaningful employment. It is a wake up call to the world that really shows the international image that has been portrayed by Canada as an international champion of human rights is false and self serving. I am truly ashamed to be Canadian.