​In this video I am interviewed by Lisa Barry for what is called "Doctrine of Discovery: Stolen Lands, Strong Hearts" documentary and where I have a few small cameo appearances. In this more complete interview I talk about my court case regarding sex discrimination in the Indian Act, the treaty process, why I remain with using the language of "cultural genocide" and always will, the intelligence of the heart, Indigenous knowledge, and a better way to care for the water that we and all the beings need.

Miigwetch for taking the time and watch this interview. It would be great to read your comments at the bottom of the video ... .

​​​​© 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.

​​​© 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.

"Gehl's member of Parliament is Maryam Monsef, who is Minister for Women and Gender Equality. Because of this, and in light of the Liberal government's attempts to brand themselves as "feminist," Gehl decided more recently that she needed to continue to take action. Every Tuesday -- the day that cabinet meets, and could proclaim the necessary clauses -- she has been protesting outside of Monsef's office with the demand "6(1)(a) all the way." She has been doing lots of media work on the topic. And she has mobilized other local people in her area to put pressure on Monsef as well." Scott Neigh 

Recently the MMIWG concluded that the matter of missing and murdered Indigenous women is genocide, and the Commissioners called for Canada to end all the sex-discrimination in the Indian Act. 

At this link you will find 1200 words that offers 10 points that will help you understand "6(1)a All the Way!":
http://www.rabble.ca/news/2019/05/ending-sex-discrimination-indian-act-through-61a-all-way

At this link you can listen to podcast interview that addresses the issue of "6(1)a All the Way!" It is offered because many people like to learn orally versus read text:
http://rabble.ca/podcasts/shows/talking-radical-radio/2019/06/long-fight-against-sex-discrimination-indian-act

At this Feminist Alliance for International Action website link you will find 6 small tasks you can do to stand behind Indigenous women:
http://fafia-afai.org/en/solidarity-campaign/#tab-3

Indigenous women have 50 years of litigation on this issue and gone to the United Nations twice. It is about time the Liberal feminist government step up and respect the human rights of Indigenous women right here at home. All Trudeau has to do is issue an order in council on either Tuesday, June 11 or Tuesday, June 18 when cabinet meets.

I am incredibly grateful to the Peterborough community members who have come out to stand behind the rights of Indigenous women.

​​© 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.

People need to stop thinking reconciliation is possible through government rhetoric alone. Genuine action must follow. As long as Canada fails to participate in a genuine nation-to-nation relationship that honours Indigenous Land and Resource rights, reconciliation will always only be something settler people and their descendants celebrate through false parties at the expense of Indigenous people.

Imagine an Indigenous child who has embodied within them generations of racist, sexist, and genocidal colonial policies and laws, where their father was an angry, abusive, drunken, maniac due to racism, abandonment, abuse, and poverty, and where their mother was a neglected child, a residential school survivor, and a victim of sexual abuse. Imagine this child who has grown up in a similar context as their parents of racism, sexism, abuse, poverty, neglect, and hunger. Imagine all this knowledge is embodied within this child yet the young child is unable to express it verbally; all they can do at their young age is express their embodied knowledge and inherent emotions at the level of practice. After all this is what Indigenous knowledge brings to the table – that being that knowledge is not simply in the mind; it begins in the feet and body first.

Imagine this child of direct trauma, inter-generational, and multi-generational trauma goes to school and manifests their embodied knowledge and emotions of racism, sexism, and genocide against a more privileged white settler child, where they are then forced to reconcile their knowledge that is yet to be really understood, examined, and affirmed and consequently if fortunate enough addressed and resolved. In this context so-called reconciliation means the Indigenous child has to shut down their knowledge and emotions and who they are, where everyone is then allowed to ignore what the real underlying issues are all for the sake of reconciliation. In this context it is the privileged white settler child who gains reconciliation off the back of the Indigenous child. In this context reconciliation means the Indigenous child is not really a person; in this context the privilege child with all the material wealth once again gains.

If you think reconciliation comes from institutions and organizations with paid employees that are funded in part through the latest political rhetoric and dollars you are not doing the critical thinking needed. And you are patronizing critically trained and thinking Indigenous intellectuals who know better. Follow the money and you will learn you are being manipulated; you are celebrating the oppression of others; and you are complicit in the perpetuation of the pain of children who are pooping in buckets, drinking poisoned water, and eating mercury contaminated food.

When people celebrate their own oppression, or the oppression of others, this is the worst form of manipulation and genocide. Today colonization has become a celebration rooted in the lie of reconciliation. It is a party that makes some Indigenous people happy and where some settlers too are happy and benefiting more. Today reconciliation parties, like false generosity, are actually fake celebrations that may absolve settler anxiety and guilt. In this way these parties are rituals that are ultimately more for settler people.

Today colonization means celebration called reconciliation that will include only some Indigenous people because the Indigenous critical thinkers want nothing to do with celebrating their own oppression. Look around and you will most likely see the party goers are paid employees; look around and you will most likely see party goers who are seeking awards; look around and you will most likely see party goers who are looking for political appointments.

That said, if you need to attend a celebration to absolve your guilt, you can be sure there are Indigenous intellectuals who very well know you are complicit and they are hurt by your complicity. When you look at their faces you will see and feel their pain. Consider this transfer of their feelings the kindness and truth they offer.

Reconciliation will only be achieved when Indigenous Nations’ jurisdiction to their Land and Resources is respected. We only need to turn to the land that Canada’s parliament buildings squat on. For almost 250 years the Algonquin Anishinaabeg have been asking Canada to respect our rights through the framework of the Two Row Wampum Belt and the British and Western Great Lakes Covenant Chain Confederacy Wampum Belt constitutional framework. Despite our repeated request Canada is only offering the Algonquin in Ontario 1.3% of our territory, a $300 million buy-out, and is currently desecrating Creator’s Sacred Pipe known as Akikpautik and Akikodjiwan.

If you experience cognitive dissonance from this message this does not mean it is wrong.
​
One day I hope to invite you to a real party that will not celebrate my oppression.

​© 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.

After lengthy and intensive lobbying, where there was the call for Canada to remove all the sex-discrimination in the Indian Act that went beyond narrow interpretations of court remedies that would once again fail to resolve all the issues, on June 22, 2017 the government representative in the Senate, Senator Peter Harder, stayed the debate on Bill S-3 An Act to Amend the Indian Act, punting it off to the fall.

When parliament re-convened, it was on November 9, 2017 when Senator Lillian Dyck conceded to the House of Commons. The concession being that Canada’s position was not “if” they would address the broader remedy called for and that the experts and the senate were asking for, but rather Canada’s position was more about “when” they would address the remedy. What resulted is the Bill included the provisions that would eliminate all the sex discrimination against women and their descendants, once and for all, where once Canada agreed to them no new legislation would be needed and all that would be required would be an order in council that proclaimed them as law.

At the time Senator Dyck argued the senate had exhausted its power, meaning all the tools they had in its toolbox. She further argued Bill S-3 was not perfect, but if we tinkered around with it anymore we could stand to lose this important gain. Senator Dyck then argued, “I really suggest that the pressure be put on members of Parliament by groups like FAFIA, by Pamela Palmater, Sharon McIvor, Shelagh Day and the others. They need to take action because they have the power at the moment and we do not. So I would say let us pass this motion.”

We all rallied strong, both the members of the senate and the experts including myself, political icon Jeannette Corbiere-Lavell,  the president of Quebec Native Women Inc Viviane Michel, and ally Mary Eberts. Through our collective effort the legal remedy for the broader issue, meaning the “6(1)a All the Way!” clauses that will eliminate the 6(1)a and 6(1)c hierarchy, was written into Bill S-3 yet not proclaimed as law.

In this short video clip Senator Marilou McPhedran lobbies hard for my right, really the right of many Indigenous women and their descendants, for the inclusion of the “6(1)a All the Way!” clauses. Chi-Miigwetch Senator McPhedran.

​​​© 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.

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.