The missing voice at BC Rising's UNDRIP discussions

How can we inspire change without the voice of those who have actual claim to these lands?

To BC Rising – UNDRIP Leadership Group

RE: A missing voice in your discussions, that of the Hereditary and rightful claim holders to the lands known as Kanat`an – aka Canada.

I wish to encourage you to be inclusive in your future discussions on the UNDRIP situation as I feel by including the Hereditary. It was very clear that the topic of many discussions came in the form of fear around loss of land title, for example could be addressed; but this isn’t the only issue at hand.

You had at least two spokesmen of Hereditary Peoples on your zoom meeting May 27^th, 2024, and they were not only not included to be on your panel, they were given very little time to bring their views forward in your question periods and it appears that most of their texts were ignored.

I would ask you to review the chat and pay particular attention to chats from Spirit Warrior – who is Glenn Bogue of Asmin and also,

popois

who is the aluuxw (spokesman) for the Hereditary – and Headsman of Peoples of the Salmon. Popois also wrote for the Tsilqot’in case in the Supreme Court of Canada.

The missing voices in the UNDRIP 2 Meeting on May 27th, 2024

I copied this piece of significant message from the text Glenn Bogue wrote during this zoom meeting on May 27^th, 2024; this could set the stage as to how significant the voice and perceptions of the Hereditary, Original Peoples is missing:

“as set forth by the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC)

.           in R v Desautel [2021] SCC 17 at [68] :

.           [68]        Before 1982, common law Aboriginal rights were recognized in Canada under British imperial law (Calder, at pp. 328 and 402; Mitchell, at paras. 62-64). Under the imperial doctrine of succession, when Britain took possession of a new territory, the laws in force in that territory were presumed to continue (subject to some exceptions). This doctrine was not limited to practices, traditions or customs that were “integral to the distinctive culture” of the Aboriginal people, as in Van der Peet.

.           This suggests, on the one hand, that the test for a common law right

.           may be met even where the Van der Peet test is not.  11.           

The SCC stated the same in Haida v BC [2004] :

[25] Put simply, Canada’s Aboriginal peoples were here when Europeans came, and were never conquered).”

Excerpt from the Canadian Museum of Human Rights

Winnipeg - October 16, 2023 – 

A community copy of Treaty #3 from 1873 is on display this week at the Canadian Museum for Human Rights (CMHR) to mark the 150th anniversary of its signing.

“The commitments made in treaty should have set a path for mutual respect and co‐existence between settlers, Indigenous peoples and the land and water that give us life,” said Matthew Cutler, CMHR VP, Exhibitions.

“In listening to Elders and Indigenous leadership, it is clear that we all need to recommit to our treaty promises, to be accountable to the relationships that treaties were meant to build and sustain.”

Another article of note is: “Dismantling the Doctrines of Discovery”

“The Doctrine of Discovery emanates from a series of Papal Bulls (formal statements from the Pope) and extensions, originating in the 1400s. Discovery was used as legal and moral justification for colonial dispossession of sovereign Indigenous Nations, including First Nations in what is now Canada. During the European “Age of Discovery”, Christian explorers “claimed” lands for their monarchs who felt they could exploit the land, regardless of the original inhabitants.”

During the meeting, Popois mentioned the Eye of Camel Treaty of 408 AD, this was signed in Europe with the Dakota’s representing the North America’s Nations. The best presentation and eye opener of history unaccounted for in our education system, at least where I went to public schools in BC, Canada - here is Lester Howse presentation:

Tribal Law, Meredith M. Quinn All Races Have Clan Mother Laws From Creator Great Spirit

“Everybody here is a descendant of a tribe that makes up the six aboriginal treaties that is the foundation of all international law, including today.”

Here are the Six Treaties (excluding Treaties one through ten which stole this country). These are pre-Columbus Treaties that we have with the rest of the world:

1. Canes of Authority

2. Wampum Belts

3. Peace Pipe Treaties

4. All Asians and Minor Asians were under the Palladium of Troy Treaty

5. All Blacks, Arabs and Israelites were under the Seal of Solomon Treaty

6. All Saxon, Anglia, Murcia, Northumbrian groups, Cleopatra tribes or white tribes of Europe were covered under Noah’s Arc Treaty.

“The world is governed by these six aboriginal treaties that make up all international law hence from them come the law of nations, which says, clan mothers who hold territorial right in order to be part of these treaties you would have to belong to a tribal unit, that was ruled by the casa somasis which is known in international law as clan mothers, or the women.”

This is matriarchal law.

Because it’s my responsibility and I was told to do so by the women of the clans and one of the statements is quite simple as descendants of signatory tribes…

“We are commanding all civilized nations to cease and desist from supporting the use of weapons of war and destruction, police action, and mind control because they’re violating international law.”

Back to Canada and our UNDRIP meeting with BC Rising May 27th 2024

A couple things to note – In the Delgamuukw case (1997), the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that claims to traditional lands had to show exclusive occupation of the territory by a defined Aboriginal society at the time the Crown asserted sovereignty over that territory. In the same case, the court ruled that the oral histories of Aboriginal peoples were to be accepted as evidence proving historic use and occupation…The duty to consult was affirmed by the SCC in the Delgamuuk case and is also a key part of the UNDRIP on Rights of Indigenous Peoples. (To me this speaks to collaboration and consultation - not a land grab - even if it’s returning lands to their ‘rightful’ owners, the trauma’s the peoples have had to endure, I’m certain, would never be returned in kind, that is outside their 7 Sacred Laws.

AND this Eye of Camel Treaty of 408 AD dismantles the Doctrine of Discovery of North Americas, right?

The Haida

In Haida Nation, the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed:

Under Canada’s constitutional framework, Crown sovereignty and legislative power are not absolute. In Haida Nation, the Supreme Court highlighted: “Treaties serve to reconcile pre-existing Aboriginal sovereignty with assumed Crown sovereignty”. Yet such reconciliation has not taken place.

Tsilhqot’in Nation Victory at Supreme Court of Canada

Interveners in the landmark Tsilhqot’in Nation case, dealing with Indigenous Peoples’ title to land, called for the Supreme Court of Canada to formally repudiate the doctrine of discovery: (Also the Hul’qumi’num Treaty Group intervention.)

“Finally, the “principle of discovery” cannot be relied upon in formulating an approach to Aboriginal title and must be firmly rejected. The principle of discovery is a “continuation of colonialism” that amounts to a “violation of the Charter of the United Nations ... and the principles of international law.”

While the unanimous ruling did not name discovery directly, the Court did address the related doctrine of terra nullius. In referring to the “pre-existing” land rights of Indigenous Peoples, the Supreme Court ruled: “The doctrine of terra nullius (that no one owned the land prior to European assertion of sovereignty) never applied in Canada, as confirmed by the Royal Proclamation (1763)”.

Some concerns about the unspoken voices:

During the meeting, the Hereditary Aluuxw (spokesman) attended.

popois

was also the man who contributed to the Tsilqot’in articles for court.

Popois was given a quick response to his query for the panel and was quickly denounced by speaker, Bruce Pardy. Several questions regarding the lawful stance were also disregarded or unacknowledged by Pardy’s jurisdictional perspective in the court system.

What I feel really is of concern, is that this meeting I attended, is it was palpable the impact of fears being ramped up by the land owner people of BC; in particular when Bruce Pardy confirmed to someone’s question on their ‘entitlement’ to the land title they’ve held and worked their entire life to build their equity in their land. Bruce confirmed this to be the tipping point questions for the UNDRIP situation.

This is not at all the perspective shared by the Original Peoples aka the Hereditary, and they need to be brought into this discussion group as it is the Hereditary who have these lands claims.

What needs to be discussed is that the Hereditary Peoples live by 7 Sacred Laws and that they are a Matriarchal Society run by Clan Mothers. They are a peaceful peoples.

These Sacred Laws include:

1. The Eagle teaches us Love - and must be unconditional,

2. The Buffalo teaches us Respect - respect is the condition of being honored.

3. The Bear teaches us Courage - courage is the ability to face danger, fear, or changes with confidence and bravery.

4. The Sabe (Sasquatch) teaches us Honesty - honesty is speaking and acting truthfully, and thereby remained morally upright.

5. The Beaver teaches us Wisdom - wisdom is the ability to make decisions based on personal knowledge and experience.

6. The Wolf teaches us Humility - humility is being humble and not arrogant.

7. The Turtle teaches us Truth - truth is to know and understand all the seven teachings have given to us by the Creator and to remain faithful to them.

Bruce Pardy spoke quite significantly on the issue of our current government and its need for replacement. Why are we not speaking to this way of the Hereditary and their Matriarchal Society as a transition with peaceful and support this intention, instead of questioning its validity (still).

Instead, what came out of this meeting for me was that many people fear this transition and that the likelihood of losing their land or property is all they can focus on most likely.

Can we propose that this needs to be the next focus of discussion on the next BC Rising led UNDRIP discussion, so it can be cleared up – but from the perspective of the Hereditary – the rightful claim to the lands.

One comment which was repeatedly stated was “we are all Indigenous” of the land Canada.

To me this was a statement of fear that states, “we are born here, we need to be part of this process,” instead of knowing that “indigenous” is on purpose defined by the UN documents in a very loose terminology. But what needs to be said here, is that the Hereditary have no intention of displacing people, certainly not in the way they experienced during colonization. But no one is asking them or speaking with them.

“…considerable thinking and debate have been devoted to the question of definition of “indigenous peoples”, but no such definition has ever been adopted by any UN-system body.”

https://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/workshop_data_background.doc

Can we begin to consider that there is a path of transition towards a more peaceful and sacred way of governance could be what replaces our current corporate structured government in Canada?

BC Rising, I would like to encourage you to start with future meetings on UNDRIP and transition out of the UN in Canada and for that matter the transition of governance within the lands called Canada, known to the Hereditary as Kanat`an, that you start including them in your discussions