Natives oppose Human Rights Act changes
By SUE BAILEY, CP — A wave of native discrimination complaints is expected if a bill introduced yesterday by the Conservatives is passed.
Indian Affairs Minister Jim Prentice wants to repeal a 30-year-old section of the Human Rights Act that has blocked complaints against Ottawa and band councils acting under the archaic Indian Act.
“First Nations citizens don’t have the same rights and remedies as other Canadians,” Prentice said. “We think that’s unacceptable and we’re prepared to move on it.”
National native leaders rejected the bill, however, saying they can’t support what they called a rushed and unilateral move that would sow dissent and tension on reserves.
Already cash-strapped band councils could be peppered with claims. Allegations of unfair treatment would likely range from housing disputes to fights over how higher education funds are shared.
Ottawa is also expected to be targeted for various despised policies. Those include Indian Act rules governing status.
For years, the Indian Act stripped thousands of native women of their Indian status along with rights and benefits when they married non-native men.
Remedial legislation, Bill C-31, restored status to those women in 1985. But it did so with a catch: a new Indian Act section stipulated their children could only pass on Indian status if they married another status Indian.
Those who wed non-native spouses have been denied that ability — an exclusion decried by native groups as arbitrary and unjust.
The Native Women’s Association of Canada and the Assembly of First Nations issued a rare joint press release denouncing the bill.
Both groups stress that human rights must be protected, but they dispute the extent to which Prentice sought the input of First Nations people.
“We are still dealing with the aftermath of Bill C-31, which was a result of not having meaningful consultation with First Nations, including aboriginal women,” said Beverley Jacobs, president of the women’s association.
Assembly national chief Phil Fontaine called the bill “a recipe for ineffectiveness” that will add new costs for under-funded bands.
![[del.icio.us]](http://intercontinentalcry.org/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/delicious.png)
![[Facebook]](http://intercontinentalcry.org/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/facebook.png)
![[Hugg]](http://intercontinentalcry.org/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/hugg.png)
![[MySpace]](http://intercontinentalcry.org/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/myspace.png)
![[Newsvine]](http://intercontinentalcry.org/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/newsvine.png)
![[Reddit]](http://intercontinentalcry.org/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/reddit.png)
![[Shoutwire]](http://intercontinentalcry.org/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/shoutwire.png)
![[Sphere]](http://intercontinentalcry.org/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/sphere.png)
![[StumbleUpon]](http://intercontinentalcry.org/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/stumbleupon.png)
![[Twitter]](http://intercontinentalcry.org/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/twitter.png)
![[Email]](http://intercontinentalcry.org/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/email.png)
Except where otherwise noted, articles on this site are licensed under a
If you’re wondering, the section Canada unilaterally wants to change is section 67, which states:
“67. Nothing in this Act affects any provision of the Indian Act or any provision made under or pursuant to that Act.”
see: The Canadian Human Rights Act
Type your comment here.Long overdue. We in this country still have despots for leaders and it is these same leaders crying the loudest against this bill. Asssembly of Manitoba Chiefs Grand Chief Ron Evans has to be one of the worst dictators Manitoba natives have ever witnessed. His human rights abuses against his own people are shared right across Manitoba.
Interesting point Don - you are right. Various Chiefs and the AFN in general have been the loudest. And their concern seems to be a front to the underlying issue, that they will in fact be losing some power.
On that point alone, I’d say this is a great thing. As there are many Chiefs on this Land who do not act in the best interests of the people, and who are inclined to abuse and threaten the lives of good people to get what they want.
But there is another concern here - being where the authority of the Chiefs will be assigned via this decision.
It is not going into the hands of the People, but to the Provinces and Federal Government, who freely admit through their actions, they wish to be the managers of our Nations - not by proxy (through the C&C’s and the AFN) but directly.
For this, I do not support this decision - it is just more of the same… But something most certainly needs to be done to ensure the safety of the People, so they can met their needs and be free from fear and other imposed policies and intentions (eg. corporate interests) - of the various Chiefs and the Government itself (ie. INAC).
Whether or not this actually goes through, this will remain a central issue for those who now and will continue to have no voice among their People (Cross Lake, Tadoule Lake, etc.).
I just hope the amount of dialogue can continue to increase, even if it’s only amongst ourselves.
Respectfully - Ahni
Leave a Reply