|
| An international NGO in consultative status with the United Nations |
| LAWFARE |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| IACHR GIVES CANADA ONE MONTH TO RESPOND AGAIN (FOR THE FIFTH TIME) TO IHRAAM PETITION: OVERDUE SINCE OCTOBER 2012 |
Loni Edmonds of the Lil’wat Nation vs. Canada A Petition to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights Submitted by the IHRAAM International Legal Clinic |
The International Human Rights Association of American Minorities (IHRAAM) is an international
NGO in Consultative Status (Roster) with the United Nations since 1993. IHRAAM’s mission is to
address minority and people’s rights as it relates to international human rights law and the right
to self-determination. To that end, in 2007, the IHRAAM International Legal Clinic submitted a
Petition to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) on behalf of Loni Edmonds
of the Lil’wat Nation, whose sovereign and unceded territory is in Britisih Columbia, Canada. In
August 2011, the IACHR passed the pertinent parts of the IHRAAM Petition to Canada. Canada
responded several months later, the IACHR requested, received and submitted IHRAAM’s
Observations on the Canada Response back to Canada; Canada then again responded
(twice), and on June 21, 2012, IHRAAM again submitted its Observations 2 to Canada’s second
response. On July 30, 2012, Canada responded again, and, as requested by the IACHR,
IHRAAM submitted further Observations on the fourth Canada response. On September 20th,
2012, the IACHR informed IHRAAM that these Observations had again been passed on to
Canada for its response and that Canada had been given one month to respond. IHRAAM
awaits further word of Canada's fifth response.
Like most indigenous nations in BC, the Lil’wat do not have a treaty with Canada, and have
consistently asserted their right to self-determination as a free and independent people, to hold
title over their lands, to jurisdiction over their affairs, and to recognition as Lil’wat, rather than as
a part of Canada. However Canada has imposed its jurisdiction upon the Lil’wat through
unilateral Canadian legislation (The Indian Act) as well as a system of band councils which it
recognized as indigenous governing authorities instead of the traditional leadership. While BC
and Canada have set in motion a number of processes and mechanisms to try to resolve what is
recognized as the “uncertainty” surrounding Canada/BC’s legal title to land, resources and
jurisdiction in British Columbia, their success has been minimal. Even the Indian Act-empowered
indigenous governments have been reluctant to accede to the terms offered, which in the guise
of “treaties” appear to require extinguishment of indigenous sovereign rights and title.
In this context, IHRAAM petitioned the IACHR concerning the serial seizure of Ms. Edmonds’ six
children by the BC Ministry of Children and Families and their placement in foster care. IHRAAM
argued that because it was impossible to raise in Canadian courts the jurisdictional issue of
whether Canada had lawful jurisdiction over Lil’wat families and children, and the right to make
the policy, laws and enforcement resulting therefrom, Ms. Edmonds could not get a fair trial in
Canadian courts. Not only could the jurisdiction issue not be raised due to the legal principle of
Nemo Potest Esse Simul Actor et Judex, but also the inability to do so had been empirically
proved over a history of actual attempts to raise it.
This case is extremely significant not just in relation to the well being of indigenous children in
Canada, who continue to be placed in Foster Care at nearly three times the numbers of
Residential School placements at their peak. It is germane to the issue of investment and
development in BC, insofar as corporations must decide whether they will respect indigenous
nations’ sovereignty, or continue to follow the practice of Canada in signing resource-related
agreements outside of legitimate treaty settlements.
NGO in Consultative Status (Roster) with the United Nations since 1993. IHRAAM’s mission is to
address minority and people’s rights as it relates to international human rights law and the right
to self-determination. To that end, in 2007, the IHRAAM International Legal Clinic submitted a
Petition to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) on behalf of Loni Edmonds
of the Lil’wat Nation, whose sovereign and unceded territory is in Britisih Columbia, Canada. In
August 2011, the IACHR passed the pertinent parts of the IHRAAM Petition to Canada. Canada
responded several months later, the IACHR requested, received and submitted IHRAAM’s
Observations on the Canada Response back to Canada; Canada then again responded
(twice), and on June 21, 2012, IHRAAM again submitted its Observations 2 to Canada’s second
response. On July 30, 2012, Canada responded again, and, as requested by the IACHR,
IHRAAM submitted further Observations on the fourth Canada response. On September 20th,
2012, the IACHR informed IHRAAM that these Observations had again been passed on to
Canada for its response and that Canada had been given one month to respond. IHRAAM
awaits further word of Canada's fifth response.
Like most indigenous nations in BC, the Lil’wat do not have a treaty with Canada, and have
consistently asserted their right to self-determination as a free and independent people, to hold
title over their lands, to jurisdiction over their affairs, and to recognition as Lil’wat, rather than as
a part of Canada. However Canada has imposed its jurisdiction upon the Lil’wat through
unilateral Canadian legislation (The Indian Act) as well as a system of band councils which it
recognized as indigenous governing authorities instead of the traditional leadership. While BC
and Canada have set in motion a number of processes and mechanisms to try to resolve what is
recognized as the “uncertainty” surrounding Canada/BC’s legal title to land, resources and
jurisdiction in British Columbia, their success has been minimal. Even the Indian Act-empowered
indigenous governments have been reluctant to accede to the terms offered, which in the guise
of “treaties” appear to require extinguishment of indigenous sovereign rights and title.
In this context, IHRAAM petitioned the IACHR concerning the serial seizure of Ms. Edmonds’ six
children by the BC Ministry of Children and Families and their placement in foster care. IHRAAM
argued that because it was impossible to raise in Canadian courts the jurisdictional issue of
whether Canada had lawful jurisdiction over Lil’wat families and children, and the right to make
the policy, laws and enforcement resulting therefrom, Ms. Edmonds could not get a fair trial in
Canadian courts. Not only could the jurisdiction issue not be raised due to the legal principle of
Nemo Potest Esse Simul Actor et Judex, but also the inability to do so had been empirically
proved over a history of actual attempts to raise it.
This case is extremely significant not just in relation to the well being of indigenous children in
Canada, who continue to be placed in Foster Care at nearly three times the numbers of
Residential School placements at their peak. It is germane to the issue of investment and
development in BC, insofar as corporations must decide whether they will respect indigenous
nations’ sovereignty, or continue to follow the practice of Canada in signing resource-related
agreements outside of legitimate treaty settlements.
