Whew! Just in the nick of time... the “Terminator” is no longer the Governor of California!

CBC Newsworld just reported that, “The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday endorsed a court order requiring California to cut its prison population by tens of thousands of inmates to improve health care for those who remain behind bars.”

Here is the link to the article:  http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011/05/23/supreme-court-california-jails.html.

Wow...what a narrow (5-4) pro-human rights decision!  What is President Obama going to do now? Shoot them all?!  The California prison inmates are probably very happy that the “Terminator”, Arnold Schwarzenegger, is no longer the Governor of California.  Oh wait, I better not speak too soon.  We might hear the words, “I’ll be back”! 

Well, the U.S. federal and state governments are probably scratching their heads right now and wondering “whatever are we going to do?"  Hmm....let me tell you.  Rather than shooting them all or building more prisons, address the root causes for the reason that the prison population is so high.....and the prize goes to....yes, the woman who has said on numerous occasions, “Poverty is the root cause for high prison populations”, Miss Angela Davis!

Now why am I am not surprised that Justice Scalia dissented and said, “the court order is "perhaps the most radical injunction issued by a court in our nation's history."??  Is that man ever going to retire?  He's been on the bench forever.  Gee...give someone else a turn.

We need more decisions like this one, especially in Canada!  Decisions like this one are often the only means to make the governments act in a fashion that address human rights violations. 

Hey Stevie, I heard that you will be appointing two justices to the Supreme Court of Canada at the end of the summer.  Take a look at the characteristics and qualities of the five Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court who made up the majority in this decision and appoint two similar judges to the Supreme Court of Canada. 

Better yet, appoint an "Aboriginal" judge to the Supreme Court since you are so pro-“Aboriginal” these days and appear to like the word “Aboriginal”.

Aboriginal...Aboriginal...Aboriginal...

WHO IS WATCHING OUT FOR YOU AND OUR CHILDREN?

Bill Curry on “Penashue’s dramatic journey from civil disobedience to political power”

In the Edmonton Journal on Friday, May 20, 2011, Bill Curry described the life of Peter Penashue, the first Innu man to be appointed as President of Queen’s Privy Council and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.  He titled his article, “Penashue’s dramatic journey from civil disobedience to political power.” 

Here is the link to Bill Curry’s article:  http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/penashues-dramatic-journey-from-civil-disobedience-to-political-power/article2030578/.

Journey from civil disobedience???  I did not realize that Penashue’s life involved acts of “civil disobedience”.  When I read Curry’s article, I saw an Innu man who was attempting to protect his peoples’ rights through the assertion of sovereignty!!

Journey from civil disobedience??? When I read Bill Curry’s article, my immediate thought was that Bill Curry does not have a clue about First Nations and sovereignty, and that he thinks of us as savages and terrorists whom he will praise when one of us has been reformed, assumed the “white man’s” way of life, and joined federal politics. 

Recently, controversy was created when President Obama called his unjust mission to execute Osama Bin Laden, an evil terrorist, without a trial, “Operation Geronimo”.   Indigenous peoples were insulted by this racist slandering of Geronimo by the implicit reference to him as a terrorist like Bin Laden.  Bin Laden is not anything like Geronimo.  Geronimo was not a terrorist.

Message for Bill Curry:  Peter Penashue is not a reformed Osama Bin Laden and we are not terrorists!  Stop calling our acts of sovereignty “civil disobedience”!!  I may set up shop outside your office carrying a sign that states, “Bill Curry is a terrorist”.  Would you like that???

           

Geronimo was a hero to his people and to me.  His actions were that of protecting the sovereign rights of his people, much like the actions of Louis Riel, Poundmaker, and Crazyhorse. Penashue’s earlier assertions of sovereignty are admirable qualities.

What Penashue was lacking at the time of his assertions of sovereignty (or as Bill Curry calls it “civil disobedience”) was the support of his fellow First Nations leaders across Canada.  If Penashue had their undivided support, ALL of our communities would be prosperous and look very different today.

First of all, let me congratulate Penashue on his appointment to such a prestigious position in Cabinet and for overcoming the obstacles in his life.  I am proud of Penashue for his accomplishments and I hope he does something positive for us.  However, time will tell.   Will the rest of Harper’s Cabinet allow him to make decisions that actually benefit his people?  I do not think so.

Does anyone want to bet $100 that the Innu and Inuit are going to get “screwed big time”???  It is an easy $100 for me!  Pardon my language but I am trying to make a point. 

Just because an Innu or Inuit person is in Cabinet does not mean that major change is going to occur. Penashue is a Cabinet Minister of a racist State with racist federal departments underneath him.

Let us examine President Obama’s situation. He is an African American President.  What has he done for his people who live in poverty in the United States?  Nothing.  President Obama cannot do anything for his people because, like Angela Davis said, Obama is the head of a racist state with racist departments underneath him.  The colour of Obama’s skin is not going to change anything.  The same principle applies to Indigenous peoples. I love Angela Davis! 

I am sure that Penashue and Aglukkaq would love to implement positive changes for us but their hands are tied by the machinery of the racist federal government of Canada. 

History has shown us that Cabinet Ministers or Ministers who advocate for our interests are quickly shut down by the rest of their team.  Leona Aglukkaq has had experience as the Minister of Health and she has done nothing for our people. In fact, she is doing the opposite. She is cutting health care services and programs for our people and dumping jurisdiction to the provinces through “tripartite” agreements.  Why is Penashue going to be any different? 

The most important fact of all in Bill Curry’s article is that Penashue’s “pro-development approach is not even universally accepted among his own community – or family. His mother has said that while she’s very happy for her son’s victory, she will continue to oppose the Lower Churchill hydro project due to its impact on area wildlife.”   Need I say more?

I view Peter Penashue’s appointment to Cabinet as part of Harper’s plan to economically develop the northern Inuit and Innu communities according to the policies of the federal government and not Innu/Inuit policies.  Instead of Harper developing the north and taking the vast majority of the revenues from the resources on and under their lands, he is going to make Leona Aglukkaq and Peter Penashue do it.  I also see Penashue ‘reconciling” First Nations interests with federal and provincial interests and then dumping jurisdiction of First Nations issues to the provinces.  Why should a “white man” do it when he can get an Inuit and Innu person to do it?  Throughout this process, the Aboriginal industry (lawyers, business consultants, accountants, miners, etc) will benefit tremendously off the backs of the Innu and Inuit.  I wish I was wrong and I hope Penashue proves me wrong.  Time will tell.

Now, let’s move onto Clint Davis and company...

Bill Curry quoted Clint Davis in his article.  “He realized that civil disobedience or protest can certainly bring attention to an issue,” said Clint Davis, an Inuk from Labrador who is president of the Canadian Council for Aboriginal Business. “But real change comes from business activity and business development in a way that was respectful of their culture and respectful of the environment. So I have high expectations of him.”

Clint Davis is certainly entitled to his views and I am not judging him at all for his views. I do not know him and I have not been privy to his facial expressions while making this statement in order to fully grasp the context behind it. However, I think that he is advocating for municipality style governance as opposed to governance that actually acknowledges and respects sovereignty.  Take your place in Canada as a town, set up a business, and govern yourself like a municipality through the election of Chief and Council, much like a Mayor and his Councillors. Although we do not officially call ourselves “municipalities” that is exactly what we have become, whether we like to admit it or not.

I think we need to make a choice on what path we are going to take in life: municipality-style governance or sovereignty, which can be accomplished if all First Nations people united and demanded MAJOR change. Professor T. Alfred was right when he said we need to stop complaining if we are going to choose to live according to federal rules. We are getting the same treatment as municipalities and nothing more! This is not sovereignty nor does it respect our treaties.  We need to make a clear distinction between sovereignty and government-led municipality-style “self-government”.  What is taking place today is government-led municipality-style self-government, not sovereignty. 

A First Nations leader told me yesterday that “First Nations peoples live in two worlds. By working, earning an income in one world, it does not mean that we give up our identity or the world that we were born into.”  I have to respond to this statement on my blog because I absolutely disagree with him.  Yesterday, I told this same leader my view about Penashue being a role model for us and he judged me harshly in return. He is entitled to his opinion and I am not shaming him for that.  He has the right to speak as everyone else and should not be judged for it.  Learning and growing is a continual process.

First Nations people do not live in two worlds.  We live in one world where we define ourselves and live according to the Indian Act and federal government rules even though we may say that we do not practice or acknowledge the Indian Act or the federal government. Just because one states that they do not acknowledge the Indian Act, does not mean that one has not internalized the Indian Act.  One’s actions are evidence of this phenomenon. Actions speak louder than words.  Of course, this internalization is through no fault of anyone but the federal government.  The residential school era and the discriminatory status provisions in the Indian Act, which denied many of our people the right to live and practice their culture with the rest of their community, almost destroyed us. 

The Indian Act and residential school era did a good job in interfering with our ability to identify, think, and govern ourselves according to our cultures and traditions.  We have internalized mainstream society values whether we like or not. Only you, yourself, can make the change in your value system to reflect your culture’s values. The question is, “do you want to”?

By living in the “first” world, we are living according to the “white man’s way” and ignoring our identity and cultures as First Nations people.  In the “second” world, we are practising our culture on a land base specified by the federal government and practising our “identity” according to the Indian Act and excluding many of our citizens who were purposely left out of the Indian Act.  The Assembly of First Nations and Native Women’s Association of Canada’s acceptance of Bill C-3, the amendments to the Indian Act status provisions, is STARK EVIDENCE of the internalization of the Indian Act. We have now taken over the role of colonizing and oppressing our people.

While Penashue may be put forward by Bill Curry and others as a role model for Indigenous peoples, Penashue is one of many role models with varying backgrounds and beliefs.  I am proud of Penashue for his accomplishments in fitting into mainstream society, overcoming abuse, and climbing to the top.  I am not attempting to take anything away from him.

I have something to say to the people who criticize me for stating my personal and political opinions regarding Penashue’s appointment to Cabinet or other issues that I have commented on. I am a Registered Nurse, a lawyer with a Masters of Law in Indigenous Peoples Law and Policy, and a Fulbright Scholar.  I also accomplished these feats as a single mother of three children.  I have overcome many obstacles in my life, just like Penashue, in order to get where I am today.  Do not judge me just because my views are different from yours.  We all have our own story.

My role models are Nelson Mandela, Angela Davis, and Martin Luther King Jr., because they sacrificed their own personal interests for the interests of their people and created major change in the process.  Although Nelson Mandela spent 27 years in prison, that time was short considering the benefit it achieved for his people and each generation to come:  freedom. 

First Nations are not free and sovereign anymore. It is a thing of the past because we choose to make it a thing of the past. Some First Nations people may think we are free and sovereign but they have internalized the Indian Act.  They think that we are free and sovereign because we “negotiated” agreements based on one-sided federal policies that do not meet the needs of our people.  Remember that.

My Indigenous role models are Crazyhorse, Geronimo, Louis Riel, and Poundmaker because they set aside their personal interests, asserted sovereignty, and died fighting for the rights of our people.  They died with integrity.

Integrity, which means living with moral and ethical principles such as truth, faith, greater good, and justice, is the rule or value that I live by.  If you do not have integrity, what do you have? Do you as an Indigenous person or leader live with integrity? Only you can answer that question.

Did you as a First Nations “leader” give your non-Aboriginal spouse a very important contract that earned the both of you approximately $6 million dollars or some other amount? Did your people benefit from it like you did?  Is that integrity?

If you read this blog and find yourself upset at my opinions, ask yourself “why” and take a good hard look at yourself and your values. The truth hurts and people do not like to acknowledge the truth.

WHO IS WATCHING OUT FOR YOU AND OUR CHILDREN?

Someone throw “National Chief” Betty Ann Lavalleé a bone!

Better yet, someone toss a few dollar bills at her and send her on her way! 

Betty Ann Lavalleé is the federal government’s “token Aboriginal” National Chief of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples (CAP), a National Aboriginal Organization (NAO) that unilaterally claims to represent the interests of non-status and off-reserve Indians and Métis.  The NAO’s are funded by and a subset of the Department of Indian Affairs.  The NAO’s implement the federal government’s Aboriginal agenda and they do it well.

Betty Ann was “elected” as the National Chief in September 2009 by approximately 180 Aboriginal people; that is, 180 people out of more than one million Aboriginal people in Canada, and she seems to think that it makes her “management” of CAP legitimate.  In a democratic society, a majority vote of the population is often required before a real leader takes the helm. 180 votes out of one million votes is anything but democratic. In fact, it is a dictatorship when a “National Chief” only allows approximately 180 people to vote.

I am using the word “management” to describe Betty Ann’s role as “National Chief” at CAP because she is rarely, and I mean rarely (almost non-existent), heard or seen in the media advocating for the interests of off-reserve and non-status Indians to the federal government.  However, she does like to travel at the taxpayers’ expense doing whatever it is that she does.  When she is seen in the media, she is supporting federal government Aboriginal initiatives and, most often, does so without consulting her “constituents”. 

Although the National Chiefs of the NAO’s are “token Aboriginals” for the federal government, Betty Ann takes the cake over them all, past and present.  She is just plain lying on her back in silence while the Minister of “Aboriginal” Affairs, John Duncan, rubs her belly every once in a while, and says, “Good token”, “good token”.  The federal government is implementing Aboriginal initiatives that are contrary to our interests and Betty Ann is not saying a word in our defence.

Harper changed the name of the Minister of Indian Affairs to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs two days ago when he reappointed John Duncan to the position. 

In yesterday’s article of the Globe and Mail, it was noted that “Not all native representatives were wary (of the name change), however. Betty Ann Lavallée, National Chief of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, has long advocated on behalf of non-status Indians who do not qualify for the wide range of services that governments provide to status Indians.  She hopes the name change will further that discussion.” “I haven’t stopped smiling,” she said on Wednesday when asked for her reaction to the name change.”  “I love it.”

Here is the link to the Globe and Mail article: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/aboriginal-affairs-a-new-name-with-an-uncertain-meaning/article2026696/.

Uh...did Betty Ann bother to ask any of us, her supposed constituents, if we were satisfied with the name change from Minister of “Indian” Affairs to Minister of “Aboriginal” Affairs???  NO, she did not!  A REAL and democratic leader asks her people what they want reflected in a name. 

Betty Ann SPEAKS and SMILES for HERSELF and NO ONE ELSE!!!  CAP does not ask us if we want to endorse federal initiatives. CAP just does it. That is not democracy.

According to the Indian Act, I am a section 6(2) status and off-reserve Indian and my children are non-status Indians.  I do not know about Betty Ann but I am a CREE woman!!  My children and I do not need or want a token Aboriginal “National Chief” to tell us who we are.  We know who we are.

We, my children and I, do not like the name change from the Minister of “Indian” Affairs to “Aboriginal” Affairs.  The name change is not going to change the relationship between Aboriginal peoples and the federal government because the federal government only collaborates or “consults” with itself through its token “National Chiefs” and the federal Minister of “Indian/Aboriginal” Affairs.  The terms “Indian” and “Aboriginal” are terms created by the federal government for the federal government, not us. We are not “Indians” or “Aboriginals”.  

The name change from “Indian” to “Aboriginal” is going to cost millions or hundreds of thousands of taxpayers’ dollars to implement.  That money could have educated some of our children or provided health care services for our people.   Did Betty Ann think of this fact before endorsing it????   Who knows what Betty Ann thinks because she rarely informs us about the federal government’s Aboriginal initiatives.  Silence is her “game”.

WHO IS WATCHING OUT FOR YOU AND OUR CHILDREN? 

A Message for my Father, the Minister of Indian Affairs, John Duncan!

Dear Father

Congratulations on remaining in your Cabinet posting as the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs.  I was hoping that you would remain in that post. I am enjoying blogging about your inability to parent your children, especially the unruly ones like myself!  I very much enjoy picking on you :)) 

I have a question.  When are you going to let me speak?  Am I still grounded for being unruly?  You know, the longer I am grounded, the louder and longer I will blog about you!  I am not going away. 

You are stuck with me for the time being so how shall I refer to you in my future blogs?  Father? John? Johnny? John Boy?

Until my next blog...

WHO IS WATCHING OUT FOR YOU?

Harper's Cabinet - Good Boy Stevie! Good Boy!

Dear Stevie

I heard through the grapevine yesterday that you were going to appoint Leona Aglukaaq as the Mistress of Indian Affairs.  Thank GOD and thank you for not doing so!  Such a move would have been a huge slap in the face to Aboriginal women and I would have blogged forever on this issue.

You're catching on Stevie but you need some new Aboriginal advisors!  Tom Flanagan, Manny Jules, and Patrick Brazeau haven't got a clue about the needs and interests of First Nations people.  If you continue to use them, you will get no where in terms of advancing YOUR Aboriginal agenda.  You will only create more dysfunction.   

"Minister of Aboriginal Affairs"?  Aboriginal, Indian...it doesn't matter what term you use to describe YOUR Minister.  Both terms were created by the federal government and not by us. You are still regulating "Indians" or "Aboriginals".  Either way, it is YOUR agenda (not ours) that is going to be advanced through YOUR (not ours) token mascots, the "National Chiefs", and the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs.  Don't forget, YOUR mascots do not allow us to vote in their elections nor do they let us participate in decision-making.  You might as well acknowledge the fact that by collaborating with your mascots, you are collaborating with yourself and not us.

First Nations are not the burden on the taxpayer.  The public service is the burden.  If you really want to save our tax dollars, reform the public service.  "Scare resources" or "unavailable resources" to deny funds for First Nations programs and services is not the issue.  Inappropriate use of available resources is the issue.   If you want to solve the problem, stop hiring your friends and get rid of the shoddy operators who are receiving a pension and a salary at the same time!

WHO IS WATCHING OUT FOR YOU?

Election 2011 – what is all the fuss about???!

I have been really busy with my law practice for the month of April and have not had the time to write a blog about the 2011 federal election taking place today.  However, I have been reading the news articles, blogs, tweets, etc. about the election and I have a few comments regarding the election and First Nations people, especially sovereignty as it relates to us. 

Here we go:

1)         Voting in the federal election is not going to solve the socio-economic disparity between First Nations and non-First Nations people. History has shown us that it does not matter which political party is in power because they all have the same agenda:  assimilate First Nations people through the racist Indian Act and rob the revenues from the resources on or under our land through racist “consultation and accommodation” principles set by the Canadian legal system. 

When are First Nations going to acknowledge this fact and change the “game”?

2)         To vote in the federal election is a sign that you are a client of the state; however, to not vote maintains your status as a client of the state.  Either way, you’re a client of the State!  However, if we assert sovereignty, we can take our rightful place as sovereigns. That goal is not idealistic or unreachable.  All it takes is “GUTS”.  Do you as First Nations leaders have the “GUTS” to assert sovereignty?  Our children are suffering and the status quo is not working.

3)         Our Nations are moving forward in a manner that meets the needs of the State. Canada's “Aboriginal” policies are one-sided and we receive court decisions that limit/narrow the rights of Indigenous peoples. The Indian Act regime is a regime that administers poverty and that is it. We will never eliminate poverty but it can be reduced and not by following the State as we are presently doing whether we vote or not.  The Indian Act needs to be repealed and NOT REPLACED!  We do not need another “Indian Act” under a different name to assert sovereignty.

4)         Voting is not the problem. The problem is the lack of unity and action among the leadership.  If the Aboriginal political organizations put as much effort into protecting our rights and interests as they are in advocating for us to vote in the federal election, we would have some major change at the grassroots level!

5)         Grand Chief Evans made the comment that the academic rhetoric regarding sovereignty and voting is good but not reflective of life on the ground in First Nations communities.  My response?  It is not indicative of life on the ground because the leadership chooses not to embark on that path.  The path to sovereignty is a difficult one with some hardship along the way.  The path of least resistance is what Grand Chief Evans, although unintended, is endorsing; the alleviation of the poverty of our individuals through government-directed education policies.  Be careful what you ask for.

6)         Encouraging our participation at all levels in mainstream society, including voting, encourages the assimilation of our people. People get comfortable in their personal lives, especially when the money starts rolling in. Some of our people want the same things as non-Aboriginal people and sacrifice our collective interests for their own personal gain.  Look at some of our educated people and leaders who have the ability to stand up for us and call for direct action, such as asserting sovereignty. Do they?  Why not?  The answer is blatantly obvious.

7)         Unity on the federal election voting issue is safe and noncontroversial for the Aboriginal political organizations.  It is easier to push us to vote than it is for them to act and protect our rights.  Their lack of action and unity maintains the status quo, which are poverty and the suppression of our rights as SOVEREIGN nations.

8)         Grand Chief Evans made that comment that increasing our participation in voting in federal elections will enable our people to assert sovereignty in the future. I agree but if we do not assert “sovereignty” now, there will not be any “sovereignty” to assert in the future. The present is just as important as the future.

9)         Education is the key to alleviating poverty for our people; however, our people need to be educated about “sovereignty” and not the incremental lap-dog paced government-directed education policies as advocated by the federal government under the guise of THEIR (not ours) National Aboriginal Organizations.

10)       Sovereignty applies to all of us, not just the Mohawks. Assertions of sovereignty also requires action, otherwise it is just words. Anyone can spout "assert sovereignty". It means nothing unless you actually assert it and live by it.

11)       Asserting sovereignty does not mean giving up all your rights to federal programs and services.  We can have the best of both worlds. The longer we suppress the word "sovereignty", the sooner our cultural assassination will be complete. The status quo is not working and increasing our participation in mainstream politics is not going to bring about the major change we need right now.

12)       We need to bring about change in a wholistic manner. Focus on change at all levels at the same time. Do not follow the federal government’s dysfunctional approach to policy development, i.e. take one step at a time, with an end goal, but without the plan to get there.  It does not work, never has and never will.

  

13)       How do we get out of this?  If every First Nation and their citizens, urban and not, in Canada "UNITED" (like the Egyptians did) and showed the government of Canada and the provinces that we mean business, we would actually get some dramatic change in our situation whether we are treaty or not.

What are you afraid of? That mainstream society will think badly of us if we unite for a purpose that meets our collective needs? That it will promote racism and stereotypes of our people?  Try thinking about us and our interests instead of the federal government.

14)       Greed and/or self-interest are the ruling factor in our plight of poverty and oppression.   We have a choice: continue as is and vote/not vote and maintain the poverty in First Nations or actually do something about it with a united voice. Take your pick!

15)       We choose to live like this and we do not have to. It is time for the people to wake up and unite for a common purpose: the future of our children.

16)       It is time for all First Nations and their citizens, on and off-reserve, to put aside their personal differences and to start thinking about the children of the present and future.

17)       If the federal government throws a $ bill at a leader, especially the National Chiefs, for conformity, that Chief should say "no" and follow the rest of us to ensure dramatic change for everyone. You cannot bring about change without experiencing discomfort beforehand. The Egyptians suffered throughout their united protest but they achieved major change and results in the end. We can do this without violence.

18)       If the Egyptians can do it, so can we!!

19)       Vote or do not vote.  To each his own.

WHO IS WATCHING OUR FOR YOU AND OUR CHILDREN?

This is my own personal opinion and it is not intended to be legal advice.  Please seek independent legal advice pertaining to your situation.