Enough is Enough: Indian Status, Amend Indian Act

I just signed the petition "Canadian Government: Remove all of the sex discrimination in the Indian status registration provisions of the Indian Act - Enough is Enough" on Change.org.

No More Failed Remedial Legislations to the Status Provisions of The Indian Act

Section 15 of The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states all Canadians have the right to live free from sexual and racial discrimination, yet Canada refuses to remove the sex discrimination in the Indian status registration provisions of The Indian Act.  Despite the long-time efforts of Indigenous women such as Mary Two-Axe Early, Jeannette Corbiere-Lavell, Yvonne Bernard, and Sandra Lovelace sex discrimination continues.

While The Indian Act was amended in 1985 to eliminate the sex discrimination against women who married non-Indian men, Canada took advantage of this remedial process creating the second-generation cut-off rule, and through applying this rule in a detrimental way to the descendants of Indian women as compared to the descendants of Indian men.  In this way Canada manipulated the remedial process.

Sharon McIvor furthered the effort, where in 2011 The Indian Act was once again amended.  Despite her 25 year effort Canada again manipulated the remedial process where as such many issues remain.  For example, the grandchildren of Indian women once enfranchised, and born prior to September 4, 1951 continue to be denied.

Further, many are unaware of the matter or unknown and unstated paternity (also unreported, unnamed, unacknowledged, unestablished, and unrecognized paternity).

Prior to the 1985 amendment to The Indian Act provisions protected mothers and their children whose father’s signature was not ascribed to the birth certificate − meaning the child was the same as their Indian mother, a status Indian.  Through the 1985 remedial process Canada removed these provisions creating yet another new form of sex discrimination.  Today Canada assumes all unknown fathers are non-Indian and this negatively affects the child’s treaty rights such as housing, health care, and education.  This policy remains in situations of sexual violence such as rape, gang rape, incest, prostitution, and sexual slavery.  Lynn Gehl v. Attorney General addresses this sex discrimination and it will be heard in court in May 2014.

Please sign this petition in support of the call for Canada to end the manipulative practice of using the remedial process of eliminating the sex discrimination in the Indian status registration provisions of The Indian Act as an opportunity to create new forms of sex discrimination in law, policy, and practice.

To learn more see: www.lynngehl.com

It's important. Will you sign it too? Here's the link:

http://www.change.org/en-CA/petitions/canadian-government-remove-all-of-the-sex-discrimination-in-the-indian-status-registration-provisions-of-the-indian-act-enough-is-enough?share_id=qjxmNzzdps&utm_campaign=signature_receipt&utm_medium=email&utm_source=share_petition

Thanks!

Trace

Canada's unstated paternity policy amounts to genocide against Indigenous children

By Dr. Lynn Gehl Gii-Zhigaate-Mnidoo-Kwe, January 29, 2013

Source: http://rabble.ca/news/2013/01/canadas-unstated-paternity-policy-amounts-cultural-genocide-against-indigenous-children

Canada commits genocide of 25,000 Indigenous children through Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada's (AANDC) unstated paternity practice, yet relies on language -- unstated paternity -- that blames their mothers.

In 1943, Raphael Lemkin first coined the term "genocide" and proceeded to define the term. Interestingly, what many people do not know is that Lemkin defined genocide in cultural terms rather than in terms of killing and mass murder. More specifically, Lemkin defined genocide as having two stages. The first involves the denial of an oppressed group's national pattern; and the second stage involves the imposition of the oppressor's national pattern.

When the International Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was adopted by the United Nations in December 1948, Lemkin's definition was included within the definition. Article 2 of the Convention codifies five genocidal practices and states that any of these acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, constitutes genocide. These five practices are: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and, forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

That said, when I think about the issue of unknown and unstated paternity and the Indian Act, specifically about AANDC's unstated paternity policy, or internal practice or whatever they want to call it, I realize it is in fact genocide. As many know, Indian status is delineated into two subsections of section 6 of the Indian Act: subsection 6(1) and subsection 6(2). While mothers registered under subsection 6(1) are able to pass on status to their children in their own right, this is not the case with mothers registered under subsection 6(2), also known as a weaker form of status. In the event that a father’s signature is missing or not found on a child’s birth registration form, the Registrar of AANDC assumes a negative presumption of paternity, meaning the Registrar assumes non-Indian paternity. This means that the children born of mothers registered under subsection 6(2) are vulnerable as their children are now considered to be non-status and thus not entitled to their treaty rights such as health care and education rights, First Nation band membership, and First Nation citizenship.

Many know by now that Indigenous women are victims of a higher rate of sexual violence such as incest, rape, gang rape, sexual slavery and prostitution. This situation has been brought on through the oppression of colonization, the denial of our rights as Indigenous people, the denial of our land and resources, the residential and day school systems, and the criminalization of our cultures and Indigenous knowledge systems. In any sexist and racist society young Indigenous women are particularly vulnerable. Research has shown that 45 per cent of the children born to status Indian mothers 15 years of age or younger do not have their father’s signature on their birth registration form.

It is precisely at this moment where Canada's practice falls within the parameters outlined in the International Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Specifically, when a father's signature is not placed on a child's birth registration form and the mother is registered under subsection 6(2) of the Indian Act, AANDC's unstated paternity policy transfers [read commits the genocide] these children from their First Nation community into mainstream Canadian society.

It is crucial that I point out that in the process of committing genocide Canada relies on language that blames mothers, as in "unstated paternity." While AANDC's unstated paternity policy targets Indigenous mothers for the lack of the father's signature, there are many instances where a mother, for very legitimate reasons, may refuse to obtain a man's signature, such as in the unfortunate situations of incest and rape. In addition, there are many situations where a father will not sign a birth registration form as they seek to avoid child support payments or because they need to preserve a previous relationship. Clearly, terms such as unreported, unnamed unacknowledged, unestablished, unrecognized, and unknown paternity are better signifiers of women's realities.

AANDC's genocidal policy continues to exist today despite the fact that section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was put in place in 1982 and is supposed to protect Indigenous women from sex discrimination. Furthermore, this genocidal policy exists today despite the long-time heroic efforts of Mary Two-Axe Early, Jeannette Corbiere-Lavell, Yvonne Bedard, Sandra Lovelace, and Sharon McIvor. It is clear to me that legislative change, such as the changes to The Indian Act that took place in 1985 and 2011, is not an avenue for Indigenous women. Clearly the government of Canada has merely manipulated moments of legislative change in their favour: genocide.

Through their unstated paternity policy, Canada perpetuates the sexual violence imposed on Indigenous women and commits genocide on their children. Since 1985, when this AANDC policy emerged, I estimate that as many as 25,000 Indigenous children have been affected by this genocidal practice.

In April 2012 Canadians celebrated the 30th anniversary of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Do you feel protected? Did you feel fuzzy and warm? I certainly did not and I am sure many Indigenous women and their babies stand with me on this.

Dr. Lynn Gehl is an Algonquin Anishinaabe-kwe from the Ottawa River Valley. She has a section 15 Charter challenge regarding the continued sex discrimination in The Indian Act and she recently published a book titled Anishinaabeg Stories: Featuring Petroglyphs, Petrographs, and Wampum Belts. You can reach her at lynngehl@gmail.com and see more of her work at www.lynngehl.com.