What Does it Mean to be Canadian?

The violent history Canada has tried to ignore is being brought back out on the international stage (see the incident with the UN). Other countries are calling Canada out for human rights violations, so the question Canadians have to ask ourselves is this -- who do we want to be as a nation?

Canada has a historically difficult relationship with Aboriginal people, and this history of colonialism is evident in the modern Canadian government’s response to Aboriginal women’s issues.  Aboriginal women experience oppression in two ways: first, because they are Aboriginal, and second, because they are women. The colonial history of oppression of Aboriginal peoples is clear in the Indian Act, a legal document which continues to outline exactly who counts as “Indian” in Canada. This strips Aboriginal people of their right to self-determination, and Aboriginal women are hit even harder.

Prior to 1985 (a mere 28 years ago), if an Aboriginal woman who had status married a man who did not, she would automatically lose her status. This policy did not work the other way; men who married non-status women kept their status. With loss of status came loss of any rights to land or compensation for herself or her children. Only after Aboriginal women’s rights protests culminated in a human rights complaint filed through the United Nations did the federal government pass Bill C-31. This bill protects her status, but introduced a clause that effectively just delays loss of status for 2 or 3 generations. It is hard not to see parallels between this legislation and anti-miscegenation laws, since it limits Aboriginal women’s choices in marriage, and legally strips her or her future family’s rights to their heritage if she marries outside her legal race.

In more general terms, what Indian policy in Canada has done is stripped any power Aboriginal women had, and turned them into 3^rd or 4^th class citizens. Until 1951, 30 years after White Canadian women’s suffrage, Aboriginal women were not allowed to vote for band council. The policies concerning women in the Indian Act ignored historical practices of matrilineal descent, female members on council, and other important roles women filled in many Aboriginal societies.

Women have played a big part in Aboriginal rights movements in Canada, and they are certainly not passive victims, but they are being victimized. Aboriginal women are targeted because they are disenfranchised; colonial policy has taken Aboriginal culture away from these women in exchange for poverty and addictions. Many Aboriginal women, such as Phyllis Chelsea in Alkali Lake in 1972, have taken action to help their community rise above alcoholism, for example. But they are fighting a government and its policy rooted in colonial racism and sexism that have made Aboriginal women easy targets.  

Close to 600 Canadian women, almost 600 Aboriginal people, have become victims thanks to Canada’s sexist and racist policy, which in turn developed out of our colonial past. If the average Canadian ignores this issue the way the Canadian government is doing, we contribute directly to the loss of more and more Aboriginal women. Colonialism did not end 200, 100, 50, or even 20 years ago, but continues to shape the Canadian political landscape today. An ideology of colonialism is what motivated the federal government to reject the UN’s call for an inquiry into these missing women, and it is a sexist and racist culture grown out of colonialism that puts these women at risk in the first place.

Why should the average Canadian care that close to 600 Aboriginal women are missing or murdered? Because this number clearly reflects how we treat our minorities, and Canada needs to do better by all its citizens. Let’s live up to our reputation as a country that celebrates diversity, and let’s start by taking the missing and murdered Aboriginal women of Canada seriously.

Sisters in Spirit: Connections between Canada/UN Politics and Indigenous Studies

There are several themes that emerge when reading the Huffington Post article on Canada’s rejection of a UN call for review of violence against Aboriginal women (mentioned in an earlier blog post) that are related to Indigenous Studies:

• Violence against women
• Systemic discrimination
• International politics
• Canadian politics
• Justice
• Power
• Policy
• Human rights
• Colonialism

Many people have critically examined these themes, particularly tying the systemic discrimination inherent within politics and policies in Canada to Aboriginal people. Anita Olsen Harper and Kristen Gilchrist are two such scholars.

Harper, A. O. (2006). Is Canada peaceful and safe for Aboriginal women? Canadian Woman Studies, 25(1/2), 33-38. Retrieved from http://library.mtroyal.ca:2048/login?url=http://library.mtroyal.ca:2103/docview/217464495?accountid=1343

Anita Olsen Harper (2006) discusses the systemic issues at the federal and provincial level within justice and legislation that have contributed to the overrepresentation of Aboriginal women as victims of sexual violence. Harper points out that there is little action taken by the Canadian government to prevent this violence and little concern evident in the Canadian public, and Canada’s choice to brush aside the UN call for review of this violence fits with this assessment.

Gilchrist, K. (2010). "Newsworthy" victims? Exploring differences in Canadian local press coverage of missing/murdered Aboriginal and White women. Feminist Media Studies, 10(4), 373-390. doi:10.1080/14680777.2010.514110

Kristen Gilchrist examines news articles regarding violence against women, comparing the coverage White women receive to the way Aboriginal women are portrayed in the media when they are victims of sexual assault. Gilchrist notes that the history and the social implications of colonialism play an important role in shaping the media representations of Aboriginal women and the violence done against them.

Alberta's Oil Sands: Rich in Controversy

                The tar sands of Alberta are well-known as a contentious environmental issue, but Arij Riahi and Tim McSorley, in an article published on The Dominion's website, point out the impact the oil country has had on the Indigenous residents near Fort McMurray, including the Fort McMurray First Nation and the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation. Loss of their land, which they may use to hunt and fish, is a major issue, but it isn't the only one. The industrial project also represents violation of treaty rights when spills are covered up, such as in late June when Crystal Lameman could not get information on the extent of the spill on Beaver Lake Cree Nation territory without journalistic pressure. Many Indigenous communities also suffer poor health due to severe pollution, such as abnormally high cancer rates.

                

               The Healing Walk, which took place on July 5 this year and consists of a walk around the tar sands, aims to show activists and other residents from the Fort McMurray area and across Canada the impact the tar sands are having not only on the environment but the health of the people who live in oil country. Events such as this and people such as Lameman and Chief Allan Adam are fighting for cultural survival against the tar sands, an issue not only affecting Aboriginal populations but disproportionately impacting the lives of Indigenous Canadian peoples.

The UN Human Rights Council and Canada Disagree (Again)

               An article published in the Huffington Post last week highlighted Canada’s rejection of a UN call for a review of violence against Aboriginal women. Mike Blanchfield of the Canadian Press lists countries such as Cuba, New Zealand, and Iran who disparaged Canada’s human rights record, particularly in the face of the so-called Stolen Sisters, the disproportionate number of Aboriginal women who have gone missing in Canada in the past few decades. Canada rejected the call in Geneva during the United Nations Human Rights Council Universal Periodic Review of their rights record, with Justice Minister Peter MacKay’s office stating that Canada is focused on action rather than reviews.

                While many are shocked or at least concerned by Canada’s stance on the subject, the ambassador to the UN in Geneva, Elissa Golberg, insisted that Canada is proud of its human rights record and violence against Aboriginal women is better dealt with at the provincial or local level, and the Harper government is skeptical of the review as it allows other countries with poor human rights records such as Iran to criticize Canada. One might wonder why Canada allows the UN to conduct such a review at all, as Blanchfield states that Canada chose to reject 162 recommendations from other countries given as part of this review.