Nothing can be more political than one’s subjective identity formation. This is particularly so for Indigenous people in Canada.  The oppressive power mediating Indigenous identity can be both paralyzing and disenfranchising.  In this way the word “subjective” in “subjective identity formation” has its limitations.

Historically, Indigenous people valued (genetic) diversity and as such intermarriage, adoption, and assimilation practices were a part of our governance traditions.  Indigenous people also kidnapped children when they were needed due to a loss of members through disease and war, and assimilated political prisoners into their nations.  It is said that our process of assimilation was effective so much so that sometimes prisoners opted to remain with their new nation when given the opportunity to go home.  Today these processes are much more controversial where as such tough questions are being asked such as who has the right to adopt a person into a First Nation?  Can people without an explicit family (genetic) or marital link claim an Indigenous identity?  Can people claim to be Algonquin, for example, based on a heartfelt hunch and an old photograph they hold of a female ancestor in braids?  How about when someone claims to be Indigenous in a previous life and that this came to them in a dream or vision?  What happens when a community consists primarily of people who cannot prove who they are in a family (genetic) linage sense?

In the contemporary political context these questions are important to consider in that what happens when a state such as Canada expects there to be a clear family (genetic) link to a past Indigenous ancestor?  How does the state assure the First Nation is legitimate?  Be sure, that I am not suggesting here that the state has the right to determine the criteria set a First Nation opts to codify and rely on.  My point is that Canada has a right to ponder and ask these important questions; otherwise they could be negotiation with or dealing with a wannabe group that do not have Indigenous rights as per section 35 of the Constitution.  It is in this way that today adoption may actually be an interference to the Indigenous nationhood movement (INM) currently taking place.  Allyship may be the better option for many.

Vine Deloria addresses many of these issues in this interview.  I encourage people to watch and listen as he is recognized as an important thinker.

Complicating the process of Indigenous identity in Canada is the legislation known as The Indian Act, and the government’s process of making registered status Indians and their process of unmaking status Indians as a mechanism to eliminate their treaty responsibilities.  As most people know this process of identifying and eliminating registered status Indians has been, and continues to be, biased through sex-discrimination.  What many do not know, though, is that there are actually more non-status Indians than status Indians.  This stands to reason when we appreciate that the primary purpose of The Indian Act has been and continues to be, to unmake status Indians through enfranchisement, the second-generation cut-off rule, and issues of unknown and unstated paternity.

Complicating this process of identity is that, for the most part, Indian status registration and First Nation band membership are synonymous.  This means a person has to be a registered status Indian before they can be a First Nation band member.  And while treaty rights conferred such as the right to live in a reserve community, health care, and education continue to be chipped away by the government of Canada a person has to be a registered status Indian to be entitled to these treaty rights.

Then there is the topic of citizenship.  Many First Nations have recently begun to establish and codify their own citizenship codes.  Unfortunately, these citizenship codes continue to be informed by The Indian Act, meaning if a person is a registered status Indian, not only are they entitled to be a First Nation band member, but they are also entitled to First Nation citizenship.  While this is the case, a person who is non-status Indian due to the sex-discrimination in The Indian Act, is more often than not denied First Nation band membership and consequently also First Nation citizenship.  As a non-status Algonquin woman I am denied treaty rights, band membership, and Anishinabek citizenship.

Currently there is a counter-hegemonic Indigenous resurgence effort taking place.  The goal of this resurgence effort is to establish a new hegemony where Indigenous Nationhood takes on more social cultural political s p a c e.  Within this effort there is a call by some Indigenous thinkers and scholars for Indigenous people to move away from the “state created Aboriginal identity” and move toward a “genuine Indigenous identity” that is rooted in traditional governance.  While I value these words of motivation, I also know that they are rooted in a dichotomous thinking process that has limitations, meaning in practice there is so much more to the issue than the binary offered.  My above discussion outlines many of the issues to consider.  Alternatively stated, while I agree the ideal may be for Indigenous people to move toward a “genuine Indigenous identity”, on the ground things are much more complicated.  After all, even the politically confident and legally savvy Dr. Pam Palmater applied for and gained Indian status after the 2011 McIvor decision.  This is not a criticism but rather an important observation and reality to consider.

It is always the disenfranchised and most vulnerable that must be heard in moving forward.  Many have said this.  I have also said it.  In 2005 I completed my Master of Arts work on Indigenous identity and recently I completed the process of converting my thesis into a thirty page article suitable for publication.  It has now moved through the peer-review process and the copy editing stage and is due to be published in June 2013.  In this article I offer an analysis of one man’s process of gaining Indian status registration, and as a result Pikwàkanàgan First Nation band membership, and more recently Anishinabek citizenship.  What is more, once he gained Indian status registration this person was instantly recognized and catapulted into being an Algonquin elder.  Through this process of acceptance and affirmation he has also gained spiritual wellness.  Today he is a pipe carrier.  I am genuinely happy for him and I deny him nothing; actually I helped him gain this new place of acceptance and spiritual wellness.

To this end, my purpose in offering this Black Face blog and for that matter my soon to be published article is to point out the complexity of Indigenous identity.  While I value the use of a dichotomous cognitive model, that positions a “state Aboriginal identity” and a “genuine Indigenous identity” at either end of a binary as a tool to motivate people where the goal is to shift the hegemony, Indigenous identity must simultaneously be understood in broader terms.

Resurge, resurge, and resurge….


Lynn Gehl is an Algonquin Anishinaabe-kwe from the Ottawa River Valley.  She has a section 15 Charter challenge regarding the continued sex discrimination in The Indian Act,  is an outspoken critic of the Ontario Algonquin land claims and self-government process, and she recently published a book titled Anishinaabeg Stories: Featuring Petroglyphs, Petrographs, and Wampum Belts.  You can reach her at lynngehl@gmail.com and see more of her work at www.lynngehl.com.

Please comment on, like, and share this Black Face blog.

Anishinaabe, meaning the Original Peoples

Ojibwa, Odawa, Potawatami, Chippewa, Mississauga, Algonquin, and Delaware

These are the Nations of the Anishinaabeg.  The Anishinaabeg share a common language that historians and anthropologists called the Algonquian language.  The Anishinaabeg, though, call their language Anishinaabemowin.  Oftentimes, people do not understand that the Algonquin are only one Nation within the larger Algonquian/Anishinaabemowin linguistic group.

The Anishinaabe reside in what is now called Canada and the United States.  In Canada we live in the provinces of Ontario, Quebec, and Manitoba.  In the United States we live in the states of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota.  The Algonquin, also spelled Algonkin, although not our original name, live in the Ottawa River Valley of Quebec and Ontario.

For the most part historically the Anishinaabeg lived in wigwams, had/have a clan system of governance, were/are hunters, fishers, gathers, and rudimentary farmers who traveled their homeland within the cycle of natural law.  They were/are patrilineal, as clans and land stewardship was/is passed through the father line.  This, though, does not mean that they were/are patriarchal.

Be careful not to define allied Nations only through a linguistic framework.  For example, the Algonquin and the Huron, who belong to different linguistic groups, were allies, friends, and shared culture.

Haudenosaunee, meaning the People of the Longhouse

Seneca, Cayuga, Onondaga, Oneida, Mohawk, and Tuscarora

These Nations make up the Haudenosaunee Confederacy.  Historians and anthropologists called them Iroquois.

Although historically from the Finger Lakes area in the United States, the Haudenosaunee were granted land in what is now Brantford, Ontario.  They also have land holdings in Quebec on the island of Montreal and on the northern shores of Lake Ontario.

For the most part historically the Haudenosaunee lived in longhouses, have/had a clan system of governance, and although they did/do fish and hunt they were/are more gifted and organized around the practices of agriculture.  They were/are also matrilineal and matriarchal as clans and land stewardship was/is passed through the mother line.

Lynn Gehl is an Algonquin Anishinaabe-kwe from the Ottawa River Valley.  She has a section 15 Charter challenge regarding the continued sex discrimination in The Indian Act,  is an outspoken critic of the Ontario Algonquin land claims and self-government process, and she recently published a book titled Anishinaabeg Stories: Featuring Petroglyphs, Petrographs, and Wampum Belts.  You can reach her at lynngehl@gmail.com and see more of her work at www.lynngehl.com.

Please comment on, like, and share this Black Face blog.

Apparently the Algonquins of Ontario offer is now scheduled to be ratified in the fall.

Go ahead and vote "no" based on knowing that 1.3% of our land and a $300 million one-time payment is a terrible offer.

The Agreement in Principle (AIP) is now circulating and posted publicly   Some Algonquin are prone to argue that you do not have a right to an opinion about the final settlement offer if you have not read this document.  My advice to you is do not listen to this argument.  For centuries and generations our ancestors are argued for a rightful share of our land and resources   They argued this because they knew full well that all that we are as human beings and all that we have comes from the earth.  It is only through direct access and jurisdiction to our own land and resources that Indigenous people will be able to live a self-governing and good life. 

The argument for the right to land and resources as the only road to self-government has been argued by many people such Elijah Harper and Pam Palmater.

Read this short blog and watch the video where Elijah speaks of the importance of land and resources:

http://www.lynngehl.com/2/post/2011/10/the-wealth-of-algonquin-land.html

Government policy, legislation, and AIPs are known to be meaningless entities for Indigenous people.  They contain complex jargon, silence on important matters, and confounding elements.  Do not feel like you are not entitled to an opinion and a "no" vote simply because you have not read the AIP.  Go ahead and vote "no" based on knowing that 1.3% of our land and a $300 million one time payment is a terrible offer.

Read this short blog where I summarize what legal experts have had to say about AIPs.

http://www.lynngehl.com/2/post/2013/03/trap-slap-and-crap-of-colonial-policy.html

The most important knowledge in any AIP is the amount of land and resources that Indigenous people gain. Do not believe otherwise.  Do not allow anyone to make you feel inadequate because you have not read the AIP.  This is a pitiful argument.  It is lawyers and judges that write, read, and interpret these documents.  For the most part AIPs are meaningless to the average person.  The only thing that really matters is the amount of land and resources that we gain jurisdiction of.

Read this short article:

http://rabble.ca/news/2013/03/heart-break-algonquin-genocide

Go ahead and vote "no" based on knowing that 1.3% of our land and a $300 million one-time payment is a terrible offer.


Lynn Gehl is an Algonquin Anishinaabe-kwe from the Ottawa River Valley.  She has a section 15 Charter challenge regarding the continued sex discrimination in The Indian Act, is an outspoken critic of the Ontario Algonquin land claims and self-government process, and she recently published a book titled Anishinaabeg Stories: Featuring Petroglyphs, Petrographs, and Wampum Belts.  You can reach her at lynngehl@gmail.com and see more of her work at www.lynngehl.com.

Please comment on, like, and share this Black Face blog.

Recently I heard a story that caused me to pause.  Someone shared with me their story of struggling to get their children registered as status Indians and thus access to their treaty rights.  Is seems that Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC) is taking a long time to process applications for Indian status.  This person submitted her children's application in June 2010 and as of April 2013 the process continues to be in a state of limbo.

While this advice I offer here is not full-proof, this is what I suggest.

When it comes to Indian status registration, AANDC will not act in your best interest.  Do not think they will. Ultimately it is up to you to monitor the progress of your application process.

If you are applying for Indian status and your children's Indian status, send in the applications as well as all of your long form birth certificates - at the same time. Do not wait for AANDC's request for your children's long form birth certificates. 

I also suggest that you open a file and place copies of the applications, the long form birth certificates, and all correspondence that is sent to you from AANDC in this file.  Also, do your best to obtain the contact name and telephone number of the AANDC employee that is handling your application. 

Furthermore, keep track of the date of your original application, and follow up ever few months with direct contact with the person assigned to your file. Do not wait for them to contact you.  Do this in a good and exact way. By this I mean make sure you are kind and your dates are correct.

AANDC will delay the application process as it is in their best interest to slow the process down and deny entitlement to Indian status. AANDC does not work for you but rather they are a department of the federal government, and so you must remain diligent and on top of your and your children's application process.

Note: There are two status designations: section 6(1) and section 6(2).  Section 6(1) is considered stronger in that individuals can pass on Indian status to their children in your own right.

Note: If you are registered under section 6(2) of the Indian Act you will be unable to pass on Indian status to your children in your own right.

Note: If you are registered under section 6(2) you may be entitled to be registered under section 6(1).  I suggest you get some advice on this. 

Note: In situations of unknown, unstated, unrecognized, unreported, unacknowledged, and unestablished paternity - it is assumed by AANDC that the father is non-status.  This assumption negatively affects your child's right to Indian status.  Click here for more information.

Lynn Gehl is an Algonquin Anishinaabe-kwe from the Ottawa River Valley.  She has a section 15 Charter challenge regarding the continued sex discrimination in The Indian Act, is an outspoken critic of the Ontario Algonquin land claims and self-government process, and she recently published a book titled Anishinaabeg Stories: Featuring Petroglyphs, Petrographs, and Wampum Belts.  You can reach her at lynngehl@gmail.com and see more of her work at www.lynngehl.com.

Please comment on, like, and share this Black Face blog.

It was in the year 1764 when the Treaty at Niagara took place.  This event served to ratify the 1763 Royal Proclamation, commonly thought of as Canada’s first constitutional document. In actuality, the 1763 Royal Proclamation is only one of Canada’s first constitutional documents.  Because successive governments of Canada have promoted a particular version of history – a fiction of two founding nations – the broader Canadian public may be unaware of the significant roles Indigenous Nations held in Canada’s creation.

Indian Superintendent William Johnson called the congress of 1764 as a means to congeal the interests of several different nations of the newly emerging society: British, French, Anishinaabe (Algonquin, Nipissing, Mississauga, Odawa, Ojibway…), Haudenosaunee (Mohawk, Oneida, Onondaga, Cayuga, Seneca, and Tuscarora), Wendat (Huron), Cree, and many more Indigenous nations.  Johnson was concerned about Anishinaabe Chief Pontiac whose freedom fighting actions resulted in the death of many European settlers and the destruction of a number of British forts.  In addition, Johnson had to safely secure the land holdings of the French people who had settled in Lower Canada, part of which is Algonquin Anishinaabe traditional territory.  The Algonquin and Nipissing Anishinaabe Nations were commissioned by Johnson as runners for the 1764 congress.  As constitutional delegates the Algonquin and Nipissing Nations travelled the land and waterscapes with a printed copy of the Royal Proclamation as well as with several strings of white wampum to signify peace and invite all of the surrounding Nations to attend.  Due to the success of these constitutional delegates well over 2,000 Chiefs from the Great Lakes region attended.

To guarantee the successful ratification of the Royal Proclamation, to ensure a clear understanding as well as to codify the historic event at Niagara, Johnson relied on Indigenous practices of wampum diplomacy and its inherent forms of symbolic literacy. During the ratification process Johnson presented two Wampum Belts to the Anishinaabe.  These two Belts are known as The British and Western Great Lakes Covenant Chain Confederacy Wampum Belt and The Twenty Four Nations Wampum Belt. The former Belt codified a relationship between equal allies that was as strong as links in a chain, a relationship that required a process of polishing and re-polishing what may tarnish, just as silver tarnishes. The latter Belt represented the Indigenous Nations that participated at the Treaty at Niagara, where the chain secured around the rock, running through the twenty four Nations’ hands, and attached to a British vessel, and represented the negotiating process Indigenous Nations were to take to ensure their equal share of the resources and bounty of the land.

In turn, Indigenous Nations also gave Johnson a Wampum Belt: the Two Row Wampum Belt. This Belt codified a nation-to-nation relationship rooted in the philosophy and practice of non-interference mediated by peace, friendship, and respect.

Through offering The British and Western Great Lakes Covenant Chain Confederacy Wampum Belt and The Twenty Four Nations Wampum Belt to the Indigenous Nations and through accepting the Two Row Wampum Belt, the British accepted a nation-to-nation relationship rooted in a policy of non-interference. This nation-to-nation relationship applied to matters such as Indigenous Nations’ right to self-government, their right to define their own citizenship laws, as well as their right to an equal distribution of land and resources required to self-govern.  Clearly these three Wampum Belts embody Indigenous agency as sovereign Nations versus subjects of the British.

Although many Canadians are unaware, in conjunction with the 1763 Royal Proclamation these three Wampum Belts and the knowledge they codify are also Canada’s first constitutional documents and thus an important element of Canada’s history that must be respected and honoured in practice.  Certainly in Indigenous Nations’ continued quest for self-determination the knowledge of this nation-to-nation relationship lives on in our hearts, minds, and practices.  In the contemporary context the knowledge codified in these three constitutional documents translates to the need for the governments of Canada to respect and commit to a nation-to-nation relationship and provide Indigenous Nations with their rightful share of the necessary land and resources that allows for our financial, jurisdictional, and administrative independence for as long as the sun shines and the rivers flow. This constitutional relationship ratified at Niagara, as Kiera L. Ladnerhas argued, is known as Treaty Federalism.

To create a larger space for an Indigenous hegemony, one where our right to self-determination and mino-pimadiziwin resides at the core, I have constructed new editions of these three historic Wampum Belts or alternatively stated these three constitutional documents. It is important that these three Wampum Belts be valued as “new editions” versus merely as “reproductions” as indeed the original meaning of a nation-to-nation non-interfering relationship remains intact in the minds and hearts of Indigenous people.  I completed this task through the time-honoured and ancient traditions of Anishinaabe ways of knowing and being such as Elders, tobacco, storytelling, and learning by doing. Elder, language speaker, and ceremonialist Doug Williams offered tobacco asking me to learn the knowledge of these three Wampum Belts. I also received Wampum Belt instructions from Elder, language speaker, and ceremonialist Grandfather William Commanda.

Prior to beginning my process of weaving these three Wampum Belts I also learned from the knowledge and wisdom of others such as Annie Cooper, Paul Williams, Anishinaabe historian Alan Corbiere, and Anishinaabe legal scholar John Borrows.  In addition, in weaving these three Wampum Belts I relied upon descriptions and sketches found in the historic literature.  Along my journey I made tobacco offerings, paid particular attention to my dreams, and smudged all the necessary elements required. To wrap and protect my Wampum Belts my brother, Dennis, was kind and gifted me with both a bear pelt and a moose hide harvested from traditional Algonquin Anishinaabe territory.  When I completed the entire task I feasted my new knowledge bundle to honour its spirit.  In re-building this Treaty at Niagara Wampum Bundle I have articulated the knowledge our ancestors carefully embodied in the hearts and minds of the Indigenous peoples. The year 2014 marks the 250th anniversary of the 1764 Treaty at Niagara, the event that ratified Canada’s constitutional beginnings.

My goal is to go on tour with my Treaty at Niagara Wampum Bundle. If you and your organization/institution are interested in learning more, please contact me.

Lynn Gehl is an Algonquin Anishinaabe-kwe from the Ottawa River Valley.  She has a section 15 Charter challenge regarding the continued sex discrimination in The Indian Act, is an outspoken critic of the Ontario Algonquin land claims and self-government process, and she recently published a book titled Anishinaabeg Stories: Featuring Petroglyphs, Petrographs, and Wampum Belts.  You can reach her at lynngehl@gmail.com and see more of her work at www.lynngehl.com.

Please comment on, like, and share this Black Face blog.

For years I have been listening to, and subsequently thinking about, questions such as, “What does the sound of a crow – caw, caw, caw – mean?”  For the most part I have found that these questions come from people who are not Indigenous to Turtle Island.  I have always found these questions perplexing.  Unfortunately, my response is conceptually tough; regardless I will give it my best shot here.

The fundamental difference between humans and other animals is our dependency on cultural teachings and the deep meaning inherent.  As an example, other animals, as is the case with trees and water, simply do what they do.  Humans cannot; we need cultural teachings, and the meaning inherent, to guide us toward the good life.  Given this, one has to ask, “Where and how do humans achieve these cultural teachings and the deep meaning that is inherent?”

All human knowledge and inherent meaning is constructed and passed on through cultural teachings.  The knowledge and meaning serve to help us understand our location within the broader cosmos of the universe, as well as give us guidance and direction in moving forward.  These cultural teachings are passed on to us from our ancestors.

Contrary to what many people may think, all ethnic groups had and continue to have a rich tradition of cultural teachings that serve them in living the good life.  The Indigenous people of Turtle Island do not have the monopoly on cultural teachings and meaning.  Please don’t make this mistake of thinking we do.  As a matter of fact, knowledgeable Elders suggest that all people’s cultural teachings must be respected.  This is what is meant when Anishinaabe Elders offer, “All Creation stories are true”.  Quite simply, without cultural teachings and meaning humans are disenfranchised and lost in a world of chaos and disorder.  It is Clifford Geertz’s argument that without culture, humans are nothing more than “mental basket cases” (The Interpretation of Cultures 1973, 40).  This is a profound statement of how much humans are dependent on culture and the cultural meaning.

Conceptually speaking, it is best to think of our collective cultural teachings as analogous to a “cultural meaning field” that we exist within, and that serve us as we move around the world.  Just as there are many Indigenous or ethnic groups, there are many cultural meaning fields.  Interestingly, cultural meaning fields are not rigidly defined, but rather are open to change through acts of borrowing and sharing from other ethnic groups, as well as through the ebb and flow of our larger ecosystems within the greater cosmos.  In this way it is best to think of cultural teachings and meaning as consisting of a fluid body of knowledge rather than a body of knowledge that is static and frozen in a particular place at a particular time.

While today some people’s cultural traditions may be laden with meaningless materialism and refuse production, we all are born into a rich cultural history and tradition.  Before industrialization and capitalism swept over the earth, all people held a cultural meaning field that they were proud of and that guided them forward.  People need to return to this place of being.  Anishinaabe spiritual leader Jim Dumont has suggested, “Go back to your own Indigenous knowledge,” be it Russian, Irish, Danube Swabian, Haudenosaunee, or Anishinaabe (personal communication).  Furthermore, as Grandfather William Commanda said, “We all need to learn our own teachings the Creator gave us,” as this is where you will find your cultural teachings that will lead to a good life (personal communication).

That said, people who do not go back to their own cultural teachings and meaning, and who continually impinge on the culture of the people of Turtle Island, do great harm.  While indeed cultural meaning is fluid and open to change, the pressure to provide meaning for too many people outside of our cultural tradition causes our cultural meaning to wear away and therefore become meaningless.  There is a limit to what a culture can sustain in terms of remaining meaningful to the Indigenous members of a group.

It is for this reason that my only response to, “What does it mean?” can and will always be, “What does it mean to you?”  This is my way of suggesting people need to return to their own cultural knowledge and the meaning inherent.

Schultz, Emily A. and Robert H. Lavenda (eds).  Cultural Anthropology: A Perspective on the Human Condition.  4th ed.  Mountain View, CA: Mayfield, 1998.

Lynn Gehl is an Algonquin Anishinaabe-kwe from the Ottawa River Valley.  She has a section 15 Charter challenge regarding the continued sex discrimination in The Indian Act,  is an outspoken critic of the Ontario Algonquin land claims and self-government process, and she recently published a book titled Anishinaabeg Stories: Featuring Petroglyphs, Petrographs, and Wampum Belts.  You can reach her at lynngehl@gmail.com and see more of her work at www.lynngehl.com.

Please comment on, like, and share this Black Face blog.

Previously I completed full disclosure about my position on the Algonquin land claims and self-government process.  The short story is that I do not believe in it as I know full well that the process operates through colonial polices.  If you need to read my disclosure, I kindly suggest that you go to my personal website at www.lynngehl.com, look under community publications, and then look for the article I wrote published in Canadian Dimension.  It is there for your perusal.

Despite full disclosure, and all the work I do to raise awareness about colonization, there is the need for me to address something.  There are people offering accusing statements in my direction about the Algonquin of Ontario and their process of negotiating a land claims that terminates their rights to the land, the waterways, and the resources of the Ottawa River watershed.  These comments are coming in many forms, such as that the land, waterways, and resources belong to the Mohawk, and I might add they are of a nasty tone.  I struggle with this argument for many reasons such as the landscape in question is a rocky foundation and cannot sustain hearty agriculture, and I do not know of an ancient village that clearly indicates it as Mohawk.  Another reason why I struggle with this argument has to do with the three - four hundred year history of Algonquin ancestors submitting petitions to have their land and life ways respected.

I seek not to get caught up in the argument of who owns the land also because I know full well that no method of analysis offers objective facts and a universal truth.  All we humans can do in our analysis and arguments is present our stories and therefore our personal “truths”.  This is also true in terms of wampum diplomacy.  Wampum diplomacy is a form of symbolic literacy that requires interpretation.  To hold wampum belts up as offering fundamental law is a form of idolatry.  Clearly, wampum belts do not hold a universal and time honoured truth.  Offering this statement does not mean that I do not value the “truth” in wampum diplomacy.

I also refuse to get caught up in the argument of who owns the land because I know full well that different people can share the same landscape and waterscapes just as a butterfly and humming bird are able to share the same flower.  The idea and practice of singular land ownership came from the other side of the ocean blue.

Finally, I refuse to get caught into the debate of who owns the land − the Algonquin or the Mohawk? − because I know that prior to humans occupying the land and rivers, that the trees, plants, and animal beings were here first.  And for that matter, rocks and water preceded the plants and animals.  These two beings, meaning rock and water, also have knowledge that they have to do.  “Water it just knows what to do.  The arrogance of humans to claim they are the only beings that hold knowledge,” is one of my favourite sayings.

That said, if you are dissatisfied with the Algonquin of Ontario, and rightly so, I kindly suggest you place your important energy of critique, your important time, and your important effort in their direction rather than in my direction.  After all, I have taken the time to demonstrate I am an ally to all people who are against the current Algonquin land claims and self-government process.  Clearly, I am your ally, not your enemy.  To engage in lateral violence against an obvious ally is not of good mind.

Chi-Miigwetch,
Lynn Gehl, Algonquin Anishinaabe-kwe

John A. Olthuis and H.W. Roger Townshend provide a legal analysis of the federal government’s Specific Claims Policy that many people will find interesting, and that can be applied to the federal government’s Comprehensive Land Claims Policy and self-government policy known as the Inherent Right Policy.  They offer that the policy can be challenged as a violation toward Indigenous people and their lands.  While I admit I am not a lawyer, I provide a brief summary of their analysis here.

Olthuis and Townshend explain that natural justice is defined by the principles of two related objectives.  First, people should not be adversely affected without a hearing, and second, decisions affecting people must be made by an impartial and none biased tribunal.  In establishing the Comprehensive Land Claims Policy the federal government has violated/s the principles of natural justice in that they have unilaterally constructed the policy which is therefore biased, and it is the federal government, rather than an impartial body, that judges whether a statement of land claim will move forward, against itself no less.  In this way, the federal government has violated and continues to violate the principles of natural justice.

Olthuis and Townshend also explain that equity law is a form of justice that is administered according to rules of fairness.  Equity law seeks to restore wronged parties to the conditions that would have existed if the breach had not occurred.  They also explain that a fiduciary is a person who stands in a position of trust to another.  Interestingly, fiduciary responsibility emerges from equity law and as such it is reasonable for a person relying on the fiduciary to expect the fiduciary to act with a degree of fairness, loyalty, and honourable conduct.  Equity law and fiduciary responsibilities extend to policy-making and given this, unilaterally drafted federal policies, which construct limitations on Indigenous people in their attempt to live better, are a violation of equity law and the Crown’s fiduciary responsibilities.

Olthuis and Townshend also address the issue of whether the compensation amounts awarded First Nations fall within legal guidelines.  According to equity law, the general principle behind compensation is that the imposed loss is to be made good where compensation is to be assessed with reference to the value of the assets at the date they are restored rather than the date at which they were improperly taken.  This means that any increase in the market value of the assets is the responsibility of the trustee.  Olthuis and Townshend argue, “It is our view that the federal specific claims policy and process with respect to validity and compensation violates the principles of equity, the federal constitutional responsibility and the fiduciary duty owed” (82).

Recently I overheard a discussion between two Algonquin that left me feeling on the one hand horrified, yet on the other hand a glimmer of gratefulness that someone has been fulfilling their clan responsibilities.  The first person argued that the Algonquin must not dismiss the currently tabled, and soon to be ratified, Algonquin agreement in principle (AIP), “merely on two items”, those items being the amount of land and the amount of resource revenue sharing stated.  The other person responded in a way that I thought was simple yet clever.  This person stated that if someone was to read through the AIP and gather up as many as twenty-two good points, this larger number – twenty-two – alone does not in itself mean that the two points of land and resources are not the most significant to the Algonquin future.  Many people, such as Elijah Harper and Alice Olsen Williams, have long made this argument of the importance of land and resources.

That said, it is important to stress that many people are not skilled at reading policy and law, AIPs included.  Reading them is the specialized skill of lawyers and policy makers.  Olthuis and Townshend are two qualified individuals that have evaluated past AIPs to determine why it is that they cannot be relied upon as a true source of land claims and self-government settlements.  They provide a discussion of the James Bay Cree and the Northern Quebec Agreement.

In asking, “What is it about the structure of the claims settlements that leads to non-implementation?” Olthuis and Townshend identify three factors that have led to non-fulfillment: A lack of political will on the part of non-indigenous governments; Vaguely worded provisions in the agreements; and, Missing elements (41).

A lack of political will is the practice whereby Canada, in their desire to eliminate their constitutional and legal obligations as cheaply as possible, defines their responsibilities in very narrow terms rather than addressing the real issues.  In terms of vague provisions, Olthuis and Townshend argue this approach occurs when matters cannot be agreed upon resulting in the issues being papered over.  This papering over, or alternatively stated vagueness in agreements, makes it difficult for Indigenous peoples to then rely upon the AIP to assure the fulfillment of their rights.  In terms of missing elements, this approach occurs when provisions are excluded in the final agreements, in particular provisions related to jurisdiction of Indigenous governments.  As a result, the final agreements lack clarity on the jurisdiction needed to viably operate the programs and institutions established in the very agreements.  Thus, although final agreements are achieved, unresolved matters resurface.

Olthuis and Townshend conclude that due to a lack of political will, papering over issues, and a lack of jurisdictional clarity, the governments of Canada are merely negotiating a document rather than a viable future for Indigenous people.  In the case of the James Bay Cree, the document was one of 450 pages loaded with highly technical and legally complex jargon.

Olthuis and Townshend also offer that once these agreements are ratified they are viewed as the beginning of the end of a relationship between governments and First Nations, rather than the beginning of a new relationship, where Indigenous people are then forced to litigate Canada into implementation.  At the same time, these final agreements provide for the legislative extinguishment or the release of all Indigenous interests to the territory covered by the AIP.

The Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs offer, “Modern land claims agreements will create a double standard in which the interests of the federal and provincial Crowns and third parties are recognized.  These rights will simply continue to exist, they will change and adapt over time, they will continue to live. … The rights of the Indigenous Peoples’, on the other hand, will be frozen and will not grow and adapt.  If these rights are not written into the Agreement, they will no longer exist, they will be dead” (n.p.).  It is precisely for this reason that Russell Diabo argues, “Canada’s Land Claims and Self-Government policies are far below the international standards set out in the Articles of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples” and refers to the process as a process of self-termination (4).

Recently, after hundreds of years of asking that our rights to land, resources, and self-government be respected, and after twenty-three years of negotiating, the Algonquin of Ontario offer was tabled: 1.3% of our traditional territory and a $300 million payment.  Finding this settlement offer disturbing Algonquin Anishinaabe-inini Michael Ranger offers, “The Creator entrusted us with protecting this land to ensure it can support future generations.  This land is not just ours, it belongs to our children and future generations.”  He adds, “They have an interest and stake in this land, how can we legally sell their interest in it?”

References

Diabo, Russell.  “Harper Launches Major First Nations Termination Plan: As Negotiating Tables Legitimize Canada’s Colonialism.”  First Nations Strategic Bulletin 10.7-10.  June-Oct. 2012.  15 Nov. 2012 <http://intercontinentalcry.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/FNSB-July-Oct-12.pdf>.

Olthuis, John A., H.W. Roger Townshend.  “Is Canada’s Thumb on the Scales?  An Analysis of Canada’s Comprehensive and Specific Claims Policies and Suggested Alternatives.”  For Seven Generations: An Information Legacy of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples.  CD-ROM.  Ottawa: Libraxus, 1997.

Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs.  “Certainty: Canada’s Struggle to Extinguish Aboriginal Title.”  23 Feb. 2013 <http://www.ubcic.bc.ca/Resources/certainty.htm#axzz2Nc7YY  Zwe>.

January 21, 2013

Submission to Professor James Anaya, Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples for the United Nations Commission on Human Rights


Source:  Dr. Lynn Gehl Ph.D
600 Little Street, #5
Peterborough, Ontario
Canada K9J 4C3

lynngehl@gmail.com
www.lynngehl.com

Victims and Community Affected:  An estimated 25,000 Indigenous children and their mothers.

Perpetrators:  Canadian Federal Government, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada.

Summary of Events:

When the Indian Act was amended in 1985, the Government of Canada removed provisions that once protected children of unknown or unstated (also unreported, unnamed, unacknowledged, unestablished, and unrecognized) paternity. The Indian Act is now silent on the issue. Although the Indian Act is silent, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC) has developed an internal policy that they rely on when applicants for status have an unknown or unstated paternity in their lineage.  This policy is referred to as “unstated paternity policy”.

Since 1985, registered status Indians are registered under either section 6(1) status or section 6(2) status.  It is best to understand these two sections as “full status” and “half-status” respectively.  Section 6(1) status is considered to be full status because it allows a parent to pass on Indian status to their children in their own right, while section 6(2), which is considered half status, does not. This means a 6(2) status parent must parent with another status Indian, either a 6(1) or 6(2), to pass on status registration. Appreciating this is necessary in understanding the sex discrimination that children or grandchildren with an unknown or unstated paternity in their lineage are faced with.

Due to AANDC’s unstated paternity policy, today when a child is born to a registered status Indian mother and for some reason the father does not sign the birth certificate, the Registrar of AANDC applies a negative assumption of paternity – meaning the Registrar assumes the child’s father is a non-Indian person.

There are two scenarios that result from this negative assumption of paternity:

Scenario One: A child born to a section 6(1) status mother, and a 6(1) or 6(2) status father who does not sign the birth certificate, is registered only under section 6(2) status (the lesser form of status registration which prevents these children from passing on treaty rights to their children in their own right).

Scenario Two: A child born to a section 6(2) status mother, and a 6(1) or 6(2) status father who does not sign the birth certificate, is not entitled to any status at all.

This negative assumption of paternity applies equally to situations where the parents are married or not, and occurs when the father, for whatever reason, does not sign the child’s birth certificate. Through AANDC’s unstated paternity policy it is estimated as many as 25,000 babies have been denied Indian status, First Nation Band membership, and their treaty rights. This policy also applies in situations of rape, gang rape, and prostitution where a mother does not know the paternity, as well as incest and sexual slavery where a mother does not want the father to have access to the child.

From 1985 to 1999, 13,000 children were born to mothers registered under section 6(2) of the Indian Act and were therefore denied status registration and consequently all rights conferred.  Assuming similar birth rates births through 2012, it is estimated that as many as 25,000 babies who have been denied Indian status.

Actions taken:

Canada’s policy:  Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada’s “Unstated Paternity on Birth Certificate: Quick Facts on documentation required.”  This is attached.

Summary of Lynn Gehl’s court action:

In May 2001, Aboriginal Legal Services of Toronto (ALST) filed a section 15 Charter challenge on my behalf.  This statement of claim was struck, appealed, and subsequently re-filed in October 2002.  The discovery, affidavit, and cross-examination process is now complete.  Further, the expert reports are in.  Recently the case was dismissed because the timeline for the action had lapsed.  On November 29, 2012 ALST filed a motion to set aside the dismissal.  This motion has been adjourned and the Master assigned the file is seeking a deadline by which the matter must be heard before he approves and signs the order.

Additional Comments:

A baby born to a registered status Indian mother should receive the same Indian status registration as their mother, regardless of the father.  Anything less perpetuates the long-time history of sex discrimination against Indigenous women by the Canadian government.

In 1943, Raphael Lemkin first birthed the term “genocide” and proceeded to define the term.  Lemkin defined genocide as having two stages.  The first involves the denial of an oppressed group’s national pattern; and the second stage involves the imposition of the oppressor’s national pattern.  When the International Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was adopted by the United Nations in December 1948, Lemkin’s definition was included within the definition. Article 2 of the Convention codifies five genocidal practices and states that any of these acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, constitutes genocide.  These five practices are: Killing members of the group; Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; Imposing measures intending to prevents births within the group; and, Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.  Clearly the last item applies in this situation as children are forcibly being transferred from their First Nation.

Documents Attached:

1. Quick Facts on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada’s Policy on Unstated Paternity by Lynn Gehl

2. Unknown and Unstated Paternity and The Indian Act: How Indigenous People are Losing Their Status by Lynn Gehl

3. Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada’s Unstated Paternity Policy/Procedure.  By Ontario Native Women’s Association

4. Gehl, Lynn.  “‘The Queen and I’: Discrimination Against Women in the Indian Act Continues.”  Canadian Woman Studies: An Introductory Reader.  Ed. Andrea Medovarski and Brenda Cranney.  2nd ed.  Toronto: Inanna Publications and Education Inc., 2006.  162-71.

5. Eberts, Mary.  “McIvor: Justice Delayed-Again.”  Indigenous Law Journal 9.1 (2010): 15-46.

6. Mann, Michelle M.  “Disproportionate & Unjustifiable: Teen First Nations Mothers and Unstated Paternity Policy.”  Canadian Issues Winter (2009): 31-36.

7. Mann, Michelle M.  Indian Registration: Unrecognized and Unstated Paternity.  June 2005.  6 May 2006 <http://www.michellemann.ca/articles/Indian%20Registration%20-%20Unrecognized%20and%20Unstated%20Paternity.pdf>.

8. McIvor, Sharon Donna.  “Aboriginal Women Unmasked: Using Equality Litigation to Advance Women’s Rights.”  Canadian Journal of Women and the Law 16.1 (2004): 106-136.

9. Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada’s “Unstated Paternity on Birth Certificate: Quick Facts on documentation required.”  15 Jan 2013 <http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1334234251919/1334234281533>.

Special Thank you to Jane Weeks for helping me write, compile the documents, and assuring that I fulfilled the United Nations submission requirements.

Dr. Lynn Gehl is an Algonquin Anishinaabe-kwe from the Ottawa River Valley.  She has a section 15 Charter challenge regarding the continued sex discrimination in The Indian Act, she is an outspoken critic of the Ontario Algonquin land claims and self-government process, and she recently published a book titled Anishinaabeg Stories: Featuring Petroglyphs, Petrographs, and Wampum Belts.  In her spare time she carves nickel-sized turtles. You can reach her at lynngehl@gmail.com and see more of her work at www.lynngehl.com.

When Prime Minister Stephen Harper offered the residential school apology in the Canadian parliament on June 11, 2008 he stated the reason for doing so was that the lack of one was a barrier to the healing and wellness of survivors.  I, though, thought his rhetoric was nothing but a pile of nonsense in that it was void of any real practical value.

As an Algonquin Anishinaabe-kwe who has spent a lot time looking at the history of the Algonquin land claims and self-government process at the doctoral level, I know full well that the contemporary process offers, for the most part nothing.  The amount of land and resources Indigenous Nations gain in the contemporary land claims and self-government process is so miniscule that viable self-government is not possible.  Let’s face it, 1.3% of our land base and three hundred million dollars will not cut it.  Clearly the process is not a negotiation between equal nations leading to genuine self-government for Indigenous Nations.  Rather, it is a perpetuation of a colonial and patriarchal relationship.

In the Anishinaabe tradition knowledge is located in both oratory and the associated practices and rituals that accompany and follow. Oratory and practices/rituals inform and re-enforce one another. As such, Stephen Harper’s words were meaningless to me because at the level of practice the contemporary land claims and self-government process continues to set huge limitations on Indigenous self-government.

Thinking through my Anishinaabeg worldview as I do I found Indigenous leader and cultural icon Elijah Harper’s more recent discussion of Stephen Harper’s oral apology of the residential school history and the accompanying practices and rituals interesting and affirming.  Elijah, himself a survivor of the residential school system, was a keynote speaker at the “From Indian Residential Schools to Truth and Reconciliation Conference” in Peterborough, Ontario that took place on May 5th and 6th, 2012.  This community driven conference was organized by the Kawartha Truth and Reconciliation Support Group which consisted of Indigenous peoples and descendants of settler allies and it was chaired by Alice Olsen Williams.  The Truth and Reconciliation (TRC) as most know emerged from the apology that Stephen Harper offered.

During his quietly spoken keynote address Elijah Harper relied on his knowledge of parliamentary procedures explaining that the practices/rituals accompanying Stephen Harper’s apology did not match the oratory.  Elijah explained that during the reading of the apology parliament was in session in that the Speaker of the House of Commons was in his rightful location – in the Speaker’s chair, and the House of Commons' Mace was in its rightful location – on the Clerk’s table.  Elijah explained that these two practices/rituals symbolize that parliament is in official proceedings.  These practices/rituals are always in place when foreign dignitaries or heads of state speak in the House of Commons.

While these two practices/rituals were adhered to during Harper’s oral reading of the apology, Elijah further explained that when the Indigenous leaders spoke the Speaker of the House left his chair, returning to the floor, and the House of Commons Mace was moved to a non-official location, indicating that parliament was no longer in formal session.  It is clear to me that in explaining this lack of harmonization between oratory and practices/rituals Elijah was asking listeners to appreciate that Indigenous peoples were not respected and recognized as the Nations that they are.

Elijah, myself, and many others agree on the importance of land and resources in Indigenous self-determination.  While talking with him after his keynote he pointed out that during 2010 the Canadian national domestic product was a whopping $600 billion.  It was clear to me that Elijah was arguing Indigenous Nations are entitled to our rightful share of the wealth of our resources of our land.  Interestingly, during Alice Olsen Williams’ workshop session, where she was show-casing a community quilting project, she began with offering the same position stating, “Give us our land and resources”.  It was clear to me that Alice was arguing that this is where genuine reconciliation will be played out.  Jan Longboat agreed with the importance of land and resources.  This became apparent when Jan stood up and thanked Alice for her wise words.

After Elijah finished his keynote address I also had a conversation with the attending Truth and Reconciliation Commissioner, Marie Wilson, a non-Indigenous person.  I blatantly informed the commissioner that as an Algonquin Anishinaabe-kwe I find the entire TRC process, meaning the apology and the events that are presently unfolding in Canada, to be patronizing.  Of course she defended her position.  Regardless, I did not budge; after all, I carry first-hand knowledge about the current land claims and self-government process where Indigenous Nations continue to be denied our land and resources – again the two resources where viable self-government is manifested.

Appreciating that I was not going to budge on my position about feeling patronized, the commissioner added that she is doing what the people want and feel is needed.  My response to her, though, was “Yes, I understand that people need to feel that their grief has been heard before they can move on, that is if they can move on.”  Regardless, I explained “After these people are heard, many may turn their attention to the practices [again where knowledge is] inherent in the contemporary land claims and self-government process, as I and others have, and they may come to realize they were duped by the oral apology”.  What I meant by this is that they may come to realize, as I have in my thinking and knowing process, that the practices on the ground fail to meet the oratory of the apology.  “Once they find themselves in this place, many may return to a place of feeling manipulated, denied, and lied to.  And this new place may be a place of greater disenfranchised grief” I added.

In sum, oratory and practices/rituals did not harmonize and inform one another as they should have during Stephen Harper’s apology and in this way fork tongue discourse is alive and well in the Harper government, rather than being a colonial strategy of the past.

All this said, some people may wonder, “If I know that the contemporary land claims and self-government process is rooted in colonial practice and the oral apology lacks real substance, why did I bother to attend the TRC conference?”  My response is layered.  First, I attended the conference because I wanted the opportunity to listen to Elijah Harper’s thoughts on the apology and the TRC process.  I wanted to learn if he felt the same way that I do. Second, I attended the conference because I realize that some residential school survivors do need a venue to voice what Elijah himself suggested during his keynote.  That being “We need to forgive them”.  When I listened to Elijah’s words I interpreted them to mean, not that we forgive them, move past our grief and move on, but rather that there is the need to forgive what the settlers and colonizers have done, and for that matter continue to do, in that they are indeed pitiful human beings versus beings that bear the intelligence, voice, and practices that members of the Tree or Deer Nations hold.

Dr. Lynn Gehl is an Algonquin Anishinaabe-kwe from the Ottawa River Valley.  She has a section 15 Charter challenge regarding the continued sex discrimination in The Indian Act, she is an outspoken critic of the Ontario Algonquin land claims and self-government process, and she recently published a book titled Anishinaabeg Stories: Featuring Petroglyphs, Petrographs, and Wampum Belts.  In her spare time she carves nickel-sized turtles. You can reach her at lynngehl@gmail.com and see more of her work at www.lynngehl.com.