Support the Dominion
Support the Dominion
Kichesipirini Algonquin First Nation Assert Right to Implement the UNDRIP So That All Canadians Understand the Character of the Corporate Crown
Recently Paula LaPierre, a woman of Aboriginal descent and representative for an Indigenous Peoples of Canada, the Kichesipirini Algonquin First Nation, challenged the ability of the existing Canadian institutions to respond adequately to important fundamental social and human rights concerns without continuing compromising the rule of law and principles of justice.
After years of unfair duress and disadvantage because of gaps within the local administrative system LaPierre hopes to point out to all Canadians how the existing systems are designed to be able to over-ride human rights in exchange for inequitable economic profit. She claims that this is the result of our inability to properly identify the issues, failing to adequately inform and prepare the populace to responsibly participate in democratic processes, and know how to integrate all appropriate responses.
This is all still a part of residual influences left over by our colonial history, and those influences are still even affecting the larger international community.
The greatest challenge facing Canadians she asserts is the misinformation regarding who and what “Indigenous Peoples” are, and how, if properly understood there would be tremendous social and economic advantage available to all Canadians without furthering economic systems dependent on unsustainable environmental destruction or human health risks.
The horrendous amounts of misinformation, or information gaps, place those Canadians and public officials, most informed and aware, at odds with the very people that they are trying to responsibly serve. The inability of the majority to recognize genuine legitimacy is the biggest challenge facing the human family worldwide. This lack of political capacity is directly related to the careful construction of secondary jurisdiction statutes, which when removed from the underlying fundamental laws, become toxic legal fictions.
These toxic legal fictions hide behind a curtain of limited legitimacy, often called the corporate veil, and if left unchallenged pose serious risk to the basic rights of natural persons and natural environments.
In a recent court submission to the Pembroke Ontario branch of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, located in unceded Algonquin territory, Kichesipirini jurisdiction, LaPierre points out how Canadian domestic statutes are not in proper alignment with fundamental human rights, international law, and the Canadian State’s claims to uphold rights to protect vulnerable persons; particularly children.
Important points to remember LaPierre asserts are that Canada’s sovereignty is conditional.
Canada is not yet a completely sovereign nation.
The complete sovereignty of Canada is based on the protection of the rights of the Aboriginal people of Canada. As LaPierre continues to explain, the Aboriginal peoples of Canada are not exclusively those recognized through domestic policy as Indian, Inuit or Métis. This is merely a limited list of those groups of Aboriginal persons agreeing to come under domestic policy. There are still those groups, such as the Kichesipirini, that have refused to give up their international rights or traditional identity.
While State administrations, such as what has been recently elected, claim to uphold their legal obligations to Aboriginal peoples through the administered programs offered the limited list they fail to explain to Canadians that by doing so genuine Canadian sovereignty is compromised.
Canada is often portrayed as a country. A country is not a nation.
As a country Canada does not hold underlying title to our own land. This underlying title is still held by a loosely defined foreign entity. This is why Canadian sovereignty is conditional. This is why complete Canadian sovereignty is dependent on the protection of the title to land held by the indigenous peoples that were here organized as nations prior to colonial assertions by a foreign and colonial Crown.
Those Indigenous Peoples, in accordance to their prior social organization, were not organized according to racist policy, and were not limited to only those persons of a particular race. Like all nations they were based on concepts of protection and inclusive, beneficial relationships that were responsible for the long-term well-being of people as their first priority. As part of that protection they upheld concepts of food sovereignty, water sovereignty, and equitable distribution as fundamentals of human societies. These are consistent with the underlying fundamentals of international law.
Issues of conditional sovereignty are matters of international law. Issues regarding “Honour of the Crown” are matters of international law. Issues regarding “Honour of the Crown”, aboriginal rights, conditional sovereignty, and fiduciary responsibility in this context are matters of international law regarding the protectorate responsibility of a stronger nation to protect a weaker nation in duress. These principles are consistent with centuries of established customary international law that was disregarded for generations by colonialism and Westphalian-styled empire expansion. The higher law requires that those conditions associated with colonialism and colonization must be reconciled. The political Crown has committed itself, as fiduciary, to do just that.
However, certain traditions of interpreting “Monarchy” and the role of the “Crown” has led to complications and divisions in its character that were used to facilitate the economic expansion of colonialism under the guise of some sort of legitimacy. The “political Crown” was often replaced by the commercial or “corporate Crown” without full disclosure.
Paula LaPierre continues to assert that unless Canadians are given an open and appropriate opportunity to examine these issues and how these complexities are still affecting our contemporary institutions and the exercise of justice, all Canadians are at risk for the long-term results of sub-standard human rights and environmental protections. While in the short term these realities do not seem to cause much discomfort because of their ability to provide jobs and an abundance of produced material wealth, they come with a hidden risk. Unlike corporations, which are legal fictions and enjoy existence removed from the realities of the natural world, we are natural persons.
As natural persons we are affected by the quality of our natural environment. One generation may not experience any serious negative noticeable affects, but these burdens on are health are accumulative, and can increase with each subsequent generation. That is why this economic system pushed by the incorporated system must lessen the likelihood that there will be communities available to provide the evidence that intergenerational exposures to certain environmental changes caused by particular economic activities is actually dangerous to human health and the environment.
And what group of people could provide intergenerational evidence of such risks to the human family? What type of human community has built its entire identity on attachments to certain areas and reliance on the free abundance of the natural environment as their primary economy?
These are principles of law consistent with all parts of the world and all groups of the human family. These are the natural origins of society and law. The first laws of Indigenous Peoples are founded on intergenerational precautionary principles that protect natural human beings from threats. In the Anishnabe tradition children were of high importance and their protection and rights to provision, grounded in a healthy natural environment, were fundamental to the society.
International conventions protecting the rights of the child have not been adequately implemented in Canada. LaPierre asserts that this is because any socialization process that would pass on values and skills consistent with the preservation of prior social organizations would be a threat to the existing dominant economic order.
Colonization manipulated people’s understandings of their basic rights and freedoms so that large portions of the population would comply to participate in political, social, and economic systems that allowed a select few to disproportionately profit from the exploitation of resources that belonged equitably to all attached to the area.
The traditions, the customary laws, the documented records, the genealogies, anything that could preserve the actual right and identities of the societies there previously was a threat to this economic disordering of priorities. Colonialism, colonization, neo-colonialism, in all of its clever manifestations is built on layers of misinformation and with-holding of fact.
The situation in Canada is no different.
Canadians have a right to know about the genuine nature of their situation and its possible long-term consequences. But they can only understand this fully if they have had access to the under-lying rights still held for them by the legitimate Indigenous Peoples. And they can only fully understand the seriousness of the situation if they fully understand the nature of the entity that holds the underlying title to land in Canada and how fragile their “private land rights” really are.
Demand for the rule of law in accordance to the higher law.
Demand that your human rights be properly reconciled with the exaggerated assertions of interests made by a colonial incorporation.
Pierce the corporate veil and expose who actually holds the title to land in Canada, and who has sworn to protect its interests, at your expense as a human being.
For more information read the following:
Dominion Weblogs compiles the weblogs of Dominion editors and writers. The topics discussed are wide-ranging, but Canadian Foreign Policy, grassroots politics, and independent media are chief among them.