The mandate of the Assembly of First Nations - there is none!

The National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) gets his "mandate", to unilaterally make decisions without consulting the grassroots people, from resolutions that are passed at General Assemblies and Special Chiefs Assemblies. However, attendance and quorum at these events is questionable.  There are approximately 630 Chiefs in Canada. How many of these Chiefs are actually present when resolutions are passed at the AFN assemblies? Does the National Chief even check quorum???  If quorum does not exist, the National Chief most likely does not have a valid mandate.

Watch the videos of past assemblies and determine for yourself whether the National Chief's office checked quorum just prior to passing resolutions   The videos will speak for themselves. Of course, the National Chief could always post online the attendance of those Chiefs who are present and the quorum checks just prior to passing resolutions in order to refute my statements. 

Come on National Chief Atleo, show us the integrity of your office and post the quorum checks and attendance just prior to passing resolutions.  I would love to be wrong on this issue.  Prove me wrong! We, the grassroots people have a right to know whether your resolutions are even valid in the first place!

The National Chief of the AFN is an illegitimate position and the organization itself requires major reform to reflect the diversity and autonomy of First Nations at the grassroots level.

I would say it's about time to change the status quo and make the "National Chief" accountable to everyone, including the Chiefs on the ground. 

Stay tuned for another blog on the charitable status of the AFN.  I am sure that many non-First Nations people would donate to the AFN if it had a reformed and accountable governance structure and charitable status so that donators could write the donation off when they file tax returns.  However, AFN does not have charitable status and cannot give tax receipts for donations. If it did have charitable status, the board of directors (the Executive Committee, including the National Chief) would not be able to receive their big, fat, tax-free paychecks.  Who suffers?  The grassroots people.

WHO IS WATCHING OUT FOR YOU AND YOUR CHILDREN? 

This blog is not meant to provide legal advice. Please seek independant legal advice as it pertains to your situation.

Non-Aboriginal Judge heads Ontario inquiry into Aboriginal participation in juries

"Years of complaints that First Nations people have been systematically excluded from serving on juries in Ontario culminated Thursday in the provincial government calling an independent review into the situation. 

In a statement late Thursday, Attorney General Chris Bentley announced former Supreme Court of Canada justice Frank Iacobucci would review a jury system that on-reserve natives say has failed them badly."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2011/08/11/ontario-aboriginal-inquiry.html

Justice Frank Iacobucci is a distinguished judge and no disrespect to him, but why isn't an Aboriginal person heading this inquiry? 

"Lawyer Julian Falconer, who is acting for the Nishnawbe Aski, called the independent inquiry into the issue a Canadian first."  Julian Falconer is a distinguished lawyer and no disrespect to him, but why is Nishnawbe Aski using a non-First Nations lawyer to represent our interests when there are plenty of First Nations lawyers in Ontario who are just as capable as Falconer?

Why is it that in 2011, non-Aboriginal legal people are still being selected by government officials and some of our leaders to examine legal issues that affect Aboriginal people?

There are plenty of educated Aboriginal legal people in Ontario who are perfectly capable of examining issues that affect us. 

Another issue that requires examination is the lack of Aboriginal duty counsel in our court rooms. Like juries, non-Aboriginal duty counsel are also representing Aboriginal people in criminal court.  Our people need legal representation by First Nations duty counsel in the criminal justice system.  For example, there are three Aboriginal lawyers in Cornwall and not one of them is duty counsel.  Why not?  If there is one criminal justice setting that requires reform, it is Cornwall. 

The needs of First Nations people in the criminal law setting are not being met. 

The inquiry should be expanded to study the issue of the lack of Aboriginal duty counsel.  If Ontario is going to pay Justice Iacobucci a hefty salary for this inquiry using our tax dollars, he should examine the lack of Aboriginal duty counsel as well.  Kill two birds with one stone and use our tax dollars wisely!

The Ontario government's inherent racism towards Aboriginal people is blatantly obvious when our issues are continually being examined by non-Aboriginal people.  The same goes for those First Nations leaders who hire non-First Nations lawyers to advocate on our behalf when we have plenty of qualified legal people who can do the job.  It's an insult to Aboriginal people.  We are just as deserving of respect and dignity like our non-Aboriginal neighbours.

It is 2011 and it is time for Ontario and our First Nations' leaders to start recognizing that Aboriginal people are just as capable as non-Aboriginal people.  Use our people!

WHO IS WATCHING OUT FOR YOU?

Organizations and the Missing Women Commission of Inquiry

First Nations women, especially the missing and murdered First Nations female victims of Robert Pickton, are pawns in the Aboriginal industry and we are used to benefit certain people or groups at certain times. Once our usefulness is gone, we are tossed aside as quickly as we were used to seek money from the government.  It is a sad situation that our interests are only considered when it suits the personal needs of a person or an Aboriginal organization like the Native Women’s Association of Canada and the Assembly of First Nations. 

All of the organizations, including the non-Aboriginal organizations, claiming to represent the missing and murdered First Nations female victims of Robert Pickton are screaming for public money to hire legal counsel to participate in the Missing Women Commission of Inquiry. 

Do these organizations, Aboriginal and not, really have the interests of the missing and murdered First Nations female victims of Pickton at heart?  How many of these organizations are actually going to hire First Nations female lawyers to represent the interests of the missing and murdered First Nations women at the Inquiry?  Who is the lawyer representing the families of the missing and murdered First Nations women?  Is this lawyer a First Nations female?

We, as First Nations women, have a right to know all the details about the lawyers who are representing our interests.  How many of them are actually First Nations female lawyers?

Here is the link to my previous blog on the groups who withdrew from participating in the Inquiry due to lack of funding. http://charlenedesrochers.blogspot.com/2011/08/compromise-hiring-four-lawyers-for.html.

WHO IS WATCHING OUT FOR YOU?

Compromise: Hiring Four Lawyers for the Pickton Inquiry

“The Missing Women Commission of Inquiry is looking to hire four lawyers to represent the interests of First Nations women and residents of Vancouver's Downtown Eastside.

The commission of inquiry came up with the plan after the provincial government refused to provide legal funding for 12 of 13 groups who have been granted standing to participate in the inquiry, which will probe the police failures during the investigations of serial killer Robert Pickton.”   This inquiry is informally known as the Pickton Inquiry and many of the missing and murdered women were First Nations women.

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Compromise+lawyers+hired/5216373/story.html#ixzz1UG0SSy8o.

The Native Women’s Association of Canada (NWAC) and the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) were denied funding to participate in the Pickton Inquiry.  NWAC reportedly withdrew from participating in the Pickton Inquiry because of the lack of funding.  I have yet to see a news article verifying this fact.  However, a few other organizations withdrew over the past few days because they were denied funding to hire legal counsel. 

Grand Chief Phillip Stewart of the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs (UBCIC) formally withdrew from the Pickton Inquiry.  UBCIC should have been funded to participate in the Pickton Inquiry because Grand Chief Phillip Stewart truly has the interests of our people at heart. He would have ensured that all of the important issues affecting First Nations women were addressed at the Inquiry.  He is a leader that has the ability to think collectively about our issues.    

http://www.ubcic.bc.ca/News_Releases/UBCICNews07271101.html

On the other hand, I do not have any sympathy, whatsoever, for the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) and Native Women’s Association of Canada (NWAC) who were denied funding to participate in the Pickton Inquiry. 

We all know that the AFN and NWAC are federal government organizations called “National Aboriginal Organizations” that sell off our rights in exchange for big tax-free paychecks.  The AFN and NWAC use federal monies to hire their consultant/lawyer friends to develop First Nations policies and they would do the same if they were funded to participate in the Pickton Inquiry.  They would hire their lawyer friends to represent the interests of First Nations women and most likely that friend would be non-Aboriginal or an Aboriginal male.  It is called the Aboriginal industry for a reason and only the Aboriginal industry would benefit from the Pickton Inquiry.

It is time for the offices of the National Chief of the AFN and CAP (Congress of Aboriginal Peoples), and the President of NWAC to take a good hard look at their governance style and assess the relationship between their lawyers/consultants and their office. One will find many friends reaping the benefits of federal dollars. Perhaps the offices of the National Chiefs of the AFN, CAP, and NWAC would actually have some credibility among the people if they reformed their governance practices and were actually accountable to the people.  We are not allowed to participate in decision-making or to vote in free and fair elections for the positions of National Chief and President of these organizations.

AFN, CAP, and the President of NWAC sold off the rights of all Aboriginal women by supporting Bill C-3 in 2010, the discriminatory amendments to the Indian Act that restores status as an Indian under the Indian Act to some Indian women who married non-Indian men and their children, but not all.  Prior to 1985, Indian women lost their status as Indians under the Indian Act if they married non-Indian men whereas non-Indian women gained status as an Indian if they married Indian men. 

Bill C-3 still denies Indian status to Indian women who married non-Indian men, and their children, and it is an act of cultural genocide against our people.  The AFN, CAP, and NWAC were told by the federal government that funding for roundtables on citizenship would not be forthcoming until Bill C-3 was passed into law.  AFN, CAP, and NWAC supported Bill C-3 and are committing cultural genocide against our people. These organizations are now happily implementing citizenship roundtables and their boards of directors are continuing to receive big tax-free paychecks at our expense.

Many of the missing and murdered women from downtown East Vancouver were First Nations and also negatively affected by Bill C-3 just like the rest of us.  Did AFN, CAP and NWAC think of these missing and murdered women when they unilaterally chose to support Bill C-3 without consulting the people??? 

Supporting Bill C-3 was an act of spiritual, cultural and physical violence against First Nations women.  The President of NWAC, Jeannette Corbiere-Lavell, perpetuated lateral violence against our women by supporting Bill C-3.  She fought her own personal battle against the discriminatory Indian Act status provisions in the 1970s, which is at the heart of Bill C-3 today.  Jeannette Corbiere-Lavell lost her status as Indian in the 1970’s because she married a non-Indian man and she fought this discrimination against her all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Here is the link to the Attorney General of Canada v. Lavell, [1974] S.C.R. 1349 decision by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1974 dismissing Jeannette Corbiere-Lavell’s appeal regarding her disenfranchisement from the Indian Act because she married a non-Indian man.   http://scc.lexum.org/en/1973/1974scr0-1349/1974scr0-1349.html.

Why did Jeannette Corbiere-Laval support Bill C-3??

So, please excuse me if I do not feel any sympathy for NWAC and the AFN for not receiving funding to participate in the Pickton Inquiry.

Perhaps, hiring four lawyers to represent First Nations women is the most logical approach to funding the interests arising from the Pickton Inquiry.  They should hire lawyers who actually have knowledge and professional experience working on issues affecting First Nations women.  I, for one, am supportive of this approach.  At least we would be sure that the Aboriginal industry, i.e. friends of the National Chief of the AFN and President of NWAC, would not reap the benefits of the taxpayers’ income.

After all, NWAC is not a true representative group of First Nations women.  We are not allowed to participate in their decision-making processes unless we formally become a member of NWAC yet the President of NWAC unilaterally makes decisions that negatively affect us all. Need I say more???

WHO IS WATCHING OUT FOR YOU AND YOUR CHILDREN?    Certainly not the President of NWAC or the National Chief of the AFN.