Here it is 2019 yet the Indian Act continues to discriminate against Indigenous women.
 
On January 11, 2019 a United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Committee made its ruling on Sharon McIvor’s 2010 petition. While this ruling is 18 pages, here are some of the bare bone facts of the McIvor petition and the UN ruling.
 
Sharon’s Background:
 
Sharon with her son Jacob Grismer, represented by Gwen Brodsky, submitted a petition to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR). Sharon was forced to take this route because she exhausted all domestic options within the Canadian court system. The short story is Sharon wanted to be the same as her brother regarding the matter of the 6(1)(a) and 6(1)(c) hierarchy where Indian men and their descendants born before 1985 are registered under the strongest form of status registration known as section 6(1)(a); yet Indian women who were re-instated in 1985 are only registered under section 6(1)(c) where as a result their descendants are registered under an even weaker form of Indian status 6(2) or not entitled to registration. This has to do with what is called the second generation cut-off rule.
 
The second generation cut-off rule is not hard to understand: ​after two generations of parenting with non-Indians, status is no longer obtainable. This is similar to when a Canadian citizen moves to Britain. Their child will be entitled to Canadian citizenship but not their grandchild. It is essentially a “bump, bump, and you are out” kind of mechanism. In terms of Indian status registration it moves like this: 6(1), 6(2), and non-status.
 
CCPR Sections Sharon relied on were 2, 3, 26, and 27:
 
Article 2: Individuals have the right to live without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Article 3: State Parties must ensure the equal right of men and women to the enjoyment of all civil and political rights. Article 26: All persons are equal before the law and are entitled to the equal protection of the law. The law shall guarantee equal and effective protection against discrimination on grounds such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Article 27: Minority persons shall not be denied the right to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practise their own religion, or to use their own language.
 
Read the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights here: https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx
 
Sharon’s Right to Live Free from Sex Discrimination:
 
“As a result of the sex-based hierarchy of the status registration regime, Sharon McIvor suffered a form of social and cultural exclusion. Her experience has been that within Aboriginal communities there is a significant difference in the degree of esteem that is associated with section 6(1)(a) status. She has experienced stigma that is associated with being a ‘Bill C-31 woman,’ the label that is given to women who have been assigned to the section 6(1)(c) sub-class. The implication is that they are inferior to and ‘less Indian’ than their male counterparts. This extended to her children, to whom she was unable to transmit status, which made her feel inferior. She was unable to access the tangible benefits of status – such as extended health benefits and post-secondary education funding – available under the 1985 Act for her children when they were growing up.”
 
“As a result of being registered under section 6(1)(c) of the 1985 Indian Act, Sharon is entitled to receive the same tangible benefits as those registered under section 6(1)(a). However, she does not benefit from the full recognition of status associated with section 6(1)(a). The 2009 Court of Appeal decision suggested, erroneously, that discrimination based on matrilineal descent may not constitute sex discrimination if there are multiple generations involved. The Indian Act’s prejudicial treatment of matrilineal descent amounts to sex discrimination even if it is against a grandchild or great-grandchild, rather than the child, of the woman who was unable to transmit status solely because of her sex.”
 
Further, “The 2009 decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal and the subsequent denial of the Supreme Court of Canada of leave to appeal that decision have deprived the authors of the remedy they obtained in the Trial Court. The only effective remedy will be one which eliminates the preference for male Indians and patrilineal descent and confirms the entitlement of matrilineal descendants, including of women who married out, to full section 6(1)(a) status.”
 
“The authors have demonstrated significant interference with their right to the equal exercise and enjoyment of their culture, in particular their right to the full enjoyment of their Indigenous cultural identity. A foundational aspect of an individual’s right to enjoy his or her culture is the formation of a sense of identity and belonging to a group, and recognition of that identity and belonging by others in the group. The capacity to transmit one’s cultural identity is also a key component of cultural identity.”
 
Canada’s Pitiful Arguments Justifying Sex Discrimination:
 
Sharon McIvor fails to “demonstrate that the alleged harms are attributable to the Government. The impacts on the authors’ social and cultural relationships that they perceive or in fact suffer because of the provisions under which they are eligible for status should be attributed to the authors’ family and larger social and cultural communities, and not to the State.”
 
“What the authors seek would potentially involve descendants of many generations removed from the female ancestor who initially suffered discrimination based on sex. The State party is not obligated, under the Covenant, to rectify discriminatory acts that pre-dated the coming into force of the Covenant. Apart from the uneven application of the second generation cut-off, the impact of which on the authors was corrected by the 2011 amendments, the 1985 amendments did – to a very large degree – go back in time so as to deem ancestors of living persons eligible for re-instatement in order to rectify the problem in their line of descent.”
 
On the Matter of Consultations:
 
While Canada made arguments about the need to consult with First Nations people on this matter, Sharon argues, “The State party attempts to excuse its failure to bring the Government’s ‘6(1)(a) all the way’ clause into effect for an indefinite period of time on the grounds that it wishes to consult First Nations. It is not appropriate for the State party to consult about whether it will continue legislated discrimination. Nor is it necessary to consult about discrimination in the status registration scheme. The State party has been consulting about this discrimination for decades, and consultation has been a tactic for delaying the elimination of sex discrimination. More delay cannot be countenanced under the Covenant.”
 
Sharon Wins; CCPR Concludes:
 
The Committee “concludes that the continuing distinction based on sex in section 6(1) of the Indian Act constitutes discrimination, which has impacted the right of the authors to enjoy their own culture together with the other members of their group. The Committee therefore concludes that the authors have demonstrated a violation of articles 3 and 26, read in conjunction with article 27 of the Covenant.”
 
Further, “In accordance with article 2(3)(a) of the Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to provide the authors with an effective remedy. This requires it to make full reparation to individuals whose Covenant rights have been violated. Accordingly, the State party is obligated, inter alia, (a) to ensure that section 6(1)(a) of the 1985 Indian Act, or of that Act as amended, is interpreted to allow registration by all persons including the authors who previously were not entitled to be registered under section 6(1)(a) solely as a result of preferential treatment accorded to Indian men over Indian women born prior to 17 April 1985 and to patrilineal descendants over matrilineal descendants, born prior to 17 April 1985; and (b) to take steps to address residual discrimination within First Nations communities arising from the legal discrimination based on sex in the Indian Act. Additionally, the State party is under the obligation to take steps to avoid similar violations in the future.”
 
Canada has 180 days to respond to this ruling. Read the complete ruling here:
https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/Treaties/CCPR/Shared%20Documents/CAN/CCPR_C_124_D_2020_2010_28073_E.pdf

Follow: #17Tuesdays #AnyTuesday

​​​© Lynn Gehl, Ph.D. is an Algonquin Anishinaabe-kwe from the Ottawa River Valley. In 2017 she won an Ontario Court of Appeal case on sex discrimination in The Indian Act, and is an outspoken critic of Canada's land claims process. Recently she published Claiming Anishinaabe: Decolonizing the Human Spirit.  You can reach her through, and see more of her work, at www.lynngehl.com.

It was during a 2005 protest organized by then Native Women’s Association of Canada President Beverly Jacobs and then Quebec Native Women’s Association President Ellen Gabriel when I first met Senator Lillian Eva Dyck.
 
As many know Bill S-3 An Act to Eliminate the Sex Discrimination in the Indian Act was brought into law on December 12, 2017. However, important clauses regarding what has become known as “6(1)a All the Way!” while added to the Indian Act were not proclaimed as law, rather they were “delayed”. The Upper Chamber of Canada is urging the Liberal Government to move forward on this matter.
 
On February 19, 2019 Senator Dyck tabled a motion in the Senate chamber urging Canada to bring into force the remaining provisions of Bill S-3. It reads and was adopted as:
 
"That the Senate, in light of the decision made by the United Nations Human Rights Committee of January 11, 2019, which ruled that ongoing sex-based hierarchies in the registration provisions of the Indian Act violate Canada’s international human rights obligations, urge the federal government to bring into force the remaining provisions of Bill S-3, An Act to amend the Indian Act in response to the Superior Court of Quebec decision in Descheneaux c. Canada, which would remedy the discrimination, no later than June 21, 2019."
 
By fully implementing Bill S-3, all the sex discrimination against Indian women who married non-Indian men will be removed from the Indian Act. “Really, this motion is a continuation of the pivotal role that the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples and the Senate played in driving the government to include provisions in Bill S-3 which will accomplish the end of the sex-based discrimination against Indian women and their descendants with regard to Indian status.”
 
What is more; “On January 11, 2019, the United Nations Human Rights Committee released their ruling in response to a petition brought by Sharon McIvor and Jacob Grismer on the issue of sex-based discrimination in the registry provisions of the Indian Act, specifically the discrimination faced by descendants who traced their First Nation ancestry through the matrilineal line.” The UN ruled this constitutes discrimination “and is in contravention of Canada’s international obligations under articles 3 and 26, read in conjunction with article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.” Canada had 180 days to respond and provide remedy to the petitioners.
 
Senator Dyck explained that “a remedy already exists in law, however, it is yet to be brought into force.” Through Bill S-3 we were able “to make significant progress to finally eliminating sex-based discrimination in the registry provisions in the Indian Act.” Through the advocacy of Indigenous women experts and the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal people, section 2.1 was added to the bill. This section removes the 1951 cut-off and it eliminates the hierarchy under section 6(1) of the Indian Act where the descendants of women are treated less than the descendants of men all born before 1985.
 
In tabling this motion Senator Dyck explained why June 21, 2019, was chosen as the deadline for the government to fully implement Bill S-3 and bring the “6(1)a All the Way!” clauses into force. She explained, while,
 
"the UN committee has a 180 day deadline, which would bring us into July, the motion is also styled to address the current parliamentary realities. The House of Commons calendar currently lists the last day of their sitting as June 21, 2019. There is enough time between then and now for the normal process of government to bring an order-in-council coming-into-force section of law into force. For instance, cabinet needs to approve the coming-into-force date of June 21, 2019, and the necessary budgetary resources need to be in place. The government is currently consulting and developing a plan on how they will fully implement Bill S-3. This consultation process concludes at the end of March 2019, and by June 12, 2019, the government has to table the report on the results of the consultation and the plan for fully implementing Bill S-3. Thus, the June 21 date in today’s motion accommodates all the steps that the government needs to take to fully implement Bill S-3."
 
Senator Dyck reminds Canada that, “We should also keep in mind that no matter what the report recommends, the UN Human Rights Committee has ordered Canada to remedy the discrimination within 180 days.” Continuing, “Some groups are worried that the UN ruling will be set aside and the appropriate provisions of Bill S-3 will not come into force any time soon. Thus, this motion is important to hold Canada to account and undertake action by June 21.”
 
Senator Dyck graciously offers personal testimony to why this motion is important: “As a female Cree senator, member of the Gordon First Nation in Saskatchewan, I feel a tremendous responsibility and a personal sense of urgency to eliminate as soon as possible the discrimination against women with regard to the status in the Indian registry.” In tabling this motion, Senator Dyck explained,
 
"When my mother, Eva McNab, married my dad, Yok Leen Quan, her status as an Indian was automatically revoked. My brother and I were not eligible for status until 1985, when Bill C-31 was passed by Parliament. For my mother, my brother and me, loss of status meant family ties were severed. We grew up isolated from our relatives. We did not have the option of living on Gordon’s. Our cultural knowledge was diminished. We grew up alienated from Cree culture and spirituality. We do not know our own language. We suffered with a loss of identity, which, combined with the racism in White communities, further harmed our self-identity. That’s why this UN ruling is so important and so historic."
 
Senator Dyck ends with stating, “Colleagues, we are at a historic moment in this new Senate Chamber. Bill S-3, once fully implemented, will eliminate discrimination against Indian women and their descendants who were denied Indian status simply because of marriage to non-status men. I ask for your support, as was done in our previous deliberations on Bill S-3, to pass this motion unanimously in this new Senate Chamber.”

To read the entire Senate motion click here:
https://sencanada.ca/en/content/sen/chamber/421/debates/269db_2019-02-28-e#91

​​© Lynn Gehl, Ph.D. is an Algonquin Anishinaabe-kwe from the Ottawa River Valley. In 2017 she won an Ontario Court of Appeal case on sex discrimination in The Indian Act, and is an outspoken critic of the Algonquin land claims process. Recently she published Claiming Anishinaabe: Decolonizing the Human Spirit.  You can reach her through, and see more of her work, at www.lynngehl.com.

​17 Tuesdays for 6(1)a All the Way!
 
On December 12, 2017 Canada proclaimed Bill S-3, An Act to amend the Indian Act (The elimination of sex discrimination) into law. The process of passing it into law was once again fraught with opposition from leading Indigenous women thinkers, human rights experts, and Senators because, yet again, the Indian Act was going to be amended in a way that left intact core sex discrimination.

Through this turbulent process what we were able to accomplish was to have an important section added into the Indian Act that would, if proclaimed in to law, eliminate all the sex discrimination. It was done this way because Prime Minister Justin Trudeau argued there was the need for another set of consultations. We need to keep in mind that in reality a right is a right and you do not negotiate on matters of rights. But in December 2017 this was the best we could get.
 
The great thing about this added section is all the Cabinet has to do is issue an order-in-council and all of the sex discrimination would disappear. No new legislation is needed. These yet to be proclaimed sections are 2.1(1)  ̶  2.1(9). If interested, here is a useful link:
https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1478177979520/1478178031024
 
What is more, on January 11, 2019 powerhouse Indigenous intellectual and matriarch Sharon McIvor’s United Nations petition result was finally released, ruling that Canada must remove all the sex discrimination in the Indian Act. The UN ruled that Canada must grant equality to Indian women and their descendants born before 1985 and give them the same Indian status and entitlement to transmit status as their male counterparts. This means that Canada must eliminate the 6(1)a  ̶  6(1)c hierarchy by entitling all First Nations women and their descendants born before 1985 to full 6(1)a status on the same footing as First Nations men and their descendants.
 
Indigenous women, human rights experts, and the entire Senate are asking all Canadians to stand behind Sharon McIvor, Jeannette Corbiere Lavell, Yvonne Bedard, Senator Sandra Lovelace Nicholas and Lynn Gehl by taking these 5 actions:

1. Read this and reflect on it deeply:
 
Previously Indigenous scholar and legally trained Patricia Monture-Angus explained that the 1960 Canadian Bill of Rights was inadequate in addressing the 1973 Lavell and Bedard case because the Supreme Court of Canada only guaranteed equality before the law, meaning equality was interpreted as the mere administration of the law, not interpreted as including equality under or what was inherent in the law. She further argues that this failure of Canada’s legal system shaped the lobbying regarding the need for the entrenchment of women’s rights in Canada’s 1982 Charter. Through this lobbying effort both equality before the law and equality under the law are now protected in section 15. Monture-Angus further stressed that in the end Canada’s failure to protect Indigenous women’s rights now serves all Canadian women (1995, Thunder in my Soul). Yet, here we are today in 2019 and Indigenous women continue to face sex-discrimination.

2. Read this open letter at this link:
http://fafia-afai.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/open_letter_to_trudea_re_indian_act_february132019frandenglish-1.pdf?fbclid=IwAR0_Nx5tzgvmMToGe7jETYLsdNf0LZM1jQ_9F2EZxrwud-yoDwhtQXFse60

Before March 20th 2019 add your name to this letter through this email address: communications@fafia-afai.org

3. Email Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Minister for Women and Gender Equality and Minister of International Development Maryam Monsef, and Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations Carolyn Bennett asking them to meet the UN McIvor decision and pass an order in council. Here is a paragraph that you can use through a copy and paste operation:  

To Whom it May Concern, I am contacting you to let you know I stand with Indigenous women and their call to remove all the sex discrimination in the Indian Act. I call on you to proclaim sections 2.1(1)  ̶  2.1(9) in to law immediately. Canada has no place for sex discrimination.
 
Below are the needed email addresses:
 
justin.trudeau@parl.gc.ca
carolyn.bennett@parl.gc.ca
Maryam.Monsef@parl.gc.ca

4. Cabinet meets every Tuesday and there are a total of 17 Tuesdays between March 1 and June 30th when the Liberal government can on any of these Tuesdays issue a Privy Council Order proclaiming the needed “6(1)a All the Way!” clauses into law. Join Lynn Gehl in her “17 Tuesdays for 6(1)a All the Way!” through #17Tuesdays  See here below:

In light of this recent UN decision on McIvor, and knowing that Parliament will break for the summer on June 21st, I am asking community people to join me in support, versus in protest, where we then collectively ask the Minister of Women and Gender Equality Maryam Monsef to nudge the Prime Minister in the right direction. Fifty years of litigation by Indigenous women and their descendants – Lavell, Bedard, Lovelace, McIvor, Desceheneax and Yantha and Yantha, and Gehl – is long enough. From March 12 through June 18 I will be meeting with people from noon to 1:00pm outside Minister Monsef’s constituency office, located at 417 Bethune Street in the City of Peterborough. Everyone is welcome; bring a chair if needed. To learn more see this event page:

https://www.facebook.com/events/246653912905049/

5. Forward this message to all your networks through newsletters, email, and social media. Your networking skills are needed and much appreciated. According to Indigenous law knowledge is not knowledge unless action follows.

Miigwetch for the help and ongoing support ... .

​© Lynn Gehl, Ph.D. is an Algonquin Anishinaabe-kwe from the Ottawa River Valley. In 2017 she won an Ontario Court of Appeal case on sex discrimination in The Indian Act, and is an outspoken critic of the Algonquin land claims process. Recently she published Claiming Anishinaabe: Decolonizing the Human Spirit.  You can reach her through, and see more of her work, at www.lynngehl.com.

I have been hearing people offer the rationale that ‘all land is sacred’ as the excuse to desecrate land and waterscapes that are particularly sacred to the Algonquin Anishinaabeg. Intuitively most people are able to quickly realize that burial sites are particularly sacred and that the argument is poor.
 
In his book “God is Red: A Native View of Religion” the well-known and highly respected author, theologian, historian, and Indigenous activist Vine Deloria Jr. (1933-2005) offers important thoughts that can guide us in thinking through the desecration and destruction of so called development. Deloria offers us four categories of sacred places.
 
The first category involves land and waterscapes to which we attribute sanctity because it is a location where, within our known history, something of great importance took place there. One such example is the Gettysburg National Cemetery and the ground where the Twin Towers in New York City were once located. Another example is Wounded Knee, South Dakota. These places are considered sacred sites because of recent human activity.
 
Second, other lands are sacred not due to human events, but rather due to a higher power. These are land and waterscapes where people have a special experience and this experience is attributed to the sacred. Said another way, within a secular context there is an experience that is attributed to the holy. One example is the town of Buffalo Gap at the south eastern edge of the Black Hills of South Dakota which is the location where the buffalo first emerged in the spring and which marks the beginning of the Plains Indians’ ceremonial year.
 
Third, Deloria explains there are indeed locations of overwhelming holiness. At these places a higher power, on its own initiative, is revealed to human beings. Afterward this location and revelation is then preserved in story and shared for future generations to remember, revere, and direct them forward in a good way. Interestingly Deloria offers, “Indians who have never visited certain sacred sites nevertheless know of these places from the community knowledge, and they intuit this knowing to an essential part of their being” (271).
 
One such place is Akikpautik, the location where Creator placed the First Sacred Pipe, also known as the Great Sacred Pipe. The sacredness of this particular land and waterscape has been preserved and taught to Algonquin Anishinaabeg and settler allies by the late Grandfather William Commanda (Gehl 2018).
 
Lastly, Deloria offers there is a fourth category of sacred lands in that higher spiritual powers will always communicate with human beings of future. His point is we must always be open and ready to experience new revelations at new locations that will then become particularly sacred places. In this way Deloria values that Indigenous knowledge is alive, it growths, it is fluid, it is a verb, and it continues on into the future.
 
References and Additional Sources
 
Cicero, M. (2018). Condos on an Algonquin sacred site? Panels examines ongoing colonialism. Leveller. Retrieved from https://leveller.ca/2018/11/condos-on-an-algonquin-sacred-site/
 
Deloria, V. Jr. (1992). God is Red: A Native View of Religion. Golden, CO: Fulcrum Publishing.
 
Dumont, A. (2014). Free the Falls. Retrieved from http://albertdumont.com/free-the-falls/
 
Gehl, L. (2018). Akikodjiwan: The Destruction of Canada’s Heart of Reconciliation. Watershed Sentinel. Retrieved from https://watershedsentinel.ca/articles/akikodjiwan/
 
Gehl, L., & Lambert, L. (2018). Reconciliation Really?: A Timeline of the Desecration of Akikodjiwan and Akikpautik, An Anishinaabeg. Leveller. Retrieved from https://leveller.ca/2018/03/reconciliation-really/
 
Lambert, L. (2016). Chaudière Falls is an Indigenous Cathedral. Anishinabek News. Retrieved from http://anishinabeknews.ca/2016/10/01/chaudiere-falls-is-an-indigenous-cathedral/
 
Neigh, S. (2017). Canada 150 and the violation of an Algonquin Anishinaabe sacred site. Rabble. Retrieved from http://rabble.ca/podcasts/shows/talking-radical-radio/2017/01/canada-150-and-violation-algonquin-anishinaabe-sacred-s
 
Pilon, J., & Boswell, R. (2015). Below the Falls; An Ancient Cultural Landscape in the Centre of (Canada’s National Capital Region) Gatineau. Canadian Journal of Archaeology, 39, 257-293.

​​​© Lynn Gehl, Ph.D. is an Algonquin Anishinaabe-kwe from the Ottawa River Valley. In 2017 she won an Ontario Court of Appeal case on sex discrimination in The Indian Act, and is an outspoken critic of the Algonquin land claims process. Recently she published Claiming Anishinaabe: Decolonizing the Human Spirit.  You can reach her through, and see more of her work, at www.lynngehl.com.

Many people contact me asking for help regarding their Indian status registration process. I cannot do this. First, there is no way I can process the number of requests I receive. Second, I am not a member of an organization that does this kind of paid work. Nor am I a lawyer. In my Charter challenge I was an overburdened client. I can however provide some insight. As many know in 2018 the Indian Act underwent changes due to both the Descheneaux/Yantha/Yantha court decision and the Gehl court decision.
 
The 2016 Descheneaux/Yantha/Yantha decision had to do with issues of cousins and siblings registered differently depending on male/female ancestral lines. For birth post 1951 this issue has now been addressed. The 2017 Gehl decision had to do with the issue of unknown/unstated paternity where it was determined that INAC can no longer assume unknown/unstated fathers are non-Indian. Rather, INAC has to be reasonable and look at credible evidence that surrounds the child’s birth. Here are the Gehl clauses:
 
Unknown or Unstated Parentage
 
(6) If a parent, grandparent or other ancestor of a person in respect of whom an application is made is unknown — or is unstated on a birth certificate that, if the parent, grandparent or other ancestor were named on it, would help to establish the person’s entitlement to be registered — the Registrar shall, without being required to establish the identity of that parent, grandparent or other ancestor, determine, after considering all of the relevant evidence, whether that parent, grandparent or other ancestor is, was or would have been entitled to be registered. In making the determination, the Registrar shall rely on any credible evidence that is presented by the applicant in support of the application or that the Registrar otherwise has knowledge of and shall draw from it every reasonable inference in favour of the person in respect of whom the application is made.
 
No Presumption
 
(7) For greater certainty, if the identity of a parent, grandparent or other ancestor of an applicant is unknown or unstated on a birth certificate, there is no presumption that this parent, grandparent or other ancestor is not, was not or would not have been entitled to be registered.
 
I interpret these clauses to mean INAC does not have the right to make the assumption that an unknown or unstated father is non-Indian.
 
Some people ask me, “what was the relevant/credible evidence associated with my application?” The relevant/credible evidence presented in my request for Indian status registration and that the Court of Appeal for Ontario cited was:

• My great grandparents lived in the Golden Lake Reserve community
• My grandmother lived in the Golden Lake Reserve community
• My father was born in the Golden Lake Reserve community as was recorded on his registration of birth
• My father was accepted by the Golden Lake Reserve community
• My father lived in the Golden Lake Reserve community
• My father’s godfather was a prominent Elder from the Golden Lake Reserve community
• There is no evidence that he was excluded from the Golden Lake Reserve community

With this explained, I think it is important for me to share more knowledge that my court case uncovered. Through the 2010 McIvor court case INAC created a 2011/12 internal policy, in the form of two small but important directives, which outlined explicitly that the 1985 Indian Act, and thus the Indian Registrar, did not gain the right to make the assumption that unknown and unstated fathers were non-Indian. The 2011 policy directive states that in fact INAC does not have the power to deem an unknown or unstated father as non-Indian; where the 2012 policy directive provides further clarity on how this would apply to pre and post 1951 births. While some would be entitled to 6(1)a, others will be entitled to 6(1)c.
 
Again, these policy directives clearly outline that the Registrar does not have the power to deem non-Indian paternity. It is stated, “the power of the Registrar to deem non-Indian paternity was not carried over in the 1985 Indian Act amendments” (INAC 2011 Memorandum). This policy is in line with the Gehl clauses.
 
Disturbingly the policy also states, “We will not be taking any action to seek out and then investigate or rectify past decisions at this time” (INAC 2011 Memorandum). What this means is INAC had no intention of re-opening closed pre 2011 files to reconsider applicants who had been denied Indian status registration through INAC’s 1985 proof of paternity policy rules that insists fathers are named, and where they are not named the assumption is the father is a non-Indian. This includes situations when an ancestor with an unknown or unstated paternity, born before 1985, is in an applicant’s history. In other words INAC had applied the assumption of non-Indian paternity to new births after 1985, as well as applied it to past births even though they did not have the power to do so.
 
Of course the presence of this policy means that I was forced to endure unnecessary litigation.
 
In summary, the only advice I can offer is that if you were previously denied Indian status registration you should ask INAC to reassess your file under the new changes, providing the necessary relevant/credible evidence and documents. One reason I cannot offer any concrete advice is that the bottom line is that you need to re-contact INAC and ask them if the new changes apply to your situation. Ultimately, only INAC has the ability to determine the exact outcome.
 
Miigwetch for understanding my position.

​​© Lynn Gehl, Ph.D. is an Algonquin Anishinaabe-kwe from the Ottawa River Valley. In 2017 she won an Ontario Court of Appeal case on sex discrimination in The Indian Act, and is an outspoken critic of the Algonquin land claims process. Recently she published Claiming Anishinaabe: Decolonizing the Human Spirit.  You can reach her through, and see more of her work, at www.lynngehl.com.

Akikpautik: Akik, means kettle or rock basin; Pautik, means cascade; tik, means branch or stick as in pipe stem; Pipe Bowl Falls; Great Sacred Pipe; Creator's First Sacred Pipe.

Indigenous place names, learning about them, and reclaiming them is a complex process for several reasons:
 
First, languages evolve and shift into different dialects as they move across the landscape and as they move across time. Another way to say this is a language consists of a series of contiguous dialects that moves across space and through time. What this means is, like Creation, the only constancy we can expect is change.
 
Second, many nations can and will have their own name for a particular land mark or waterscape that they can see or hear in the distance, and/or as they travel on a river/lake/ocean, or as they traverse around and by them within the traditional territory of a neighbouring nation.
 
Third, some people are of the thought that because their nation has a name for a particular land mark and/or waterscape feature that this alone implies Truth and ownership.
 
Fourth, many people are unable to value that different nations can in fact share a particular land and waterscape where no one nation actually owns it. Places are shared spaces.
 
Fifth, through power over strategies, such as colonization and cultural genocide, and the death of old time original language speakers, many Indigenous people are at a loss in remembering original place names and their meanings.
 
Sixth, in the contemporary context, the process of renaming land and waterscapes is mediated by power and economics where as such internalized oppression and lateral violence flourishes.
 
Seventh, some people think the renaming of a place can be settled by majority rule arguments when this process is more about power and oppression. It is well known that sometimes the most important knowledge rests with the minority. Critical theory teaches us this.
 
Eighth, many people are not critical thinkers or trained in critical theory where as such they are un-able to perceive nuance and slight differences and where similarity in words is perceived as the same meaning.
 
Ninth, many people engage in a process of linguistic essentialism as their way to discredit thinkers. To these people the argument is that language is the complete knowledge source of all things; that language holds the Truth of all things when in reality language is only one source of a nation’s knowledge.
 
Tenth, an entity can in fact have several names, and the same name can have different meanings. For example, synonyms for sweater are cardigan and pull over. And a boiler can be a metaphor for rapids, a cooking pot, or a dangerous nuclear reactor.
 
Note: While Akikpautik means Pipe Bowl Falls, Opwagun means Pipe. There is a difference in both the words and meaning; while Pipe Bowl Falls implies an un-articulated Pipe Bowl and Pipe Stem, the second implies a complete articulated Pipe.
 
Note: The Mohawk name for Akikpautik is kana:tsio and it means a boiling pot; a whirlpool in the Ottawa River, where the waterfall has eroded the rock below creating a depression into which the water spills and swirls, creating the boiling effect. (http://geolinguistics.ca/2018/02/03/save-the-falls/)
 
In the Anishinaabe storytelling tradition respect for subjectivity and introspection is crucial. In addition, historically Anishinaabeg inscribed stories and teachings into the land and waterscape as a part of their system of symbolic literacy and land memory.
 
I was fortunate to spend time with Algonquin Grandfather William Commanda during my doctoral work. As a PhD student my interests were regarding Algonquin land and resource rights and traditional knowledge. During our discussions he talked to me about the “Great Sacred Pipe” also known as Pipe Bowl Falls. Grandfather described to me how it was that the falls formed an almost perfect circle like a Pipe Bowl, how the mist rising from the Bowl represented smoke and prayers going up to Creator, and where the rainbows above the Bowl represented two sacred elements, namely Fire and Water or man and woman, coming together in the special act of procreation and Creation. He also talked about how it is that Wìsakedjàk’s, also known as Nanaboozhoo, footprints are found along the Asinabka shoreline. I was honoured to spend time with Grandfather and I hold this time dearly in my heart. Through Grandfather’s story I interpret Akikpautik as the land and waterscape where Creator placed the First Sacred Pipe.
 
In the Anishinaabeg knowledge tradition it is understood that morals such as respect and kindness came before all else. Seeking to discredit my use and understanding of what Akikpautik means, and seeking to discredit my respect for Grandfather’s Asinabka teaching and vision, solely based on linguistic essentialism really should be re-thought as I am not the enemy that keeps the Algonquin poor. Clearly my goal is situated within the Seventh Fire Prophecy in that I am picking up the pieces of knowledge that our ancestors left behind for us to articulate a better future for all things: Water, Trees, Mooz, and Humans.
 
And there is more …
 
The Algonquin Anishinaabe are entitled to live a good life off their land and resources, but Canada will not allow this to happen. Canada is afraid. Situated within the context where colonial Canada only provides small areas of employment and economic prosperity, what results is the Algonquin become at odds with one another. The issue between the Algonquin cannot be resolved through pro and con debates because the bottom line is if the Algonquin had what they were entitled to the debated issues would not exist.
 
Similarly, when settler allies step up to help a particular fraction of Algonquin they really are not the enemy as some people think they are, Canada is. It is Canada that is dividing the Algonquin, and it is Canada that is dividing the Algonquin and settler allies. We really need to think critically versus laterally, and we need to behave better than the way crabs do when placed in a bucket. Canada’s policies and laws will take us all down if we don’t get our acts together. Respect Algonquin and respect our allies, we need one another. We all need clean land, air, and water.
 
Links of interest:
 
https://soundcloud.com/mosaic-publication/dr-gehl-talks-about-construction-on-a-sacred-algonquin-island?fbclid=IwAR1Qg2IG3ejdqg2M0KYWUWH2pSbVWj3ui_BzUy0kR32tWusiJJ-uam9Eey8
 
https://cusjc.ca/mosaic/2018/11/23/indigenous-names-token-or-tribute/?fbclid=IwAR2A0c7udg3IC6MdsxVQjyswrUVCRjQ305A6szjqvWIK0iRXoqmnSF2w7WE
 
https://watershedsentinel.ca/articles/akikodjiwan/

When it comes to Indigenous rights, it is part of Canada’s strategy to confuse its citizenry. Don’t be duped by the way Canada co-opts and re-defines terms.
 
The truth is Canada is not signing treaties nor is Canada’s newly proposed Recognition and Implementation of Rights Framework[1] at all rooted in reconciliation, nation-to-nation, or an equal sharing of lands and resources. Rather, Canada will continue to sign agreements that grossly and narrowly define Indigenous rights as Canada allows them to be. While Canada calls these agreements “modern treaties”, the reality is Canada continues to refuse to meet international standards regarding Indigenous rights, and thus continues to be a colonial and genocidal agent. Remember Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould said the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) is unworkable.[2] Indeed Minister Carolyn Bennett should be embarrassed about her role in this.
 
When Justin Trudeau came to power as prime minister, it was in large part reactionary to the loathe many people felt for Stephen Harper. Regardless, for other people, Trudeau’s lofty feminist platform and promises of reconciliation and a new nation-to-nation relationship that included the implementation of the UNDRIP was immediately recognized for the lies they were. This was apparent when Trudeau promoted Deputy Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada Michael Wernick to the position of Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to Cabinet. With this move Trudeau promoted the highest ranking civil servant to an even higher position.[3]
 
To the wretchedness of many Indigenous people, it was in June 2016 when Trudeau divulged his thinking. He argued the federal government is the first order of government, the Provincial/Territorial governments the second, municipalities the third, whereas Indigenous government is the fourth and lowest order.[4] Clearly, Trudeau’s version of nation-to-nation was meaningless.[5]
 
In the House of Commons Trudeau stated his new Indigenous Recognition and Implementation of Rights Framework would “include new legislation and policy that would make the recognition and implementation of rights the basis for all relations between Indigenous Peoples and the federal government moving forward.” He said this new legislation, now set to be tabled in the new year, will “recognize Indigenous governments, and ensure rigorous, full and meaningful implementation of treaties and other agreements.”[6]
 
In line with lead colonial agent Trudeau, Bennett said following a co-development process with the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) she plans to replace policies governing comprehensive claims and self-government.[7] But keep in mind here that the AFN does not represent all Indigenous people in Canada. Rather, it is a body of First Nation chiefs and their membership.
 
Justifiably, many Indigenous leaders are not happy with this approach. Chief Judy Wilson has argued, it makes more sense to implement UNDRIP as the new framework, rather than what Bennett is pushing, adding UNDRIP is the right direction for Canada to take.[8]
 
Indigenous policy advisor and leading Indigenous thinker Russell Diabo adds, the Trudeau government is developing and domesticating a Canadian definition of UNDRIP to further colonize Indigenous Peoples.[9] He adds, the development of this framework has operated in secret, in a top-down process, and with particular organizations, chiefs, and participants. In taking this approach Canada has selected people who are willing to consent. Chiefs and people, for example, who are under the oppressors funding regimes. Diabo argues this framework is designed to terminate our existing sovereignty, self-determination, collective Aboriginal Title and Rights, and Treaty Rights as Indigenous Nations.[10]
 
Thohahente Weaver, a First Nations band member of Kenhteke, the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte, and outspoken critic, agrees with Diabo arguing, we offered the new comers peace and friendship. We presented them with our Wampum Belts, a traditional governance structure that collectively codify a good and honourable relationship, yet Canada continues to impose our extermination. That is what this new framework is about: The end of Indigenous jurisdiction.[11]
 
Diabo argues through the new framework, and through the fourth level of government, Indigenous rights will be domesticated and defined under federal jurisdiction. Canada will do this by financially coercing and co-opting Indian Act bands to become federally recognized as an Indigenous government. He adds it is important to know that this new framework only concerns Indian Act reserve lands, which consists of only 0.2% of our broader traditional territories. It is in this way that Diabo argues this new framework is an extension of the 1969 White Paper on Indian Policy that called for converting Indian reserves into fee simple ownership and private property.[12] No doubt Trudeau Jr is completing his daddy’s work first proposed in the White Paper.
 
Clearly Indigenous self-government means more than the administration of our own property on reserves. It must mean meeting international standards of Indigenous self-determination which means Canada must respect our rights to our own land and resources so Indigenous Nations can build our own structures of governance and law, and our own institutions such as child care agencies, schools, hospitals, laws, courts, and policing. After all the land and the gifts it provides are ours because we are the Indigenous people to these lands, not the settler people and their descendants.
 
In his book “Reconciliation Manifesto: Recovering the Land, Rebuilding the Economy” Arthur Manual said Canada’s greatest betrayal of this century belongs to Justin Trudeau for the lies and manipulation that he campaigned on, that being that UNDRIP would be fully implemented once he was elected as prime minister. Adding Jody Wilson-Raybould is also a devastating disappointment to Indigenous people.
 
As an Algonquin Anishinaabe-kwe from the Ottawa River Valley, a land and waterscape that due to processes of colonization I have never been afforded to live within, nothing speaks to me more about Trudeau’s lies and manipulation than the reality that Canada continues to stand still on their offer of 1.3% of our territory and a one-time buy-out of $300 million in the Algonquin of Ontario land claim. Trudeau’s Liberal government has not moved on this offer. It is through offers such as this and through the new Rights Recognition Framework that Canada’s genocide will continue. Nothing has changed, just more co-optation of the terms relied on.
 
Canada’s Parliament squats on Algonquin land![13]
 
[1]https://pm.gc.ca/eng/news/2018/02/14/government-canada-create-recognition-and-implementation-rights-framework
[2]https://aptnnews.ca/2016/07/12/justice-minister-jody-wilson-raybould-says-adopting-undrip-into-canadian-law-unworkable/
[3]https://aptnnews.ca/2016/01/26/opinion-appointment-of-michael-wernick-as-top-federal-bureaucrat-in-ottawa-should-be-a-concern-for-aboriginal-peoples-especially-first-nations/?fbclid=IwAR17T-EscM85Qy-2WX19R1AiipoOej6kKo-LBNLEOOkFXUOCbkNdCdG19jM
[4]http://www.cpac.ca/en/programs/headline-politics/episodes/47793606?fbclid=IwAR2v3R9nFRMmHi2pYlyt1AkTpK5eyw5D-vI8FFt1Sgd_m9NWGMyP5zUHSzs
[5]https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5acc137850a54f99f58eb19a/t/5bd903d54ae237468519721e/1540948955470/Diabo+FPIC+Conference+Oct+25+18.pdf
[6]https://aptnnews.ca/2018/12/04/trudeau-to-address-first-nation-chiefs-amid-growing-opposition-to-indigenous-rights-framework/?fbclid=IwAR2uIVhI3_s60cG91RCclpNESBbpD4tFBQ0ymMpBlRiQ4oeioiP8mnnItF4
[7]https://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/carolyn-bennett-specific-claims-overhaul-1.4930894?fbclid=IwAR1xehpJBH_afyXAEyOePMbAnDPBimeMEETp2Fykx6n3fSfXdTwe1zyqQgA
[8]https://aptnnews.ca/2018/12/04/trudeau-to-address-first-nation-chiefs-amid-growing-opposition-to-indigenous-rights-framework/?fbclid=IwAR2uIVhI3_s60cG91RCclpNESBbpD4tFBQ0ymMpBlRiQ4oeioiP8mnnItF4
[9]https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5acc137850a54f99f58eb19a/t/5bd903d54ae237468519721e/1540948955470/Diabo+FPIC+Conference+Oct+25+18.pdf
[10]https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5acc137850a54f99f58eb19a/t/5bd904268985831ed03ba163/1540949031200/DOL+TC+INM+Brochure+Sept+23+FINAL.pdf
[11]http://www.windspeaker.com/news/windspeaker-news/youth-rally-on-afn-takes-framework-message-to-afn-assembly/?fbclid=IwAR26fdEGv8aZhM7_UFPpZfof9v8AriNgVGj58mTyYabvKZM_0yH-Cj5QS84
[12]https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5acc137850a54f99f58eb19a/t/5bd90455758d468d5107cff0/1540949077581/DOL+TBR+INM+Backgrounder+Sept+7+18+FINAL+%2B.pdf
[13]https://www.lynngehl.com/black-face-blogging/algonquin-anishinaabe-land-acknowledgement

​© Lynn Gehl, Ph.D. is an Algonquin Anishinaabe-kwe from the Ottawa River Valley. In 2017 she won an Ontario Court of Appeal case on sex discrimination in The Indian Act, and is an outspoken critic of the Algonquin land claims process. Recently she published Claiming Anishinaabe: Decolonizing the Human Spirit.  You can reach her through, and see more of her work, at www.lynngehl.com.

© Lynn Gehl, Ph.D. is an Algonquin Anishinaabe-kwe from the Ottawa River Valley. In 2017 she won an Ontario Court of Appeal case on sex discrimination in The Indian Act, and is an outspoken critic of the Algonquin land claims process. Recently she published Claiming Anishinaabe: Decolonizing the Human Spirit.  You can reach her through, and see more of her work, at www.lynngehl.com.

​In the Anishinaabe world it was from Creator’s Dream that all was created. During the First Order of Creation the four sacred elements of Water, Rock, Wind, and Fire were brought into existence; during the Second Order of Creation the plant nations were brought into existence; during the Third Order of Creation the animal nations were brought into existence. Once all else was here on our Mother Earth, doing all the things they do, and once everything was beautiful and in its place, Creator began to lower humans to the Earth. At this time, during the Fourth Order, humans were gifted with free will and the intelligence of the mind.

​Within the Anishinaabe tradition it is valued that all the beings before humans are more intelligent. We value that Water, a member of the First Order, was born knowing what to do; and trees, although a little bit further from Creator and born in the Second Order, also hold a lot of Creator’s knowledge and wisdom, thus they know how to stand straight with integrity. We also value that although the Animal beings are born in the Third Order, who hold less knowledge than the tree nation yet more of Creator’s knowledge than humans do, are our teachers in the way they carefully and lovingly teach their young. And we value that humans born in the Fourth Order, despite the gift of our minds, require even more teachings than all the other beings. We value that we are only human and not as intelligent as all that came before. Within this understanding I know I am only a woman.
 
As many people know one of the main differences between Indigenous people and our knowledge philosophy and most, if not all, settler Canadians, is that Indigenous people value the Original Dream and Creator’s Laws. Another way to understand this difference is to value that Indigenous assumptions, beliefs, teachings, and rituals are intentionally and consciously designed around natural features on the Earth and the knowledge inherent. This serves to keep us rooted within Creator’s Law and the naturalistic tradition, also known as the naturalistic paradigm. The short story is that the naturalistic paradigm places natural law at its core whereas humans are placed after, but at the same time within, the broader context of all the other beings such as the four sacred elements.

​The humanistic paradigm is different from the naturalistic paradigm. The humanistic paradigm places humans above the natural world and above all the other beings versus after all else and within it. This includes all human creations such as our governance and economic traditions and this includes brick and mortar structures. These entities are all situated above the natural world. They are not designed to work with Creation and natural law; rather they are designed to control and monopolize the natural world. While humans are smart and able to create amazing things with the gift of our minds; our egos, greed, selfishness, and arrogance are the barriers to respecting the importance of the natural world and all that came before our arrival. This unexamined default way of being is what is meant by the Anishinaabe saying, “humans are pitiful”.
 
As we are all beginning to learn the humanistic paradigm and all the inventions that emerge from it, is devastating our collective land and waterscapes, so much so that our water is polluted with multiple layers of different kinds of pollution: debris such as plastic and other forms of garbage; organic and inorganic chemical compounds such as dioxins, heavy metals, and pharmaceuticals; biological and sewage waste; and radioactive particles. Again, this is the result of human beings placing their needs and desires over and above all the beings within the natural world, which is a particular kind of arrogance over Creator’s Law. Creator, I think, must be sad to have gifted humans with a mind that so quickly defaults to all that is inherent in the Wendigo: Ego, greed, selfishness, and arrogance. I know I am and so are many of my friends.
 
The problem in coming to value our own complicity in the destruction of the natural world is that most people are suffering from “cognitive paradigm paralysis”. What I mean by this is that many humans are unable to think conceptually about the paradigm they live within, and thus unable to think critically about the limitations of that very paradigm ‒ again the humanistic paradigm ‒ and value that there is a better and more intelligent option waiting for them to shift into. The culprit is human cognition. The mind is not as smart as we think it is.

A telling example of people’s inability to understand that they are stuck within the limiting and irrational humanistic paradigm is the fact that when a brick and mortar Church, Mosque, or Synagogue is vandalized, people are disgusted and outraged and they quickly refer to it as a “hate crime”; yet when a natural sacred place that has a 5,000 year old history, such as Akikpautik and Akikodjiwan, located within the natural world of the land and waterscape of the Ottawa River is further desecrated, these same people are unable to shift conceptually and thus value that this too is indeed a hate crime. This inability to shift conceptually into the naturalistic paradigm and truly value Creation and all that came before humans, continues to harm all beings not just Indigenous nations and peoples.
 
Akikpautik and Akikodjiwan are the very land and waterscapes where Creator placed the First Sacred Pipe, the ultimate ritual and ceremony of reconciliation. The Spirit of the West Wind gifted his son Nanaboozo with the Sacred Pipe for fathers and sons, mothers and daughters, and citizens of all nations to assist in reconciliation. Sadly, Akikpautik and Akikodjiwan are now slated for further desecration through the construction of Windmill’s Zibi condominium and retail complex, a so-called One Planet Community (now under Theia Partners and Dream Unlimited Corporation). What is particularly bizarre is that this desecration is happening just upstream from Canada’s Parliament.
 
While I understand that I am only a woman brought to this Earth after all else and thus I am less intelligent, many know I have been on a long learning journey piecing together what Canada has done, and continues to do, to Indigenous nations and peoples. What I now know for sure is the most effective way to destroy a people is to destroy their sacred beliefs, stories, and places. It is a complete abomination that the further desecration of this sacred place of reconciliation is happening during the time of the Liberal government’s reconciliation and feminist platform.
 
Here are a few resources if you wish to learn more about the sacredness of Akikpautik and Akikodjiwan: 

• https://watershedsentinel.ca/articles/akikodjiwan/
• http://anishinabeknews.ca/2015/05/26/opinion-lambert-on-free-the-chaudiere-falls-and-save-the-islands/
• http://albertdumont.com/dreamkeepers-politicians-chaudiere-falls/
• http://muskratmagazine.com/celebrating-canadas-150th-featuring-the-desecration-of-an-indigenous-sacred-place/

• http://albertdumont.com/asinabka-impossible-to-buy/
• http://asinabka.com/​ 

​© Lynn Gehl, Ph.D. is an Algonquin Anishinaabe-kwe from the Ottawa River Valley. In 2017 she won an Ontario Court of Appeal case on sex discrimination in The Indian Act, and is an outspoken critic of the Algonquin land claims process. Recently she published Claiming Anishinaabe: Decolonizing the Human Spirit.  You can reach her through, and see more of her work, at www.lynngehl.com

I decided to take the time and write this Algonquin Anishinaabe land acknowledgement.  Go ahead and print it out and use it when you are opening an event in Algonquin territory.

​Currently we are on Algonquin Anishinaabeg traditional territory. The Algonquin were one of the first Indigenous Nations that Champlain recorded as he travelled up the Kichesippi, now called the Ottawa River.

Algonquin territory consists of 48 million acres inclusive of rivers, lakes, boreal forests, rock, trees, four legged, winged, and finned. Through the creation of Upper and Lower Canada, now Ontario and Quebec, and through the French surrendering and ceding land that they did not own, the Algonquin Anishinaabeg have been divided along the very river that once united us. Through the overlay of Canada the nation state and the imposition of a provincial federal order, the Algonquin are divided by language, law, and religion. While 39 million acres is in Quebec, 9 million is in Ontario.

Through processes of genocide inherent in processes of colonization, which continues today, the Algonquin have been relegated to small plots of land. There are ten federally recognized communities made up of registered status members: one in Ontario and nine in Quebec. As suggested these communities reside on only small fractions of the larger Algonquin Anishinaabeg traditional territory. Pikwàkanagàn First Nation’s land base consists of a mere 1,561 acres; Barriere Lake only 59; while Wolf Lake has been denied a land base altogether. There are also many communities in Ontario, made up of mostly non-status members, that have been more formally organized to accommodate the federal government’s need to define Indigenous rights in narrow terms and they all lack their own collective land bases known as reserve lands.
 
The Kichesippi has been subject to the logging, hydroelectric, nuclear power, and the fishing and sport hunting industries. These industries have clogged the Great River, flooded important landscapes, and are currently dumping radio-active particles in the river. What is more, the nuclear industry is also warming the river using the water to cool down nuclear reactors.
 
Although the Algonquin Anishinaabeg were emissaries during the 1764 Treaty at Niagara, and many of the men fought on the side of the British during the 1776 American revolution, and during WW1 and WW2, Algonquin were and are continually denied the jurisdiction to their land and resources.
 
Indigenous knowledge philosophy is a life way that situates humans within a broader context of the natural world versus a religion selectively practiced. Within this philosophy, the Four Sacred Elements ‒ Water, Rock, Wind, and Fire ‒ are valued as more intelligent. As such, places where they intersect are sacred. In addition, while many people think Indigenous people of Turtle Island lack a tradition of symbolic literacy, in actuality the Anishinaabeg inscribed stories, knowledge, and important messages within the land and waterscapes of their territory. Akikpautik is where Creator placed the First Sacred Pipe, the ultimate expression of Reconciliation between Nations, Humans, and the Natural World.
 
Today there are more non-status than status Algonquin and many of us reside outside of our traditional territory.

​​​​​​​​Lynn Gehl, Ph.D. is an Algonquin Anishinaabe-kwe from the Ottawa River Valley. In 2017 she won an Ontario Court of Appeal case on sex discrimination in The Indian Act, and is an outspoken critic of the Algonquin land claims process. Recently she published Claiming Anishinaabe: Decolonizing the Human Spirit.  You can reach her through, and see more of her work, at www.lynngehl.com