Excellent, with only one NSFW word.
Via J.S.
Excellent, with only one NSFW word.
Via J.S.
Regarding the controversy at Lemoore High School initially forbidding graduating students from wearing an eagle feather on their graduation cap (article here). Letter here.
Typically, an eagle feather is given only in times of great honor – for example, eagle feathers are given to mark great personal achievement. The gift of an eagle feather to a youth is a great honor and is typically given to recognize an important transition in his or her life. Many young people are given eagle feathers upon graduation from high school to signify achievement of this important educational journey and the honor the graduate brings to his or her family, community, and tribe.
Bryce is an enrolled member of the Santa Rosa Indian Community of the Santa Rosa Rancheria, a federally recognized tribe. His Indian heritage comes from his father, who passed away when Bryce was three years old. Bryce’s feathers were gifted to him by his family specifically for this important occasion – his graduation from high school.
Finally, in deciding how to press forward in this matter, we ask Lemoore Union High School District to remember that “in our society and in our culture high school graduation is one of life’s most significant occasions.” Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577, 595, 112 S.Ct. 2649, 2659, 120 L.Ed.2d 467 (1992). “Graduation is a time for family and those closest to the student to celebrate success and express mutual wishes of gratitude and respect, all to the end of impressing upon the young person that role that it is his or her right and duty to assume in the community and all of its diverse parts.” Id. In light of the significance that the eagle feather has to Native American students, especially at graduation, we urge you to permit Native American students like Bryce Baga to express their religious and spiritual beliefs by wearing eagle feathers on their cap or gown.
Here.
Posting here.
Here.
For centuries, the Passamaquoddy people of Maine have faced a violation of their inherent rights as Indigenous Peoples. They have been repeatedly displaced from their original lands by European settlers since the 16th century, eventually limited to their current reservation in eastern Washington County, Maine. Now their fishing rights —an intrinsic part of Passamaquoddy culture and sustenance —are threatened, under the ironic pretext of equal protection for state fishermen. At issue are two pieces of legislation, both in conflict with the Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act and the Maine Implementing Act. The Passamaquoddy refused to comply with LD-451, a law that limited the tribe to issuing just 200 elver licenses in 2013, and this year’s LD-1625, which requires state fishery officials to approve each individual tribal elver license in writing. The tribe has been in discussion with the state since January on ways the Passamaquoddy can maintain its cultural identity throughout the fishing season “because our fishery is based on culture, conservation, and preservation of the eel,” says Passamaquoddy Tribal Councilman Newell Lewey.
Here.
Even with the laws now passed, legal loopholes remain and the wait for justice for Native women continues, in part because VAWA, the newer of the two laws, won’t take effect until next year on most reservations, including the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation. Even then, tribes must have implemented a series of steps that many might not already have in place and could pose large legal costs.
One of these steps, for example, includes ensuring tribal judges have appropriate credentials they might not already have, said Troy Eid, a former U.S. Attorney for Colorado who this past year chaired the Justice Department’s Tribal Law and Order Commission.
“It’s going to be a while before these changes take place on many reservations,” he said. “And there is going to be a lot of waiting while these issues unfold.”
Here.
In determining whether the duty to consult was fulfilled, courts must consider whether the Crown met its duty to act honourably and provide a meaningful process of consultation, not whether the Crown and the First Nation reached agreement. As McLachlin C.J.C. instructed in Haida Nation at para. 63, the focus is not on the outcome, but on the process of consultation and accommodation. Accordingly I must decide whether the consultation process that took place fulfilled the Crown’s duty to provide a meaningful mid-range consultation.
***
As much as the Minister’s office was entitled to review and inform itself from and to a degree rely upon the engagement record, the Haida Nation duty to consult ultimately rested with the Province. It is only the Crown in right of the Province who had the ability to provide sufficient remedies to achieve meaningful consultation and accommodation: Rio Tinto at paras. 59-60. As the British Columbia Court of Appeal made clear in Neskonlith Indian Band at para. 68, local governments lack the authority to engage in a nuanced and complex constitutional process.
In my view the Province failed to ensure that the parties to the consultation understood the differences between the two types of consultation processes required. This confusion led to frustration, particularly on the part of the Nations, as the parties with the responsibility and authority were not at the table until the matter reached the Minister’s office in December 2012. The Province was obliged to make the s. 35 consultation process “as transparent as possible” and clearly articulate what roles the municipality and the Province were playing in carrying out the consultation: Ke-Kin-Is-Uqs v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests),2008 BCSC 1505 (CanLII), 2008 BCSC 1505 at para. 147.
Once the Ministry received Whistler’s engagement record, I am of the view that the consultation process engaged in by the Province relied almost exclusively on Whistler’s engagement record. The Province made little attempt to engage in its own consultation: it held no face to face meetings with representatives of the Nations; it made no attempt to involve any other Ministry with whom the Nations dealt in other ongoing negotiations; and it denied requests for further consultation because of time constraints imposed by the upcoming election.Although the Province had no obligation to agree with or accept the Nation’s position, the position of the Province, from beginning to the end of the short consultation period remained intransigent. While appearing to listen the Crown was, in my view, in fact locked into its position from the beginning and ultimately closed the door to further discussions, advising the Nations the OCP had to be approved before the election writ dropped, thus foreclosing any further consultation.
Documentary available online here.
In Incident at Restigouche, filmmaker Alanis Obomsawin delves into the history behind the Quebec Provincial Police (QPP) raids on the Restigouche Reserve on June 11 and 20, 1981. The Quebec government had decided to restrict fishing, resulting in anger among the Micmac Indians as salmon was traditionally an important source of food and income. Using a combination of documents, news clips, photographs and interviews, this powerful film provides an in-depth investigation into the history-making raids that put justice on trial.
via @Mimiges
You must be logged in to post a comment.