Category Archives: Human Rights

Patricia Doyle-Bedwell : : #IdleNoMore A Movement for Change

Dal News, Misha Noble-Hearle, January 18, 2013 — Thirty years ago, Patricia Doyle-Bedwell sat in Dalhousie’s Student Union building with four other aboriginal students discussing issues such as class, racism and indigenous rights. She would never have guessed that 30 years later, more than 400 people would be packed into the Scotiabank Auditorium in support of, or simply eager to learn about, the same issues.

“I am overwhelmed with joy for the support of Idle No More,” says the Dalhousie professor and director of the Transition Year Program, speaking about the teach-in event held on campus last week.

Growth of a movement

Idle No More is a grassroots movement that began as an email exchange between four aboriginal activists in Saskatchewan last fall. Their discussions focused on Bill C-45, a 400-page bill passed in December 2012 by the Canadian government that made changes to the Indian Act, the Navigation Protection Act and the Environment Assessment Act, among others.

Worried how these changes would affect them and their treaty rights, the activists organized a rally in Saskatoon peacefully protesting the bill. Since then, the movement has caught fire, spreading rapidly and prominently around the country.

With live tweets during events and more than 75,000 “likes” on Facebook, Idle No More is powered by social media as well as the inaccuracies of mainstream media, says Howard Ramos, a faculty member in the Department of Sociology and Social Anthropology and an expert in Canadian Aboriginal mobilization and issues of ethnicity and race.

“The movement spread not just through social media, but when the media got it wrong,” says Dr. Ramos.

Often, Idle No More has been portrayed in affiliation with Attawapiskat Chief Theresa Spence’s hunger strike. After declaring that her First Nations band in Northern Ontario was in a state of emergency due to severe economic issues, she began a liquids-only diet on Dec. 11, 2012, demanding a meeting with Stephen Harper and Governor-General David Johnston. This media coverage sparked interest in Idle No More, merging the two separate movements, but Idle No More is about a lot more than one hunger strike.

The protection of Aboriginal Rights and environmental concerns are high on the to-do list of Idle No More organizers and supporters, but the movement also provides a platform for social learning and “unlearning,” an idea that Erin Wunker, English professor, explained at the January 8 event. She defined unlearning as the act of acknowledging something we thought was true as not being the truth.

“I am part of a population that has learned that I have always had a right to be here, and that is untrue,” said Wunker, identifying herself as a descendant of European-Canadian settlers. “We need to learn each other’s stories and unlearn the dominant discourse of them.”

Sparking a dialogue

Idle No More promotes education about issues that affect not only Aboriginal Canadians, but all Canadians, say those who are following it closely.

Read More: Dal News

U Fraser Valley (UFV) #IdleNoMore educational forum

University of the Fraser Valley (UFV)  #IdleNoMore Educational Forum

17 January
1:00 – 3:30
Aboriginal Gathering Place at the Canada Education Park campus in Chilliwack

The University of the Fraser Valley (UFV) will host an Idle No More educational forum on January 17 from 1 to 3: 30 p.m. at the Aboriginal Gathering Place at the Canada Education Park campus in Chilliwack.

Speakers include:

  • Joanne Gutierrez (Xwiyolemot, Sto: lo/ Cree woman) who will talk about indigenous government and Idle No More capacity building
  • Sakej Warden (Master of Indigenous Government degree from University of Victoria Member of Warrior Societies Alliance) who will talk about indigenous nationhood
  • Hamish Telford (UFV political science instructor) who will talk about omnibus bills and Bill C-45
  • Robert Harding (UFV social work instructor) who will talk about media representation of the Idle No More movement and the context of the representation of aboriginal peoples and issues in the media

#IdleNoMore at U Victoria: Where do we go from here?

#IdleNoMore at U Victoria: Where do we go from here?

Teach-In and Public Forum

 

A town hall and public discussion co-sponsored by the Faculty of Human and Social Development and Indigenous Governance examines the Indigenous Peoples’ movement that is generating debate from coast to coast.

Panelists include:
Dr. Taiaiake Alfred (Professor, Indigenous Governance, UVic)
Janet Rogers (Victoria Poet Laureate, INM Victoria Organizer)
Mandee McDonald (MA Student, Indigenous Governance, UVic, INM Victoria/Denendeh Organizer)
Special Guest: Wab Kinew (Media Personality, Director of Indigenous Inclusion, University of Winnipeg).

What: “Idle No More: Where do we go from here?”
When: Wednesday, Jan. 16, from 7 to 9 p.m.
Where: First Peoples House, UVic

At social media command centre, U of S student in eye of storm of #IdleNoMore

Erica Lee, photo by Richard Marjan

Jeremy Warren, StarPhoenix, 16 January 2013: Erica Lee is at the centre of Idle No More and has witnessed the best and worst of the made-in-Saskatchewan national movement.

Lee, a 22-year-old University of Saskatchewan student, manages the movement’s main Facebook page, which serves as Idle No More’s unofficial headquarters. It’s the hub where people from around the world go to find help organizing rallies, share stories and support the cause.

The Idle No More page is also where people go to vent and berate. Lee spends much of her day checking it to remove racist and violent comments.

“A teenage boy sent me a message calling me a ‘squaw,’ ” Lee said while scrolling through comments at a computer in the U of S Aboriginal Students’ Centre this week. “I’ve deleted messages that say, ‘Quit drinking Lysol.’ That’s a really common one.”

Lee, who also sits on the Indigenous Students’ Council, is never without a cell-phone and she regularly checks it between classes. The page reached 1.5 million people in the week leading up to Friday’s meeting between First Nations leaders and Prime Minister Stephen Harper, according to Face-book measurements that account for views, “likes” and “shares.”

There are also posts that inspire, Lee says. She is particularly fond of a picture someone posted of a lone person standing on a building in Palestine holding an Idle No More poster.

Lee deletes much of the racist comments, but she doesn’t shy away from criticism. Many people have questions about the goals and activities of Idle No More and honest dialogue might lead to some good, Lee says.

“We don’t want to remove dissenting comments because we want a good discussion,” she said.

“If you delete a question, people will never learn. There’s still so much misunderstanding about First Nations in Canada.”

Read more: StarPhoenix

Sylvia McAdam @ U Regina on #IdleNoMore

Global News, 14 January 2013. At a presentation to University of Regina students on Monday, Idle No More co-founder Sylvia McAdam wasn’t afraid to air her own criticism of how some in the mass media have portrayed her grassroots movement.

“I have an issue with media. There is this automatic idea that indigenous people and leaders are misusing funds. That is not true,” McAdam told students, referring to allegations of mismanaged funds on Chief Theresa Spence’s Northern Ontario Attawapiskat reserve.

McAdam was also quick to point out that while they may share common goals, Chief Spence is separate from the Idle No More movement.  Her message to future journalists, besides making sure to get the facts straight was that more dialogue is needed.

Idle No More wasn’t present at the meeting on Friday between Stephen Harper and First Nations Chiefs. McAdam says they weren’t invited, but had they been, they would have probably not attended anyway because the government had made it clear Bill C-45 would not be repealed.

When asked if the movement will soon likely run out of steam, she replied, “Resistance is creative. It’s very creative. I don’t think it will slow down because on January 28th we’re having a worldwide Idle No more call to action, so it’s still growing.”

U of R professor Leonzo Barreno invited McAdam to speak to his Indigenous People and the Press class. He says it’s important for the students to hear all sides and to be able to sort out a very complicated and sensitive issue, but hesitates to liken Idle No More to other recent popular movements…

Read More Global News: Global News | Idle No More co-founder speaks of movement’s effectiveness

See video of Sylvia McAdam, Idle No More co-Founder, at the University of Regina (sponsored by The event was jointly sponsored by the School of Journalism, University of Regina, and the Indian Communication Arts program at the First Nations University of Canada).

“Academic Theory behind Idle No More” @ National Post

As if Idle No More can be reduced to academic theory, today’s National Post went a step further and reduced the academic theory to “indigenism.” Drawing on an analysis from University of Calgary professor an ex-advisor to the Harper government Tom Flanagan, the Post strikes a defensive tone from the start: “It is a realm in which it is uncontroversial to call Canada an illegitimate, racist, colonial power, or to claim its government is now engaged in the genocide of its native peoples, or that non-native Canadians, especially those of European descent, are “colonizers,” at best blind to their own bigotry and privilege.” Flanagan concludes that this is “standard fare among the academic left.” “That’s what’s driving Idle No More,” he says. “It’s not new. This whole vision was widely articulated during the hearings on the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples.” Read more: National Post.

Rather than begging a question of academic theories behind the movement, the Post would be much better off covering the movement behind the theories or asking whether theorists are now poised to invite and welcome the movement to the doorsteps and inside the halls of academia.

All of this begs the question of whether students, this year nationally, will have the politics such as that  demonstrated in force across Quebec from February through August to sustain their foothold on Idle No More. As Algonquin journalist Martin Lukacs wrote last year in “Quebec student protests mark ‘Maple spring’ in Canada,” “the fault-lines of the struggle over education — dividing those who preach it must be a commodity purchased by “consumers” for self-advancement, and those who would protect it as a right funded by the state for the collective good — has thus sparked a fundamental debate about the entire society’s future…. Little wonder students’ imagination was stirred by the past year of world rebellion. That inspiration has been distilled in the movement’s main slogan, “Printemps érable,” a clever play on words that literally means Maple Spring but sounds like Arab Spring.”

Indeed, the Quebec student association ASSÉ released a statement yesterday committing to solidarity with indigenous students and Idle No More: “We stand in solidarity with Idle No More. We stand in solidarity with Indigenous hunger strikers Theresa Spence, Emil Bell, Raymond Robinson, Aniesh Vollant and Janet Pilot from the Quebec Innu community of Uashat, and others whose names we have not yet learned.”

“If 2012 was the year of our Maple Spring, we are ready to greet the Native spring of 2013.”

Pamela Palmater :: Why We Are Idle No More

Pamela Palmater is a Mi’kmaq lawyer and professor in Ryerson University’s Department of Politics and Public Administration, and Director of the Centre in Indigenous Governance. For Idle No More, she argues that the Canadian government can no longer sustain its status quo relationship with First Nations people. “It’s supposed to be nation to nation,” she said yesterday.  “What we’re going to do is show you how to be a respectful partner… If they refuse [Canadian government], that’s their choice, but there will be consequences.” Her lead article in the Ottawa Citizen articulates some of the key reasons why indigenous people and allies in solidarity will be Idle No More:

Ottawa Citizen 28 December 2012. The Idle No More movement, which has swept the country over the holidays, took most Canadians, including Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his Conservative government, by surprise.

That is not to say that Canadians have never seen a native protest before, as most of us recall Oka, Burnt Church and Ipperwash. But most Canadians are not used to the kind of sustained, co-ordinated, national effort that we have seen in the last few weeks — at least not since 1969. 1969 was the last time the federal government put forward an assimilation plan for First Nations. It was defeated then by fierce native opposition, and it looks like Harper’s aggressive legislative assimilation plan will be met with even fiercer resistance.

In order to understand what this movement is about, it is necessary to understand how our history is connected to the present-day situation of First Nations. While a great many injustices were inflicted upon the indigenous peoples in the name of colonization, indigenous peoples were never “conquered.” The creation of Canada was only possible through the negotiation of treaties between the Crown and indigenous nations. While the wording of the treaties varies from the peace and friendship treaties in the east to the numbered treaties in the west, most are based on the core treaty promise that we would all live together peacefully and share the wealth of this land. The problem is that only one treaty partner has seen any prosperity.

The failure of Canada to share the lands and resources as promised in the treaties has placed First Nations at the bottom of all socio-economic indicators — health, lifespan, education levels and employment opportunities. While indigenous lands and resources are used to subsidize the wealth and prosperity of Canada as a state and the high-quality programs and services enjoyed by Canadians, First Nations have been subjected to purposeful, chronic underfunding of all their basic human services like water, sanitation, housing, and education. This has led to the many First Nations being subjected to multiple, overlapping crises like the housing crisis in Attawapiskat, the water crisis in Kashechewan and the suicide crisis in Pikangikum.

Part of the problem is that federal “Indian” policy still has, as its main objective, to get rid of the “Indian problem.” Instead of working toward the stated mandate of Indian Affairs “to improve the social well-being and economic prosperity of First Nations,” Harper is trying, through an aggressive legislative agenda, to do what the White Paper failed to do — get rid of the Indian problem once and for all. The Conservatives don’t even deny it — in fact Harper’s speech last January at the Crown-First Nation Gathering focused on the unlocking of First Nations lands and the integration of First Nations into Canadian society for the “maximized benefit” of all Canadians. This suite of approximately 14 pieces of legislation was drafted, introduced and debated without First Nation consent.

Idle No More is a co-ordinated, strategic movement, not led by any elected politician, national chief or paid executive director. It is a movement originally led by indigenous women and has been joined by grassroots First Nations leaders, Canadians, and now the world. It originally started as a way to oppose Bill C-45, the omnibus legislation impacting water rights and land rights under the Indian Act; it grew to include all the legislation and the corresponding funding cuts to First Nations political organizations meant to silence our advocacy voice.

Our activities include a slow escalation from letters to MPs and ministers, to teach-ins, marches and flash mobs, to rallies, protests and blockades. The concept was to give Canada every opportunity to come to the table in a meaningful way and address these long-outstanding issues, and escalation would only occur if Canada continued to ignore our voices. Sadly, Prime Minister Harper has decided to ignore the call for dialogue just as he has ignored the hunger-striking Attawapiskat Chief Theresa Spence.

Although Idle No More began before Chief Spence’s hunger strike, and will continue after, her strike is symbolic of what is happening to First Nations in Canada. For every day that Spence does not eat, she is slowly dying, and that is exactly what is happening to First Nations, who have lifespans up to 20 years shorter than average Canadians.

Idle No More has a similar demand in that there is a need for Canada to negotiate the sharing of our lands and resources, but the government must display good faith first by withdrawing the legislation and restoring the funding to our communities. Something must be done to address the immediate crisis faced by the grassroots in this movement.

I am optimistic about the power of our peoples and know that in the end, we will be successful in getting this treaty relationship back on track. However, I am less confident about the Conservative government’s willingness to sit down and work this out peacefully any time soon. Thus, I fully expect that this movement will continue to expand and increase in intensity. Canada has not yet seen everything this movement has to offer. It will continue to grow as we educate Canadians about the facts of our lived reality and the many ways in which we can all live here peacefully and share the wealth.

After all, First Nations, with our constitutionally protected aboriginal and treaty rights, are Canadians’ last best hope to protect the lands, waters, plants and animals from complete destruction — which doesn’t just benefit our children, but the children of all Canadians.

Pamela Palmater is chair in Indigenous Governance at Ryerson University and an indigenous activist with Idle No More.

Read more: Ottawa Citizen

Idle No More @ Universities

University administrators in Canada are bracing as Idle No More energizes students, staff, and faculty members dissatisfied with business as usual. Protests have been fluid, with flashmobs and scaled demonstrations moving from streets to campuses and back. Massive demonstrations across the country were held today in solidarity with Attawapiskat Chief Theresa Spence, now one month into a hunger strike, and other First Nations chiefs.

Carleton and Ottawa universities for the past week have seen a series of round dance flashmobs, and activism from the People’s Council of representatives of the movement, Indigenous students and communities, and the wider student movement. On 8 January, the Indigenous and Canadian Studies Students’ Association (ICSSA) of the University of Ottawa raised the following five demands for decolonization of the campus:

  1. That Omaniwininimowin (the Algonquin language) and Kanien’keha (the Mohawk language) be taught every semester, and that this leads to the creation of a minor in both these languages.
  2. A substantial increase in scholarships for Indigenous students by the administration of the University of Ottawa, in recognition of the treaty rights of Indigenous nations to higher education.
  3. An Indigenous portal on the University of Ottawa website, including a statement recognizing that our campus is built on non-ceded Algonquin nation territory.
  4. A commitment to the recognition of the Algonquin nation in the physical landscape of our campus, for example through the naming of buildings.
  5. The immediate and substantial increase in the allocation of resources to the Aboriginal Studies program in the Faculty of Arts, leading to the creation of an Institute of Indigenous Studies and Decolonization.

The Idle No More student movement is holding steadfast: “Higher education is a treaty right guaranteed to Indigenous nations that has been consistently violated by Canada. It is time for students and Indigenous nations to stand together and be IDLE NO MORE.”  The emphasis is on a “commitment to the struggle for justice in both higher education and the wider Indigenous and settler societies.”

Read more: Idle No More Community and Idle No More website

Petrina named Expert Witness for Chan v UBC Racial Discrimination Case

Stephen Petrina has been named as an Expert Witness for Jennifer Chan in her racial discimination case against the University of British Columbia at the BC Human Rights Tribunal.  The BCHRT decided on 23 January 2012 to hear the Chan v UBC and others [Beth Haverkamp, David Farrar, Jon Shapiro, Rob Tierney] case and the Hearing is scheduled for: June 11 to 15, 25 to 29, and July 3 to 6 and 9 to 13, 2012

BC Human Rights Tribunal
1170 – 605 Robson Street
Vancouver, BC

Chan initially filed her complaint on 10 May 2010 against the University of British Columbia, Beth Havercamp, David Farrar, Jon Shapiro, and Robert Tierney. A background to the case was recently published by the UBC student newspaper, Ubyssey, in a feature article.

Chan v UBC Human Rights Tribunal Hearing Schedule

The BC Human Rights Tribunal has scheduled Hearing dates for the Jennifer Chan v UBC racial discrimination case for: June 11 to 15, 25 to 29, and July 3 to 6 and 9 to 13, 2012

BC Human Rights Tribunal
1170 – 605 Robson Street
Vancouver, BC

All are welcome to attend. For information on the case, see the recent UBC student newspaper, Ubysseyfeature article and the BCHRT for decision to hear the Chan v UBC and others [Beth Haverkamp, David Farrar, Jon Shapiro, Rob Tierney] case.

Student News on Chan v UBC Racial Discrimination Case

The Managing Editor for the Ubyssey, UBC’s student newspaper, reported in a feature article in this morning’s issue on the Chan v UBC and others racial discrimination case to be heard by the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal (BCHRT) this summer. Jonny Wakefield reports:

The threshold to dismiss a complaint at the BCHRT is low. Since 2006, it appears that no cases against UBC have gone to a full judicial hearing. But one professor’s complaint has survived numerous attempts by the university to have it thrown out. The hearing, scheduled this summer, will be one of the very few times that the university has had to deal with a complainant in a public forum.

That discrimination complaint came from Jennifer Chan. Chan is an associate professor in the Faculty of Education. In May 2010, she filed a complaint of racial discrimination with the BCHRT, naming the university and four employees—among them senior administrators—as respondents. Chan, who is Chinese Canadian, alleges she was not selected for a prestigious research chair in part because of her race.

That appointment was to the Lam Research Chair in Multicultural Education. Chan was shortlisted for the chair in October 2009 and when it was announced that another candidate—a white woman—was given the appointment, Chan started to make complaints about bias in the process.

In short, Chan said the search committee of five members from the Faculty of Education broke every hiring rule in the book. It failed to keep any records of its procedures, including how the search was conducted and what criteria were used to determine merit. The committee also failed to consult Chan’s references, which included former Lam Chair holders. The Ubyssey contacted Chan’s references independently and confirmed that they had not been contacted regarding her application.

“A lot of my students would ask for references for their part-time summer jobs,” she said. “This endowment chair is a very prestigious position. Why were external references not contacted? Was it because the candidate was predetermined? Or was it because of some other factor?”

One of those factors, she argues, was her race.

See Ubyssey 15 March 2012 pp. 6-7 for more, and BCHRT for decision to hear the Chan v UBC and others [Beth Haverkamp, David Farrar, Jon Shapiro, Rob Tierney] case.

Rights tribunal to hear UBC prof’s racial discrimination complaint

Vancouver Sun: Rights tribunal to hear UBC prof’s racial discrimination complaint

The B.C. Human Rights Tribunal has agreed to hear the case of a University of B.C. professor who claims she was passed over for a research chair position because of her race.

Jennifer Chan, an associate professor in the faculty of education at UBC, filed a complaint alleging that the university and four administrators discriminated against her with respect to the appointment of the David Lam Chair in Multicultural Education in 2009. UBC denies any such discrimination took place and applied to have the complaint dismissed.

In her submission, Chan argues that she was better qualified for the position than the successful applicant and points out that only one member of the selection committee was a visible minority. She also alleges systemic discrimination which she claims is evidenced by being “forgotten” in her tenure and promotion schedule and the fact that visible minorities are almost entirely absent from leadership positions. Chan, who is of Chinese descent and immigrated to Canada from Hong Kong in 2001, was the only visible minority candidate to be shortlisted for the position.

Chan v UBC (BC Human Rights Tribunal)

Chan v. University of British Columbia and Haverkamp and Farrar and Shapiro and Tierney (No. 2), 2012 BCHRT 12

INTRODUCTION
[1] Jennifer Chan filed a complaint alleging that Beth Haverkamp, David Farrar, Jon Shapiro, Robert Tierney and the University of British Columbia (collectively the “Respondents”) discriminated against her with respect to the appointment of the David Lam Chair in Multicultural Education in the Faculty of Education at the University of British Columbia (the “Lam Chair”) on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, and place of origin, contrary to s. 13 of the Human Rights Code. The Respondents deny there has been any such discrimination and apply to dismiss the complaint pursuant to ss. 27(1)(b), (c),(d)(ii) and (f), which provide:
(1) A member or panel may, at any time after a complaint is filed and with or without a hearing, dismiss all or part of the complaint if that member or panel determines that any of the  following apply:
(b) the acts or omissions alleged in the complaint…do not contravene this Code;
(c) there is no reasonable prospect that the complaint will succeed;
(d) proceeding with the complaint or that part of the complaint would not:

(ii) further the purposes of this Code.
(f) the substance of the complaint … has been appropriately dealt with in another proceeding.
[2] The Respondents, in the alternative, apply to dismiss the complaint against the individual respondents.

Excerpts of the decision:

[50] Further, it strikes me that it would be fundamentally unfair to allow UBC’s application on this ground. A faculty member may rely on the Policy in determining the preferred route for redress. To allow UBC to set out an appeal process in its Policy and then deny it through an application to dismiss, on this basis, essentially pulls the rug out from under that faculty member.

[51] I decline to dismiss Dr. Chan’s complaint as appropriately dealt with under the Policy.

 

[72] The issues raised in this complaint are of significance to the UBC community as a whole. I am alive to the difficulties expressed in Lee in identifying racism and related offensive behaviour. I am also alive to the low hurdle which the complainant needs to overcome on a s. 27(1)(c) application. In the circumstances of this case, I am of the view that, only after a full hearing, is it possible to determine whether the Committee’s process was tainted by prohibited motivations. Ultimately all Tribunal decisions under s. 27(1)(c) of the Code are discretionary decisions. I am not persuaded that there is no reasonable prospect that the individual complaint will succeed.

 

[77] Rather, the complaint appears to cast the Committee’s process and resultant decision as being the product of subtle racial bias and stereotyping, including the failure to apply employment equity principles. Whether or not UBC was bound by its Employment Equity Plan to apply such principles as contended by Dr. Chan will not be dispositive of the issues in this complaint – they are cast far broader than that. While I recognise that s. 27 of the Code contemplates that a part of a complaint may be dismissed on application, I also recognise that a failure to apply employment equity may be rooted in racial bias.

 

[79] If the evidence supports that the Committee was influenced by improper considerations as alleged (but which the Respondents clearly deny) the selection would constitute a violation of the Code. On the material before me, a hearing will be required to ascertain whether discrimination has occurred. I am not prepared to dismiss the complaint on the basis that the acts alleged do not contravene the Code.

 

IX CONCLUSION

[90] As stated above, I decline to dismiss Dr. Chan’s personal complaint against UBC. The systemic complaint is dismissed. I also dismiss the complaints against Dr. Haverkamp, Dr. Farrar, Dr. Shapiro and Dr. Tierney.