Click here to visit the mobile version of winnipegfreepress.com

Winnipeg Free Press > Local > Protesters plan to greet Olympic torch

Local

Winnipeg Free Press - PRINT EDITION

Protesters plan to greet Olympic torch

First Nation to draw attention to slain, missing women

By: Carol Sanders

31/12/2009 1:00 AM | Comments: 163

Terry Nelson

Enlarge Image

Terry Nelson (MIKE APORIUS/WINNIPEG FREE PRESS)

The Olympic torch will be welcomed with the usual hoopla and fanfare when it arrives in Manitoba next week, but when it crosses into Treaty One territory on Tuesday, it will face a stern reminder of Canada's missing and murdered indigenous women.

"Our intention, basically, is to drive home this message what's been happening in Canada and to give information out," said Roseau River Anishnabe First Nation Chief Terry Nelson.

"I am inviting a lot of the families of murdered and missing women to be standing on the road with pictures of them," he said by phone Wednesday.

Treaty One territory begins in eastern Manitoba where the Whitemouth River crosses the Trans-Canada Highway, about two kilometres east of where Highway 11 crosses the Trans-Canada.

"People need to be reminded that these women were not treated with the same respect... You look at the response to the death of one white woman on the road. It's not the same thing," Nelson said.

Nelson expects at least two other chiefs from the treaty area to take part in the event near the eastern boundary of their territory.

The Roseau River chief was in Ottawa earlier this month for a special chiefs' assembly. He was among several native leaders who warned Indian Affairs Minister Chuck Strahl the year ahead could see blockades and other forms of economic disruption until more money and support are provided for native education.

On Wednesday, Nelson said there are no plans to trip up any of the torch bearers or disrupt any other community celebrating the arrival of the Olympic flame in Manitoba next week.

"We don't want to interrupt someone else's event," said Nelson, who has orchestrated blockades and demonstrations over the years.

"Out of every protest we've been involved in, sometimes we've made white people late for lunch."

The Olympic torch leaves Treaty One territory -- which covers close to 43,250 square kilometres -- on Jan. 8 near Brandon.

First Nations should welcome Olympic athletes from around the world, but "we cannot allow those athletes to go home believing that Canada is a bastion of human rights," Nelson said in a news release. "We as indigenous people are not terrorists. There is no list of over 500 murdered and missing white women killed by indigenous men, there is however a list of over 500 murdered and missing indigenous women, most of those women were killed by white men. In Vancouver where the Olympics will be headquartered, 49 women were killed, murdered, terrorized and desecrated after death by one white man. Police failed to take the murders seriously because the murdered (mostly indigenous women) were considered by police to be the lowest of the low."

In a statement issued Wednesday, the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs said the torch run and the Olympics are about "peace and unity," and more First Nations are involved than ever.

"This Olympics, First Nations are hosting the torch run from one end of the country to another," Grand Chief Ron Evans said in a statement.

"As Grand Chief, I will have the honour of bearing the torch, along with others on Jan 7."

Evans said games traditionally played an important role in uniting First Nations.

"The Olympics gives us a forum to showcase our talents, our skills and our diplomacy on an international stage. Games in First Nations' history went beyond simple sports competition.

"They have always been key to the holistic development of individuals and a crucial element to ensure the health and development of our communities," Evans said.

carol.sanders@freepress.mb.ca

Republished from the Winnipeg Free Press print edition December 31, 2009 A5

  • Rate this Rate This Star Icon
  • This article is currently rated an average of 3 out of 5 (4 votes).

    • We want you to tell us what you think of our articles. If the story moves you, compels you to act or tells you something you didn’t know, mark it high. If you thought it was well written, do the same. If it doesn’t meet your standards, mark it accordingly.

    You can also register and/or login to the site and join the conversation by leaving a comment.

    Rate it yourself by rolling over the stars and clicking when you reach your desired rating. We want you to tell us what you think of our articles. If the story moves you, compels you to act or tells you something you didn’t know, mark it high.

163 Commentscomment icon

I think you will get more press if you knock down the torch bearer. Maybe wave a weapon as you do it...

Grubfoot, Nowhere did I use the term Nation-State. All my arguements involved creating a system, within the boudaries of sort of Canadian-created protections that the French and Hutterites currently (and into the future) already enjoy. But you still haven't answered the question: if you admit that the Indian Act hampers access to the free market and creates an undemocratic system, than why shouldn't the communities under it protest?

Why isn't a First Nation community a community, in your mind? In WW2 some communities went through a number of different governance structure imposed on them by outsiders. Did these communities lose their community-status when they were under one sort of governance system, and then regain it when they were under another? Or were they communities the whole time, and it was just the governance structure that was changed due to the history that was being made at the time?

It is easy for Canadians to say; "reserves" should be done away with. It is a lot harder to say; First Nation communities should be done away with. The reserve system is a governance structure and can be changed... it won't change the fact that First Nation towns are communities.

its obvious the people of Canada have had enough of your BS nelson. Keep your racist remarks to yourself or on you "land". Hopefully enough people will complain to their elected officials and the authorities and a hate crime investigation will shortly be underway.

Ursa M., don't make assumptions about what I have read or where I get my info from. If you can't refute my arguments, just move along. Your sweeping generalization of the MSM doesn't wash, either. There will never be a road into Pauingassi. There is no reason to build a road to link up all the remote communities. If road-accessible Roseau River has 77%, what's the unemployment rate in Shamattawa? Stop calling reservations communities. It confuses them with municipalities, you know, places where other people would want to live. Just like calling Indian Bands "First Nations" confuses them with nation-states. You don't want equality, you want parity. Different rights for different people is wrong, no matter who those people are. Yes, that is where Canada is at but it's what weakens Canada.

"We have a right to evolve just like our treaty partners have."
Not as nation-states, you don't. I regret that some politicians and academics have indulged your fantasies of nationalism but how could Pauingassi, for example, ever be a nation-state? It can't and no one has yet to explain how the abstract goal of aboriginal sovereignty translates into small remote reserves. If you're Roseau River, why would you care about other Bands under other treaties? You're free to be as self-interested as you please; I'm arguing for Pax Humanitas.

And once they have been given the ability to survive, they have the right to express the governance of their community in a way that refects their culture and traditions. Keeping in mind Cree people are living Cree culture 2010, not Cree culture 1492. We have a right to evolve just like our treaty partners have. We have a right to the same "equality" that the French and Hutterites currently enjoy in relation to the mainstream...as that is how the law in Canada now stands.
John A MacDonald faced the same issues with the Prairies that Canada is now facing with the north. He solved his problems by building infrastructure, improving relations with the indigenous people and creating economic development. Building roads and physical and governance infrastructure in native communities will benefit Canada in the long run. Building infrastrucure in the north will pay off in new found resources and economic development. It is short sighted to remove remote native communities. How else will Canada funnel money to non-Aboriginal small towns? They have always been jumping off points and surplus consumers for non-Aboriginal communities (one of the reason the Indian Act hampers eco dev). They will be again as first-world Canada expands into the north.

Grubfoot, you saying I'm cherry picking because you only have a media provided knowledge of the subject and they play to their buyers. Reporters hardly know the mainstream system, it can't be expected of them to understand the history and intricacies of a government department that is out of sight, out of mind of the average voter. Much of this issues doesn't have to do with "racism" per se, but the natural issues that arise with a governance system being "unexperienced" by the people who have control over it: the Canadian voter.
Yes, First Nations are communities. As communities they need access to the free market to survive, in order to become self sufficient, in order to fill in all those little cracks that the government couldn't and shouln't. Both liberal and conservative thought in Canada shares that belief. We shouldn't be surprised if communities that cannot access this freedom do not look like communities that can. Why is it only First Nation communities are hampered by this sort of legislation? With these hampers in place it is hard to even consider that Canadians want equality for Indians. Why shouldn't a community that experiences this sort of self-sufficiency destroying legislation protest? Wouldn't you if your town was?
Once the hampers to self-sufficiency are removed from Indian communities, including the Canadian-legislated ban against their ability to collect tax, you will have a better understanding of their actual ability to survive.

Ursa M., you're being specious. Indian reserves are not communities in the sense that a municipality is. Nor are they corporations. What does the free market have to do with a reserve anyway? What does Roseau River, for instance, produce that can be sold on the free market? Can a Roseau band member sell their house to whoever they like? No. Do they even own their own house and lot? The Indian Act restricts the influence of the free market on reserve as a means of protecting the communal property of the Band. Individual Indians have access to the free market as much as I do. There's nothing stopping a status Indian from buying and selling stock. Or are you trying to sell shares in Roseau River? Since you're so keen on the free market, does that mean you would like to conduct trade without the tax exemptions presently given status Indians?

I didn't say, "Indians do not have a right to their communities." Are you saying that Indian reserves are required to protect aboriginal culture? It's hard to tell what you're saying. You seem like you want to cherry-pick racially discriminatory legislation when it's in the favor of 'your people'. Inequality is its own best argument.

chiefrs to evadwal: chiefrs, I fully agree with you! Nelson and what's his face out west, are JEALOUS of the success of the Jews, who worked damn hard for what they have!! Without Government hand outs!! And they did a damn good job of raising their children!!!!! And, yes, most of them, had to live in housing much worse that you have ever seen!!! Look at their History in Canada, before you open your mouth!! Nelson should, for example, look at Mount Carmel Clinic in Winnipeg. I dare you, Nelson, to look at how this clinic came to be, and how many Native people, the founders of this clinic, have helped! Yes, the Jews, who have done more for your people, than you and a lot of other Native Leaders have done. If Nelson and his followers worked to earn a living, and worked to help their own people, they wouldn't be where they are now! You sure wouldn't be standing on the roadside, waving a picture around. You should take a look at that picture, and ask YOURSELF, "where have I gone wrong???" "What have I done, to prevent this from happening again???" Exactly how much does it cost, to invite a handful of young women into your home for a cup of coffee, and a little chat about the hazards of their chosen lifestyle??? If you need money for coffee, cream and sugar, I'll give it to you out of my old age pension cheque.!!!! [edited] I am of Aborignal ancestry, and it shows in the color of my skin.

Grubfoot, you easily write of the affects of hampered access to free market for a community. It's hard not to assume you don't really care about equality, but rather your concern is the "rights" that Indians have that you deem better than your peoples' rights. I'll assume your confised about how the free market system works by your linking of access to it with oversight of politicians.
You say Indians do not have a right to their communities, while ignoring the fact that there a lot of white-only-due-to-history communities (including the protected Hutterite communities) across Canada. Should we remove these communities, force not-whites to move there, or just accept that some communities, due to history, are often composed of one group of people. Indians can't help that, at contact, all the nations in western Europe were "white" and all the nations here were "brown". Treaties made with Japan are not considered race-based. And when in charge of their own communities, Indians had no problem letting non-Aboriginals on their land. Have you seen North Vancouver?
It is a weak "equality" to say, "we offer equal rights to individuals as long as they move to our communities", while using race-based legislation to impose sanctions against Indian communities. If you agree that the Indian Act imposes restrictions on access to the free market, why shouldn't the communities under that legislation protest?

Ursa M.: As I've stated elsewhere, Pat Martin is my MP and is in line with his party's advocacy of furthering aboriginal self-govt. Repealing the Indian Act to enhance aboriginal self-govt. is not what I want.

No culture requires constitutional protection in my opinion, as I've also stated previously. The Charter sufficiently guarantees cultural protection so long as the individual cares to. You are again confusing a religious freedom with cultural rights and you are arguing for relative rights not equal rights.

"my people have a right to similar cultural protections. In a democracy a community that is 99 per cent one culture should reflect that culture." Should? No. What democracy has 99% cultural homogeneity? By their tolerant nature, democracies attract people of varying cultures because of the individual rights and freedoms democracies historically guarantee. Your argument for legislating cultural dominance was used in Germany when it was a young democracy.

If you can't preserve your culture in your own mind, what law could do that for you? The idea of needing to protect culture is false and presupposes both a static and original cultural purity; no culture in human history has ever been or ever will be pure.

The Indian Act does hinder Indian Bands from accessing the free market but since Band councils act as trustees for the Band, some oversight of finances is necessary. Is it ethical for Chief Nelson to get paid with Band funds for going to NZ?

View all Comments

The comment period for this story has ended.

letters

Make text: Larger | Smaller

Special coverage

Our Communities

Poll

Should youth convicted of serious crimes have their names made public?

View Results

View Related Story