Category Archives: END RACE BASED LAW inc.

Get active! Get the PETITION signed

GET ACTIVE! GET THE PETITION SIGNED
EVERYONE…all of us.

We can’t stay here in an echo chamber telling endless stories of how broken down the Canadian ‘Indian Industry’ and reserve system is due to race laws and segregation, and not do anything about this situation.

As the president and planner of END RACE BASED LAW inc.,  I am pulling the plug on the frequency of the extensively long articles on this page, for a while, because we are all going to start getting the legal petition signed across this great nation. THE ONLY SOVEREIGN NATION we should all work towards improving, together.

IF YOU WANT CHANGE, GET INVOLVED.
Get the petition signed.
No amount of posts or comments here will change a thing if we don’t get active.

WHAT CAN YOU DO TO HELP?

Lots! From ideas on how to organize PETITION signing; to forming coffee parties to have friends over to sign the PETITION; to showing up with the PETITION at festivals, trade shows, and political gatherings of all kinds, in all the corners of the country, in every ethnic group, every business, every union, every government organization; to helping get the PETITION printed out and also mailed in, because this is a legal petition, not an online one.

Online petitions carry no legal weight in the house of commons, but the PETITION Gerry Gagnon drafted up was passed by the Clerk of Petitions in Ottawa. We have to do it the old fashioned way and sign it, and send it back to me, so make the effort. We need doers in this.

Let’s share ideas and contacts, this is a team effort and we need all our friends on board, red, green, yellow, blue and all the blended shades between. This is about equal rights under the law, and a future we must all enter together, as fellow countrymen & women.

add yourself to the PETITION group here:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/ENDRACEBASEDLAWinc.Petition/

add yourself to the ‘NEWS FEED’ group here: (everyone can add information to this group)
https://www.facebook.com/groups/ENDRACEBASEDLAWCanadanewsfeed/

I wanted this page and our websites to educate Canadians for a while before we got to petition signing, so they had some balance to the previously one sided conversation, and also to archive it all for generations to come. That was very important to Gerry Gagnon and I.

MANY THANKS for the extensive research done by Gerry Gagnon. We all now have a library of articles, facts, figures, laws and stories that back-up the blatant existence of tainted defamation coming from a negatively enhanced and even fabricated narrative that’s become the backbone of the race based blame game extortion industry. Your work has been impressive Gerry, and we are all grateful for your contributions. Now we need to get your PETITION signed, or it’s all for not.

I have all new t-shirts coming, so stay tuned!

Michele Tittler
#ENDRACEBASEDLAWCANADA
https://endracebasedlaw.wordpress.com/petition-canada

Same post on Facebook:

https://www.facebook.com/ENDRACEBASEDLAW/photos/a.336196793149227.59519.332982123470694/787288784706690/?type=3&theater

*************************************************************

PETITION TO
THE HOUSE OF COMMONS:

WE, the undersigned citizens of Canada,
draw the attention of the Government
of Canada to the following:

THAT whereas the Indian Act and Section 91(24)
of the Constitution Act, (1867)
have divided Canadians by race and heritage;
have perpetuated the unequal treatment of Canadian Indians,
providing the legal framework for segregation via the reserve system;
have prevented reserve Indians from equal provincial educational access;
have prevented reserve Indians from having the full legal, economic
and property rights and opportunities of other Canadian citizens;

AND whereas the inclusion of Sections 35
and 25 in the Constitution Act (1982) have divided
Canadians by race and heritage;
have disrupted legal commercial and exploration activities;
have introduced legal uncertainty into property ownership;
have left some Canadians without proper police protection,
as in Caledonia, Ont.;
and have left most Canadians with diminished rights
with every expansion of ‘indigenous rights’ based on Section 35;

AND whereas the inclusion of “with particular
attention to the circumstances of aboriginal offenders”
in Section 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code
(R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46)
has resulted in a two- tiered system of justice,
wherein Canadians receive different legal outcomes,
depending on their race/ethnic heritage;

AND whereas the United Nations
“Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples”
contains provisions that are fundamentally
incompatible
with Canada’s constitutional framework;

THEREFORE, your Petitioners call upon the
Government of Canada to take the following actions:

THE passage of the repeal of the Indian Act;

THE passage of the removal of “with particular
attention to the circumstances of aboriginal
offenders” in Section 718.2(e) of the
Criminal Code (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46);

THE removal of Canada’s signature from the
United Nations “Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples”;

THE calling of a Constitutional conference,
pursuant to Section 35.1 of the
Constitution Amendment Proclamation (1983),
leading to the repeal of Sections 35 and 25
of the Constitution Act (1982),
and Section 91(24) of the Constitution Act (1867);

THE active encouragement of the provincial
legislatures to do the same, or via provincial referenda;
and the calling of a federal/provincial Constitutional
conference to finalize these changes desired by
the people of Canada,
including setting a date for the
final termination of
Treaty and land claims submissions.

Petition Signed by the citizens of Canada
Name & Address (city, province, postal code)
____________________________________
____________________________________

Please note this part is for information purposes
only and does not form any part of the Official Petition.

DOWNLOAD AND PRINT PETITION

*Note that the pages must be free of erasures and
contain only original signatures and addresses written
directly onto the front AND also the back of the petition page.

The request contained in the Petition to
END RACE BASED LAW has been reviewed
by Richard Bernier, Procedural Clerk and
Clerk of Petitions, House of Commons,
and found to meet the official requirements.

Names will not be used in any way other than
for the purposes of this Petition conforming to
the requirements of the Canadian Government,
it is to be presented to the House of Commons.

Contact: endracebasedlawpetition@gmail.com
(we’ll give you an address to send the petition)

Advertisements

‘END RACE BASED LAW calls out Aboriginal Chiefs to public debates’

Here’s what all Canadians need to know about race laws and race agendas in Canada. You REALLY need to know this, so please read…. 

ERBLChallengesChiefsToDebate800x800The overwhelming impetus and activity is, ultimately, that the Aboriginal Chiefs are pushing for “sovereign nations”; in other words, to break up Canada. To claim all the land, all the resources, and to be landlords to those who are not their race, who will pay them to exist here and breathe the air they, their one race, own (an actual quote by James Gosnell of the Nisga’a Tribe in B.C., see the end of this post).  Continue reading ‘END RACE BASED LAW calls out Aboriginal Chiefs to public debates’

Petition to END RACE BASED LAW in Canada

PETITION TO THE HOUSE OF COMMONS

WE, the undersigned citizens of Canada, draw the attention of the Government of Canada to the following:

THAT whereas the Indian Act and Section 91(24) of the Constitution Act, (1867) have divided Canadians by race and heritage; have perpetuated the unequal treatment of Canadian Indians, providing the legal framework for segregation via the reserve system; have prevented reserve Indians from equal provincial educational access; have prevented reserve Indians from having the full legal, economic and property rights and opportunities of other Canadian citizens;

AND whereas the inclusion of Sections 35 and 25 in the Constitution Act (1982) have divided Canadians by race and heritage; have disrupted legal commercial and exploration activities; have introduced legal uncertainty into property ownership; have left some Canadians without proper police protection, as in Caledonia, Ont.; and have left most Canadians with diminished rights with every expansion of ‘indigenous rights’ based on Section 35;

AND whereas the inclusion of “with particular attention to the circumstances of aboriginal offenders” in Section 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46) has resulted in a two- tiered system of justice, wherein Canadians receive different legal outcomes, depending on their race/ethnic heritage;

AND whereas the United Nations “Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples” contains provisions that are fundamentally incompatible with Canada’s constitutional framework;

THEREFORE, your Petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to take the following actions:

THE passage of the repeal of the Indian Act;

THE passage of the removal of “with particular attention to the circumstances of aboriginal
offenders” in Section 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46);

THE removal of Canada’s signature from the United Nations “Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples”;

THE calling of a Constitutional conference, pursuant to Section 35.1 of the Constitution Amendment Proclamation (1983), leading to the repeal of Sections 35 and 25 of the Constitution Act (1982), and Section 91(24) of the Constitution Act (1867);

THE active encouragement of the provincial legislatures to do the same, or via provincial referenda; and the calling of a federal/provincial Constitutional conference to finalize these changes desired by the people of Canada, including setting a date for the final termination of Treaty and land claims submissions.

Petition signed by the citizens of Canada.
Name & Address (city, province, postal code)

———————————————————————–

______________________________________

Please note, this part is for information purposes only and does not form any part of the Official Petition.

DOWNLOAD AND PRINT PETITION

*Note that the pages must be free of erasures and contain only original signatures and addresses written directly onto the front AND also the back of the petition page.

The request contained in the Petition to END RACE BASED LAW has been reviewed by Richard Bernier, Procedural Clerk and Clerk of Petitions, House of Commons, and found to meet the official requirements.

Names will not be used in any way other than for the purposes of this Petition conforming to the requirements of the Canadian Government, it is to be presented to the House of Commons.

__________________________________________________________________________

Contact: endracebasedlawpetition@gmail.com

____________________

 

The online Petition to END RACE BASED LAW is not legal,

as the printed and signed version is, but it’s worth signing anyway.

endracebasedlaw.com/online-petition

_________________

VIDEO:
END RACE BASED LAW Radio-2 “The Petition” with Gerry Gagnon & Michele Tittler
http://youtu.be/2wXXsOcHk6w

Why End Race Based Law?

Why End Race Based Law?

Canadians believe in equality, that all men and women have equal rights. We have determined that all shall be treated fairly and that no one shall be shut out of Canadian life, and especially that no one shall be shut out because of his, or her, race.

Only a policy based on this belief can enable Canadians of ‘Indian’ heritage to realize their needs and aspirations.

Native Indian relations with other Canadians began with special treatment by government and society, and special treatment has been the rule since Europeans first settled in Canada. Special treatment has made of the Indians a community disadvantaged and apart.
Obviously, the course of history must be changed.

The changes proposed recognize the simple reality that the separate legal status of Indians, and the policies which have flowed from it, have kept the Indian people apart from, and behind, other Canadians. The treatment resulting from their different status has often been worse, sometimes equal and occasionally better than that accorded to their fellow citizens.
What matters is that it has been different.

We can no longer perpetuate the separation of Canadians.
Now is the time to change.
**************************************************************************
The Government should be prepared to take the following steps to create this framework:

–Propose to Parliament that the ‘Indian Act’ be repealed and take such legislative steps as may be necessary to enable Indians to control Indian reserve lands and to acquire title to them;

–Start the Constitutional amendment procedures necessary to remove the specific references to ‘Indians’ from the Constitution;

–Propose to the governments of the provinces that they take over the same responsibility for Canadian Indians that they have for other citizens in their provinces. The takeover would be accompanied by the transfer to the provinces of federal funds normally provided for Indian programs, augmented as may be necessary;

–Wind up that part of the Federal Government which deals with Indian Affairs. The residual responsibilities of the Federal Government for programs in the field of Indian affairs would be transferred to other appropriate federal departments.
****************************************************************************
Canada cannot seek the just society and keep discriminatory legislation on its statute books. The ultimate aim of removing the specific references to ‘Indians’ from the Constitution may take some time, but it is a goal to be kept constantly in view.
In the meantime, barriers created by special legislation can generally be struck down.

Under the authority of Heading 24, Section 91 of the ‘Constitution Act, (1867)’, the Parliament of Canada has enacted the ‘Indian Act’. Various federal-provincial agreements and some other statutes {i.e. Section 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46)} also affect Indian policies.

Removal of this, and other, references in the Constitution {Sections 35 and 25 of the Constitution Act (1982)} is necessary to end the legal distinction between Indians and other Canadians.
In the short term, repeal of the Indian Act and enactment of transitional legislation to ensure the orderly management of Indian land would do much to mitigate the problem.

Services must come through the same channels and from the same government agencies for all Canadians. This is an undeniable part of equality. It has been shown many times that separation of people follows from separate services.
There can be no argument about the principle of common services.
It is right.

It cannot be accepted now that Indians should be constitutionally excluded from the right to be treated within their province as full and equal citizens, with all the responsibilities and all the privileges that this might entail. It is in the provincial sphere where social remedies are structured and applied, and the Indian people, by and large, have been non-participating members of provincial society.

Canadians receive a wide range of services through provincial and local governments, but the Indian people and their communities are mostly outside that framework.
It is no longer acceptable that the Indian people should be outside and apart. The Government must ensure that services are available on an equitable basis, except for temporary differentiation based on need.
Services ought not to flow from separate agencies established to serve particular groups, especially not to groups that are identified ethnically.

Therefore, the traditional method of providing separate services to Canadian Indians must be ended. All Indians should have access to all programs and services of all levels of government equally with other Canadians.
****************************************************************************
The terms and effects of the Treaties between the Canadian Indian people and the Government are widely misunderstood. A plain reading of the words used in the treaties reveals the limited and minimal promises which were included in them.

The significance of the Treaties in meeting the economic, educational, health and welfare needs of the Indian people has always been limited and will continue to decline. The services that have been provided go far beyond what could have been foreseen by those who signed the Treaties.
****************************************************************************
A policy can achieve no more than is desired by the people it is intended to serve. The essential role of a new approach is that it acknowledges that truth by recognizing the central and essential role of the Indian people in solving their own problems. It will provide, for the first time, a non-discriminatory framework within which, in an atmosphere of freedom, the Indian people could, with other Canadians, work out their own destiny.

Government policies must lead to the full, free and non-­discriminatory participation of the Indian people in Canadian society. Such a goal requires a break with the past. It requires that the Indian people’s role of dependence be replaced by a role of equal status, opportunity and responsibility, a role they can share with all other Canadians.

We must not perpetuate policies which carry with them the seeds of disharmony and disunity, policies which prevent Canadians from fulfilling themselves and contributing to their society.

Governments can set examples, but they cannot change the hearts of men. Canadians — Indians and non-Indians alike — stand at the crossroads.

For Canadian society, the issue is whether a growing element of its population will become full participants, contributing in a positive way to the general well­-being or whether, conversely, the present social and economic gap will lead to their increasing frustration and isolation, a threat to the general well-being of society.

For the Indian people, the only road that existed since Confederation and before was the road of different status, a road which has led to a blind alley of deprivation and frustration. This road, because it is a separate road, cannot lead to full participation — to equality in practice, as well as in theory.

This belief is the basis for our determination to open the doors of opportunity to all Canadians, to remove the barriers which impede the development of people, of regions, and of the country.

–paraphrased from “Statement of the Government of Canada on Indian policy (The White Paper, 1969)”:

http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100010189/1100100010191

**************************************************************************
**************************************************************************

Petition to END RACE BASED LAW:

http://endracebasedlaw.com/petition

#‎ENDRACEBASEDLAW‬

On Using The Term ‘Indian’

On Using The Term ‘Indian’

“Indian” is the precise, legal and denotative term for what is in fact a purely race-based legal category of persons in Canada. It’s in the title of the Indian Act and used throughout that statute. It’s in the constitution of our country, referring to that class of aboriginals who inhabit southern Canada. (The other two legally defined types of aboriginals in the constitution are “Inuit” and “Metis”.)

“It’s used by our courts in their many decisions emanating out of this burgeoning area of law. Indeed, in a very recent and important Court decision, ‘Keewatin’, the court extensively discussed what it clearly regarded as the important and worthy concept of “Indianness”.

“To me, it’s offensive and counter-intuitive to our basic civic values that we should still have, and want to permanently keep, any category of Canadians defined solely on the basis of their race — and who would possess a whole series of special legal rights and entitlements based solely on the mere fact of their race — the mere accident of their birth…

“Canada’s ultimate goal in this regard should be for us all to have no need or desire to have the word “Indian” in our constitution, in any of our statutes, or to be a meaningful legal term generally. Canadian history at least provides us with an explanation and a reasonable “excuse” for the original legal separation of Indians from non-Indians.

“But now, there is no reasonable excuse for our courts, our governments and governing classes generally to further entrench and expand this inherently illiberal and segregationist concept into our laws and civic life.
But even though they have the best of intentions, that’s what they’re doing…

“Therefore, in order that the essentially segregationist and benignly racist nature of this case be brought to the fore and kept there — in order that the wrong and discomfiting nature of what is happening be not just read, but felt — I will be using, as if it were a verbal hairshirt, that precise, legal, racial term “Indian”.

“If the reader feels uncomfortable seeing and reading the word everywhere because it “sounds racist”, then good! That’s the point — it is inherently racist! And as such, it’s inherently wrong that it’s in our constitution, statutes and court decisions in the way it is.

“For the same reason — clarity of unpleasant thought — I will be trying to avoid as much as possible the use of those other sanitized, progressive-sounding terms now being used to denote Indians — terms such as “natives”, “elders”, “urban elder”, “aboriginals” and “First Nations” (the last, a complete recent fabrication, nowhere to be found in the historical record or in the wording of any of the original treaties).

“These are soft, vague, very emotive, relatively modern terms. They’re politically inspired and biased terms, connotative of pre-fall Edenic perfection, poorly supported in law or history, favoured and used by governments, the media, academia and by the “Indian industry” generally, and all of whom use the word “Indian” only when, usually for legal or technical reasons, they absolutely have to.

“These terms all have the deliberate effect of masking the fundamentally (albeit unintentional and benign) racist, segregationist nature of the current situation.

“They also have the Orwellian effect, as most mandated politically-correct terminology does, of clouding clear thought and deliberately constraining and debasing free speech and public discourse on this issue.”

–Peter Best, “Terminology”

http://nodifference.ca/essay/chap1
**************************************************************************
**************************************************************************

It’s amusing (as well as offensive) watching our ‘legal beagles’ and government agencies trying to grapple with the ‘definitions’ that are necessary for the continuation and administration of “race based law”…
but if you’re going to administer people by racial and ethnic categories, then you must divide people into racial and ethnic categories, which means that you must first define the racial and ethnic categories:

From Canada Revenue Agency’s page:
“Note: We recognize that many First Nations people in Canada prefer not to describe themselves as Indians. However, we use the term Indian because it has a legal meaning in the Indian Act.”
http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/brgnls/ndns-eng.html

And from the Canadian Bar Association…
(“A voluntary organization representing over 35,000 lawyers across Canada”):
“The term “First Nation” has come into popular use as a term of respect for the position of aboriginal people as the original inhabitants of Canada. However, IT HAS NO CONSISTENT LEGAL DEFINITION and ITS ACTUAL APPLICATION IS BECOMING UNCERTAIN as it is increasingly defined in various statutes. Generally speaking, it applies to Indian bands or groups of bands and to Indian people, and it is used in that way in this script…”

And: “The Metis are people of mixed aboriginal and non-aboriginal ancestry, but THEIR PRECISE LEGAL DEFINITION IS NOT CERTAIN… THERE STILL REMAINS A GREAT DEAL OF AMBIGUITY.”
**************************************************************************
“I am aware that some will argue that “First Nations” is indeed accurate, given that some aboriginal groups assert that they have never given up their sovereignty, and assert nation-state status.

“However, to label a collective of 300 or 3,000 people a ‘nation’ or ‘nation-state’, when ‘collective’ or ‘cohort’ {or ‘tribe’} is more accurate, is to make language opaque and undercut its purpose. I side with Aristotle and George Orwell, who asserted that one purpose of language is to clarify, not to confuse, proper conceptions.”

–‘Government spending on Canada’s Aboriginals since 1947’,
Mark Milke, Fraser Institute – ‘Centre for Aboriginal Policy Studies’, December 2013

http://www.fraserinstitute.org/uploadedFiles/fraser-ca/Content/research-news/research/publications/Aboriginal-spending-2013.pdf.pdf
**************************************************************************
**************************************************************************

Petition to END RACE BASED LAW:

http://endracebasedlaw.com/petition

#ENDRACEBASEDLAW

Trudeau and Gosnell

Trudeau and Gosnell

‘Nisga’a Chief James Gosnell, at the 1983 First Ministers’ Conference:

“It has always been our belief, Mr. Chairman, that when God created this whole world, he gave pieces of land to all races of people throughout this world — the Chinese people, Germans, and you name them, including Indians. So, at one time our land was this whole continent — right from the tip of South America to the North Pole… It has always been our belief that God gave us the land…and we say that no one can take our title away except He who gave it to us to begin with.”

‘To which Prime Minister Trudeau responded:

“Going back to the Creator doesn’t really help very much. So, He gave you title but, you know, did He draw on the land where your mountains stopped and somebody else’s began…? God never said that the frontier of France runs along the Rhine…

“I don’t know any part of the world where history isn’t constantly rewritten by migrations and immigrants, and fights between countries changing frontiers. And i don’t think you can expect North America or the whole of the Western Hemisphere to settle things differently than they have been settled anywhere else — hopefully, peacefully here.”

–quoted in “Our Home or Native Land?”, Mel Smith, p.149-150

http://www.amazon.ca/Our-home-native-land-governments/dp/0773758216
**************************************************************************
**************************************************************************

“So, this year we came up with a proposal. It’s a policy paper on the ‘Indian problem’. It proposes a set of solutions. It doesn’t impose them on anybody. It proposes them — not only to the Indians, but to all Canadians — not only to their federal representatives, but to the provincial representatives, too, and it says we’re at the crossroads. We can go on treating the Indians as having a special status. We can go on adding bricks of discrimination around the ghetto in which they live and at the same time, perhaps, helping them preserve certain cultural traits and certain ancestral rights. Or we can say you’re at a crossroad — the time is now to decide whether the Indians will be a race apart in Canada or whether it will be Canadians of full status.”

Those words were spoken back on Aug. 8, 1969, by then-prime minister Pierre Trudeau at the ‘Aboriginal and Treaty Rights’ meeting in Vancouver…

“We will recognize forms of contract which have been made with the Indian people by the Crown and we will try to bring justice in that area, and this will mean that perhaps the treaties shouldn’t go on forever. It’s inconceivable, I think, that in a given society, one section of the society have a treaty with the other section of the society.

“We must all be equal under the laws and we must not sign treaties among ourselves. And many of these treaties, indeed, would have less and less significance in the future anyhow, but things that in the past were covered by the treaties…things like so much twine, or so much gunpowder and which haven’t been paid, this must be paid. But I don’t think that we should encourage the Indians to feel that their treaties should last forever within Canada…”

“They should become Canadians as all other Canadians and if they were prosperous and wealthy, they will be treated like prosperous and wealthy and they will be paying taxes for the other Canadians, who are not so prosperous and not so wealthy — whether they be Indians or English Canadians or French or Maritimers.

“(This) is the only basis on which I see our society can develop as equals.

“But aboriginal rights, this really means saying, ‘We were here before you. You came and took the land from us… We want you to preserve our aboriginal rights and to restore them to us.”

“And our answer — it…may not be one which is accepted, but it will be up to all you people to make your minds up and to choose for or against it… our answer is ‘No’…”

–‘Trudeau’s words about aboriginals resonate’, Robert Head, Calgary Herald, Tuesday, January 03, 2012

http://spon.ca/trudeaus-words-about-aboriginals-resonate/2012/01/04/
**************************************************************************
**************************************************************************

Petition to END RACE BASED LAW:

http://endracebasedlaw.com/petition

#‎ENDRACEBASEDLAW‬

Democracy and Tribalism

“The history of progress in the world is the history of ‘detribalisation’, and the race or ethnic politics that goes with tribalised societies.

We see enough of these in today’s world to know better than to romanticise tribalism – or do we?”

**************************************************************************
“The case for ‘co-governance’ between the government and “iwi” {aboriginals} is justified, according to cultural recognition and ‘social justice’ beliefs. However, that is to make a fundamental error — one that ignores the dangers of including ethnicity into the political arrangements of a democratic nation.

” ‘Ethnicity’ refers to ‘race’ – that is, the concept that a socio-cultural group is defined in terms of its genetic ancestry. This doesn’t, of course, mean that ethnicity/ race is a scientific term. We are in fact 99.9% the same, with the remaining 0.1% being differences between individuals, not between groups. But some groups like to define themselves in terms of their genetic ancestry, as do New Zealand’s ‘retribalists’…

“Interestingly, ‘ethnicity’ has nudged race aside only recently. By the beginning of the 1970s, almost no one used the term ‘ethnicity’. By the end of the decade, almost everyone did. If our ‘Race Relations Office’ had been established even one year later than it was, it would have the ethnicity title.

“But changing a word doesn’t change the concept signified by that word. Ethnicity still means race; still means a genetic criteria for membership.

“Earlier this year, the ‘Herald’ and the ‘NZCPR’ published a piece I had written about the incompatibility of tribalism and democracy. Recently, I discovered that the ‘Nigerian Observor’, in referring to my article, had used my conclusion – that there is a fundamental incompatibility between the two sociopolitical systems – to say this:

“There is urgent need for robust public discussion, review and referendum—if needed—on the democratic and political systems in Africa, with focus on the re-introduction of parliamentarism. We need to move forward.”

“What is fascinating is that progressive discussion in Africa is advocating moving towards parliamentarianism while in New Zealand {and Canada} we, or a significant number of the politically influential, are seemingly unaware of the jewel that we have in our own parliamentary system… In that innocence, they are unaware of the threat to that system.

“From the 1980s, the rather benign idea of recognising Maori culture in the wider society became a political biculturalism that has enabled a small but extremely influential group of ‘retribalists’ to capture the moral high ground of ‘social justice’ — but in their own interests.
(It shouldn’t be forgotten that the numbers of Maori in poverty has actually grown during the bicultural decades.)

“On the way to elite status — with its associated political power and economic wealth — the retribalists have successfully manipulated the rather naïve belief that social justice comes from cultural recognition – a belief which got support for biculturalism in the first place.

“Biculturalism has a new political meaning but its ongoing support lies in the old cultural one. It now means that two so-called ‘ethnic’ groups have different political interests, which should be recognised institutionally.

{The widely-discredited ‘Separate But Equal’ nonsense. ‘Indigenous’ racism is forcing Western nations to retrace their steps…}

“This institutional recognition — beginning in education and health — began a veritable march into the heart of government. The ‘re-interpretation’ {deliberate misreading} of the Treaty as a so-called ‘partnership’ {just as in Canada} is providing the mandate for the march into the institutions… We see this in recent months, with the assumption that ‘co-governance’ is the natural next step…

“But what is the nature of the group that will be ‘co-governor’? What are the implications for New Zealand’s parliamentary democracy?

The justification for this elite’s power is its claim to represent a tribal people — so, such a people must be created and maintained — hence, the aggressive retribalisation {and ‘decolonisation’} that we have seen in recent years. Access to Treaty settlements requires individuals to belong to a tribe… Educational scholarships require applicants to name their tribe

‘Detribalisation’ is described as the problem, so ‘retribalisation’ is to be the solution — a slogan that assumes tribalism is a progressive form of social organisation — that it is worth having, that it should not have been destroyed.

“So, let us look at what the tribe or clan is.

“It is the oldest way to organise a social group. The cement is kinship. As the group gets larger, it becomes a race or ethnic group.
The group’s distinctiveness is the result of a shared history which may be very long, as with Australian Aborigines, or relatively short, as with Maori. However, a shared history does not mean that the tribe, or any group for that matter, should have a distinctive political system that never changes.

If there is no change, then those people are locked into a kin-based political system for all time. There can be no modernity, no progress, no future.

One of the benefits of colonisation, and there are a number, is the destruction of tribalism.

For slaves and lower caste people, it was liberation.

“Of course, the chiefly caste did not agree and today we see the resurgence of those who would be their inheritors.

The new elite is a self-proclaimed aristocracy, justifying their ambition in romantic appeals to an Arcadian past.

Tribalism must be destroyed for democracy to exist.
Democracy’s superiority as a political system is that it is the final stage in the separation of the kin/race character of a socio-cultural group, from its political character.

“It has achieved this separation by creating the secular public space where politics takes place, and by creating the citizen as the political subject for that space. The separation has not been easy, even in its final stages, as the turmoils of the 19th and 20th centuries remind us.

“We get fascinating accounts of the beginnings of the social-political separation from historian Peter Munz and anthropologist Alan Macfarlane. Munz describes how the Roman invasion of Europe allowed three intertwined movements to weaken European tribalisation so successfully that the pre-conditions were established for new non-kinship forms of governance — although democracy was still a long way into the future.

The Romans brought Greek civilisation, Roman law, and Christianity. This was a heady combination that undermined tribalism and laid the pre-conditions for the break-up of kin and race-based political structures.

“In his ‘Making of the Modern World’, Alan Macfarlane…also traces the rise of the modern world to the early break-up of tribalism. He refers to the legal right of women in Anglo-Saxon England to will property outside the kin-group, to show the weakening of kinship as a public political organising force by the 8th and 9th centuries.

The history of progress in the world is the history of ‘detribalisation’, and the race or ethnic politics that goes with tribalised societies

Tribal politics is necessarily undemocratic because of the criteria for membership and the system of leadership… This suits those who would lead the tribe because it guarantees a population that only they can represent. Leadership is also undemocratic because there is no clear separation of kin status and political status.

“So, the question for us is not why the ‘iwi’ elite is using retribal strategies to gain increasing political power and economic wealth – any emerging elite that chances upon a direct and easy means to get its way, will take it.
The intriguing question is how has a population with 161 years of democracy under its belt allowed this to happen.

“Whatarangi Winiata, the Maori Party’s ideologue, was the brains behind the division of the Anglican Church into three racial groups in the 1980s. He must be good because here was the ‘Universal Church’, one that had played a major role in the break-up of kinship organisation since the first centuries AD, meekly accepting a return to race-based division. Winiata has said that the Church’s three-party model is the model for New Zealand. ‘Co-governance’ is the current step…

“As an academic, I find the skill of the retribalising elite’s manipulative strategies fascinating. As a New Zealand citizen, I despair for our country when we do not know the value of what we have got.”

–‘Democracy and Tribalism’,
Dr. Elizabeth Rata, November 17, 2013

http://www.nzcpr.com/democracy-and-tribalism/#more-9879
**************************************************************************
The greatest danger to democracy comes from tribalism.

In most of the world, democracy usually fails as a direct result of tribalism. People divide up into tribes based on ethnicity, or religion, and vote exclusively along tribal lines.

The result is that it doesn’t matter what the issues are, or who the candidates are. The result is foreordained…

“Whether we’re talking Shiites in Iran, or Xhosa in South Africa, northern Italians or Japanese nationalists, tribalism covers up corruption and makes free institutions difficult to sustain. Issues don’t matter, the candidates don’t matter, charges of corruption don’t matter. What matters is power, what matters is tribe, and you follow along.”

http://www.danablankenhorn.com/2013/05/tribalism.html

♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠
#ENDRACEBASEDLAWCANADA

Website News
ERBL inc. Canada News
https://endracebasedlawcanadanews.wordpress.com

Website – Featured Stories
END RACE BASED LAW inc. Canada
https://endracebasedlaw.wordpress.com/

Twitter Featured Stories (follow us)
https://twitter.com/endracebasedlaw
@ENDRACEBASEDLAW   

Twitter – 1NATION1LAW (follow us)
https://twitter.com/1NATION1LAW
@1NATION1LAW

Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/ENDRACEBASEDLAW

END RACE BASED LAW CANADA 
https://www.facebook.com/ENDRACEBASEDLAWCANADA

ONE NATION ONE LAW CANADA 
https://www.facebook.com/ONENATIONONELAWCANADA
♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠
Petition to END RACE BASED LAW
http://endracebasedlaw.net/petition/

mail to: endracebasedlawpetition@gmail.com
JOIN US IN THE FUTURE OF A UNIFIED CANADA

WHY DOES IT GARNER SO MUCH FEAR….?

Michele Tittler Why Does it garner so much fear to END RACE BASED LAW

Why does it garner so much fear, just the mere mention to END RACE BASED LAW?

Aside from race laws in our constitution, the Indian Act needs to be abolished, and so many of the aboriginals feel the same way about it, so why are we not all doing this together? Them included.
Why can’t we END RACE BASED LAW, abolish the Indian Act, and stop feeding the Indian Industry?

It’s section 35 in our constitution that’s allowed court cases to carry on all across this country, at taxpayer’s expense, and all it’s done is continue to enable the blame game, keeping us all stuck in that dialogue, which is the backbone to the Indian Industry.
None of these laws really serve anyone, except the lawyers and lobbyists, and those who are out to use them for their own personal benefit, at the expense of others, including the aboriginals.

ALL politicians must be held accountable to the taxpayer, this is not some new concept, it’s OUR money and we have a say in how it’s spent. And so do the aboriginals who are not in charge of that money, but whose leaders get it on their behalf.

Surely if we are able to help people, we can help the individual person without having to feed an ever-growing, ever more costly Indian Industry.

Canada can offer up the programs they need, help with job training, education, and health, but since most of the money is going to lawyers and lobbyists, why are we doing it? Why are the aboriginals not on board with us?
My goal is to open up the conversation to challenge everyone to rethink these laws, and to remove them from our constitution, and get on with the reality of us ALL being in this together.

The personal attacks that came from the cyber gang of “Idle No More” created such an unfortunate image for themselves, it made it nearly impossible for us to concentrate on much else.

HOWEVER, there are many more great people out there in the aboriginal communities who are working hard to contribute positive change, and they’re the people who will make a difference. The haters will only cost everyone.

I just think it’s time for all Canadians, the aboriginals included, to stop acquiescing to the blame game Indian Industry, and to start figuring out how we all move into the future together, because it’s not going to get better the way it’s going. It’s only gotten worse.

This is not an initiative to bash the native culture, to incite hate towards them, or to see them falter.
The opposite.

This is a conversation to talk about how to help fix and change what’s broken, so things get better.

As hard as this conversation is for everyone, we have to have it because things have to change. We can do better, and we have to ask the aboriginals to come with us, and to help nurture a healthier relationship with everyone. The focus needs to shift towards unity and common goals, not on blame, hate, racism and extortion.

The Indian Industry is NOT the average man/woman/child who needs help…it’s non-native and native lawyers, lobbyists and activists who have a vested interest in keeping the blame game alive. It is so detrimental to everyone. It’s created Apartheid, segregation and divisiveness.

Like I say….we can do better.

Michele Tittler

***************************************
***************************************

Petition to END RACE BASED LAW:

http://endracebasedlaw.com/petition

#‎ENDRACEBASEDLAW‬‬