Is Blood Band not covered by Charter?
BY LETTER TO THE EDITOR ON JUNE 19, 2014.
Never in the history of the Blood Tribe have we ever experienced such aggressive and hostile governance towards empowerment and self-determination. With the recent developments on the Blood Indian Reserve #148, totalitarianism and fascism have set in; we now have an autocratic regime that believe in annihilation of treaty, aboriginal and indigenous rights.
What we are seeing are forms of governance initiated by Hitler, Stalin, Saddam Hussein, Idi Amin and more.
This chief and council has no comprehension of “peace, order and good governance” entrenched in the Canada Act of 1982. Recently, a tribal member was persecuted for believing and practising his rights to farming entrenched in Treaty No. 7.
Prior to Canada becoming a dominion, the Blood Band entered into the Lame Bull Treaty with the U.S. in 1855. The Blood Band already was a sovereign nation; Canada did not exist.
The proceedings ignored and deliberately refused to reference provisions of the Charter of Rights, Sections 7 to 11. Section 15 specifically refers to “equality rights.”
Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
The Charter of Rights at this courthouse has ruled that the Charter does not cover members of the Blood Band; let alone s. 35, which reads: “The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.”
Was Mr. Fox supposed to receive justice when the band authorities can pick their own apparent “hired gun,” to appear before a person with real conflicts of interest – even beyond the appearance of conflict of interest? How can there be “Rule of Law” without basic due process and equal protections/responsibilities of law applied without fear or favour to all? Why do all valid constitutions have “supremacy clauses” that incorporate ratified and valid treaties into the corpus of – and indeed trump when in conflict with – the constitutions of the nations that signed them? (Reason: otherwise nations could sign treaties and gain advantages from them, but then only keep to the terms they favour under the banner of “sovereignty” as the U.S. and Canada often do).
Keith Chiefmoon
Standoff