The late Mohawk scholar, Patricia Monture-Angus made an important and relevant statement when she said:
“Think about everything that First Nations people have survived in this country: the taking of our land, the taking of our children, residential schools, the current criminal justice system, How was all of this delivered? The answer is simple: through the law.”
The reason for this is that Canadian law often–too often–has been strongly Eurocentric. In other words, it has perceived claims of whites as naturally right and indigenous as naturally wrong-headed or ill-advised. Such law is clearly not just law. That is the reason that so many Indigenous people are suspicious of Canadian law. Frequently in the past Canadian law has been used as an instrument of domination over Indigenous people. The Indian Act is one example, Residential schools another. If you belonged to a group that had been repeatedly subjected to such domination you would likely be suspicious too. As a result when many Indigenous People hear that the Prime Minster expects them to respect the rule of law, it is understandable that they would not consider such an admonition in the same spirit as the rest of us might.
The Supreme Court of Canada has recognized, as many Canadians have not, that Canada was never terra nullius (“nobody’s land”) before European colonization. Yet often this fact is ignored, particularly in dealing with things like unceded land. Unceded land is land that Indigenous people have not conceded belongs to Canada. They have never given up their claims to it. Significant portions of land have been ceded to Canada by treaties or other agreements. Significant portions of land the Wet’suwet’en First Nation has claimed as its traditional territory is unceded. Some of its land was in fact ceded to Canada. As a result 6 Indian Reserves, as they are called in the Indian Act, have been ceded to Canada.
Since the federal government and the Wet’suwet’en First Nation have not come to agreement about their land claims, it is an unresolved land claim. It may or not be held to be valid. It is unresolved land claims that pose great problems for resource development in Canada. Unfortunately, those claims can take decades (or even centuries!) to be resolved. Often it seems to me there is no great pressure exerted on the federal government to conclude agreements with First Nations until a potential development, such as a pipeline, logging enterprise or golf course, is proposed that would impact their land claim. Then it becomes urgent. I really wish people like farmers, pipeline workers, retired lawyers, and others pressed the government to resolve these claims rather than wait for the next crisis. Pressures of urgent developments are never helpful. It would be much better if such agreements were negotiated in advance of development with good faith and diligence. Then it could be done quietly, thoughtfully, without undue pressure.
in this case the pipeline company Coastal GasLink Pipeline Ltd obtained an injunction against the Wet’suwet’en people not to interfere with the construction of their pipeline and they claim that injunction has not been followed. An injunction is a court order requiring someone, such as Wet’suwet’en First Nation to do something or, more often, refrain from doing something. A recent study from the Yellowhead Institute at Ryerson University found that when Canadian courts issue injunctions they do so overwhelmingly in favor of corporations against Indigenous claims. 76% of injunction applications filed by corporations were granted while more than 80% of injunction applications applied for by First Nations were refused. Why is that? This pattern is perpetuated with the repeated issuance of injunctions – enforced with violence and threat of lethal force by the RCMP – against the Wet’suwet’en working against the Coastal GasLink project, authorized without the consent of the hereditary chiefs vested with jurisdiction over the decision. We have to be careful with such stats. By themselves they prove nothing. But they are interesting, and they impact what First Nations think about the Canadian judicial system.
As a result it is perhaps not so surprising that Wet’suwet’en people don’t have quite the reverence for judicial injunctions orders that other Canadians have. That doesn’t necessarily make it right, but it does make it understanding.
1 thought on “What does “Rule of Law” mean in an indigenous context?”
you asked an important question, what is the law? but your answer was a history of canadian law, not what law is.
i suspect one would have to start, as regards the white christian west, with jewish, then catholic law; that is, judaeo-christian law and connection to ethics and morality. then how it got “secularized.” this is crucial. when, where, who? relationship to the nation state, evolution of same. association with violence, nay even the essence of violence. etc. ultimately a philosophy of law.
as a lawyer and former philosopher sensitive to unequal application of same i suspect you are the person for this project.
please proceed. we await your learned exposition and explication.