Artistic Feminism?

 

A major social issue facing Canada is the outstanding and significant amount of missing and murdered Indigenous women. There are over 600 missing and murdered Indigenous women across Canada, and it seems nothing is being done by the Canadian government to address this issue.

            An installation, (a process whereby red dresses are installed in various locations to show awareness of missing and murdered Indigenous women) called The REDress Project by artist Jamie Black shows the impact of gender and racialized violence against Indigenous women. The project comes from a feminist perspective, although there are different forms or groupings of feminism, the common theme being that the relationship between the sexes is one of inequality or oppression (Mullaly, 2007, p.161). Violence against Indigenous women is clearly an inequality between the sexes as more women are being brutally murdered. The Canadian government appeared to take no action to address this issue. Intersectional feminism (which is a form of feminism) interlocks oppression and inequalities between gender, race and racism. The REDress Project was formed to address the inequalities and oppression among Indigenous women. Although there are many groups and projects that attempt to address this particular issue of murdered and missing Indigenous women; the REDress Project is unique in that it promotes awareness using an artistic lens in which to address this issue.      

-Kerri

Mullaly, B. (2007). The New Structural Social Work. Canada: Oxford University Press.

Unfair Classification of Aboriginal Women in the Justice system

Around 34 percent of women in Canadian maximum security prisons are of aboriginal decent (Sapers. 2010-11. Section 6). That’s a staggering amount when you consider that the aboriginal population in Canada makes up only around “2.7 percent of the adult Canadian population” (“Backgrounder”, n.d.). With these statistics it is reasonable to ask the question of why is there so many aboriginal women getting sentenced to maximum security prisons than any other women in Canada?

When considering what a feminist would say about this the first thing that pops into mind would be that it is due to the fact that we live in a patriarchal society. Where the legal system is set up by men, run by men and controlled predominately by men. This idea that women are overruled by men and have little to no control over their environment may be slightly true, but is mainly a radical feminist view on the subject whose main focus is on only one part of the problem, which is being a female in a male dominated patriarchal world.

There is a whole other section to the problem then just being a women, and that is being an aboriginal; an aboriginal women who is often subjected to systemic discrimination, which is defined as “patterns of behavior, policies or practices that are part of the structures of an organization, and which create or perpetuate disadvantage for racialized persons” (Uslegal, n.d.).This means that there may be a bias, as well as different standards of evaluation when applied to sentencing aboriginal women.  “For example, being aboriginal means you are seen as higher risk, being poor means you are seen as higher risk...All of this results in women receiving a higher security classification.” (Joint Effort, 2003, para.5). A higher security classification means they would get sent to maximum security prison just for being a poor aboriginal female, and when in this prison they are restricted to the access they have to programs and services, specifically those set up for aboriginals (Joint Effort, 2003, para.7) This could then answer the question of why more aboriginal women are sent to maximum security prisons than any other women.

To elaborate further on systemic discrimination it could be said that it creates a vicious cycle that sets aboriginal women up to going to jail because systemic discrimination tends to lead to: “poverty, inadequate educational and employment opportunities, homeless-ness, addictions & mental health issues” (Native Women’s association of Canada [NWAC], 2011, p.5) which then puts them right back to where they started due to the fact that the justice system fails to protect aboriginal women from the injustices they face and

Police regularly target and book those who are struggling with alcoholism, drug addiction, sexual abuse, the consequences of residential schools, poverty, survival sex, etc. But ironically, the same profile which renders Aboriginal women particularly vulnerable to sexual sadists and serial killers, often fails to mobilize the police and justice system to uphold their duty to protect (NWAC, 2011, p.7)

The information presented here paints a picture of injustice and double discrimination against aboriginal women, making the future of aboriginal women involved in the justice system seem bleak and may make some weary towards it. But what exactly can be done that can realistically help this group of individuals? Protests? Rally’s for getting rid of racial profiling and systemic discrimination? All-in-all this is how Canada’s justice system works, but there needs to be some serious re-evaluation of the system and the way that aboriginal women are classified, but like anything in society it’s going to take time.

-          Jody

References

Systemic Discrimination. (n.d.). In US Legal. Retrieved from http://definitions.uslegal.com/s/systemic-discrimination/

Joint Effort. (2003, July 25).  Discrimination against aboriginal women rampant in federal prison Retrieved at http://www.vcn.bc.ca/august10/politics/1018_discaborig.html

Sapers, H. (2010-2011). Annual Report of The Office of the Correctional Investigator. Retrieved from http://www.oci-bec.gc.ca/rpt/annrpt/annrpt20102011-eng.aspx#ss6

Backgrounder: Aboriginal Inmates. (n.d). Retrieved at http://www.oci-bec.gc.ca/rpt/annrpt/annrpt20052006info-eng.aspx

Native Women’s Association of Canada. (2011, November 15). Gendering Reconciliation [booklet] Retrieved at http://www.nwac.ca/gendering-reconciliation

Indigenous Self Government & Self Determination

The indigenous ideology is representative of the self determination and self government that indigenous people have been working towards not only for decolonization but for indigenous perspectives to be acknowledged in the Canadian government regarding indigenous people. Indigenous people have endured immense colonization and assimilation, one process being the residential school system. The negative impacts of the forced colonization and assimilation have and continue to impact future generations in just a few forms such as poverty, isolation, and violations of basic human rights (Assembly of First Nations, 2011). The indigenous perspective works towards the healing and recognition of these negative impacts and influences processes of indigenous self determination and self government. Mawhiney and Hardy (2009) state “Many Canadians remain perplexed about Aboriginal peoples’ demands for recognition of their inherent right of self-government and self-determination” (p.95). The government of Canada has negatively impacted indigenous people through processes of colonization and assimilation that have resulted in marginalization and oppression. The indigenous perspective works towards the process of decolonization, where indigenous people can work towards healing and revitalization of culture and spirituality.

In 1982 the government of Canada recognized the inherent right for indigenous people to self govern. Under section 35 of the constitution act the government of Canada recognize indigenous perspectives in their inherent right to self government (Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, 2011). This amazing adjustment to the constitution act happened four years after I was born, I know it is better late than never but it is amazing that after years of immense struggle for indigenous people at only this time were rights for self government coming into play. Although it is not surprizing due to the marginalization and oppression indigenous people have face and continue to face. As a First Nation woman it is exciting to be a part of the generation that is learning the self government and self determination process.  

The Assembly of First Nations’ state (2011) “The past cannot be changed, but yesterday's injustices can be corrected by today's political leaders. The Assembly of First Nations exists to fulfill the goal of correcting these past injustices and to enhance the rightful position of the First Nations Peoples in Canada's future”. Through the processes of indigenous self determination and self government indigenous people are fighting for their Human Rights. A few examples of the rights being fought for are: having adequate housing on and off reserve, poverty, water rights, cultural and spiritual revitalization, language restoration, these are just to name a few. The injustices that have been endured by indigenous people are horrific but the resilience is a common theme, and because of self government and self determination indigenous people are working to decolonize and better current and future generations.  As a First Nation woman I feel that being knowledgeable about my rights as an indigenous person is significant so that I cannot only help myself but influence future generations.

-Danielle

References

Mawhiney, A., Hardy, S. (2009) Aboriginal peoples in Canada. In J.C. Turner and F.J.Turner (Eds). Canadian social welfare (pp.95-109). Toronto, ON: Pearson Canada.

Assembly of First Nation (2011). Our Story retrieved from  http://www.afn.ca/index.php/en/about-afn/our-story

Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (2011). The Government of Canada's Approach to Implementation of the Inherent Right and the Negotiation of Aboriginal Self-Government retrieved from http://ainc-inac.gc.ca/eng/1100100031843#inhrsg

Is Aboriginal Restorative Justice effective in First Nation communities?

My personal view is that the indigenous perspective in Canada receives little attention as opposed to the other paradigms or ideologies already discussed. The perspective believes that social problems do not stem from individual failure, but is a result of colonialism, racism, and oppression. Example; concerning the social welfare component the indigenous paradigm stresses that indigenous institutions need to be reconstructed and euro Canadian institutions need to be deconstructed. One approach that comes to mind and which I feel coincides with the Indigenous perspective is the Aboriginal Restorative Justice approach. For those who are not aware of the restorative justice approach in Canada, the Law Commission of Canada explains it as, “a process for resolving crime and conflict that focuses on redressing the harm to the victims, on holding offenders accountable for their actions and on engaging the community in the conflict resolution process” (2003, p. 3). I won’t go into detail regarding stats, but they are staggering for the amount of Aboriginal offenders currently involved with the criminal justice system, and/or those who are jailed. I believe in the prairie region it is somewhere in around 70%, which is an incredibly high number. 

Furthermore, and more specifically the Aboriginal Restorative justice approach in Aboriginal communities, “…has a broader mandate and set of goals and expectations than similar programs in non-Aboriginal communities. For Aboriginal communities, the development of restorative justice programs is part of a reclaiming of the process of social control and order maintenance – a process that was explicitly taken away from Aboriginal communities during the period of colonization. In this way, the development of restorative justice programs by Aboriginal communities is very much a part of decolonization of reassuring the importance, vitality and significance of Aboriginal community control over Aboriginal people” (Law Commission of Canada, 2003, p. 27). This definition is lengthy, but captures of the essence of what it really is. With the definition we can see the Indigenous perspective applied. Example; with regards to the nation state the Indigenous paradigm believes that justice is about restoring harmony and balance and reintegration and rebalancing social relations. Furthermore, Aboriginal restorative justice programs incorporate unique elements of Aboriginal culture and traditional knowledge in trying to help the offender. It takes a holistic approach in helping offenders. V. Morrissette said it best; solutions must begin with the, “interrogation of the conditions which created marginalization and oppression for Aboriginal people” (2006, p.163).

The roots of restorative justice can be seen and are strong in many Aboriginal communities. Aboriginal leaders, Elders, and community members have developed strategies, and initiatives to the overwhelming large response of the need for emotional and spiritual healing in Aboriginal communities. The goal is to seek harmony in the community. The community is the main focus of the approach. One example of this approach can be seen with the Hollow Water First Nation. The community is located in Northern Manitoba, approximately two hours north of Winnipeg. Hollow Water has become increasingly involved with developing community-based criminal justice services and programs, which better addresses the community’s specific needs. In reading, Returning to Teachings, community members of Hollow Water explained that, “people who offend against another..are to be viewed and related to as people who are out of balance-with themselves, their family, their community and their creator. A return to balance can be best accomplished through a process of accountability that includes support from the community through teaching and healing. The use of judgment and punishment actually works against the healing process. An already unbalanced person is moved further out of balance (Ross, 1996, p. 171). If you are interested please follow the link attached (you-tube video) on a presentation made by Ed Buller – regarding Hollow Water First Nation (Manitoba), and Mnjikaning First Nation (Ontario), explaining that healing is good for investment for both communities and governments. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17sf1voYRn0

Is restorative justice effective in Aboriginal communities, as opposed to offenders being part of the mainstream correctional system? My opinion is that yes it is very effective and very much needed. Although I am sure many will disagree and argue that it isn’t. The approach focuses on the family and community. I believe the restorative justice program is crucial and necessary for healing in Aboriginal communities. I personally have family members who have taken part in programs associated with the approach, and they have found it to be extremely effective/helpful in trying to rehabilitate. Some would say that having the aspect of the spiritual component was the most crucial part of the healing process. Example; taking part in healing circles, sweat lodges, getting involved with Aboriginal culture and traditions, being mentored by an elder, etc.  All of this contributed to the offender making positive changes with their life. In reading the article, Holistic Healing and Accountability, one key important point was made, “In the traditional way of our culture, wrongdoing is a collective responsibility and the process involves all parties acknowledging the wrong, allowing for atonement and installing a system of reparation or compensation in order to restore harmony to the community” (Baskin, 2002, p. 1). As seen with this very statement the community is at the heart of the approach. One point must not be forgotten and must be made that the restorative justice approach could be just one set of conditions imposed by the court. Example; if an offender agrees to the restorative approach, the court could impose other stipulations such as restraining orders, curfews, etc. The restorative justice approach is in line with elements associated with the Indigenous paradigm. We can see this with the example from Hollow Water First Nation in Manitoba, and the point made from the Baskin article.

There are a few organizations in Winnipeg that use the Aboriginal Restorative Justice approach, that work with Aboriginal offenders. One is Onashowenin Inc. Here is the link to the organization if you wish to find out more http://www.onashowewin.com/

- Dara
                                                               References

Baskin. C. (2002). Holistic Healing and Accountability: Indigenous Restorative Justice. Child Care in Practice. 8(2), 133-136. DOI: 10.1007/BF02817599

Buller, Ed. (2008, August 18). Traditional Approaches to healing (video). Heartspeak Productions. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17sf1voYRn0

Law Commission of Canada. (2003). Transforming Relationships Trough Participatory Justice. (Catalogue : JL2-22/2003F). Retrieved from http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection/JL2-22-2003E

Morrissette, V. (2006). Towards an Aboriginal perspective that addresses ideological domination in social policy analysis. Chapter 5: Implications for Social Work (pp. 162-189). Unpublished master's thesis, University of Manitoba.

Ross, R. (2006). Returning to the Teachings. (1^st edition). Penguin, Canada.

Bill C-31: Not Quite There yet from a Feminist Perspective...

Sandra Lovelace Nicholas

    June 28th, 1985. I don't actually remember what I was doing that particular day. More than likely drawing some funky facial tattoos on some Jem and the Holograms dolls, being the strange 9 year old girl I was. Meanwhile, else-where in Canada, a woman three times my age had been fighting for indigenous women's rights, and the United Nations Human Rights Council found the country I call home in violation of those rights. June 28th, 1985, is a day that will live in Feminist history along with the Suffragette Movement of the early 1900's with people like Nellie McCLung, along with the 1970's movements to have equal pay for equal hours worked, and to end sexual discrimination in the workplace. An Act to Amend the Indian Act, which was meant to make the Indian Act the same as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and give aboriginal women who lost their status through marriage the ability to regain their status. Women like Sandra Lovelace, Mary Two-Axe Early, and Jeanette Corbiere Lavell, have all not only been fighting for Women's Rights, but in particular indigenous women's rights.
    While there is no argument that An Act to Amend the Indian Act, also known as Bill C-31, was a huge milestone for indigenous women's rights, it is also seen by many as essentially a step backwards for indigenous women's rights.

When I first leaned of Bill C-31 in another class, I thought to myself "Right on Sisters! Fight for your rights as women!" and that it was a huge leap for women's equality issues. That feeling of sisterly solidarity was very short lived, however, when the actual date of the Amendment sunk in. I mean, 1985?! Whenever I had head of Feminism Movements, my mind always would conjure up images of bra-burning, un-shaven leg-and-underarms hippie women looking to completely over-throw male domination and oppression. This is only one side of that myriad of Feminism, something that Mullaly (2007) called Radical Feminism. "In regards to sexuality, radical feminism holds that throughout history men have constructed and controlled women's bodies to serve their own needs and interests." (Mullaly, 2007, p. 166)
Fast forward to now, in 2011, when I am told I must write a blog entry for Feministic approached to Indigenous People. My first thought, of course, drifted to Sandra Lovelace and Bill C-31. I thought it would be the perfect opportunity to illustrate what a leap this has been for Indigenous women's rights.

I was plesantly surprised to find out I was wrong.

I know, when does ANYONE, ever actually admit that they were glad to be proven wrong on a particular subject, espcially when the subject is of indigenous women and their rights? But I was glad to have the opportunity to see another perspective on the issue, and not one writen in a textbook for a class. The Native Women's Association of Canada, founded in 1974, gave a different perspective that agrees with Mullaly's idea that there are two main aspects to the school of feminist thought. One is "That there is overwhelming evidence that the state plays a central role in the domination of men and the subordination of women; and two, this evidence has led to demands that the existing ideological and theoretical frameworks be revised to account for the role of the state in maintaining dominant patriarchal and heterosexual relations that characterize Western society." (Mullaly, 2007, p. 161). Essentially, it means that the Government has just as much of a role to play when it comes to the systemic discrimination against women. Even when they are trying to fix the obvious flaw, the Government still gets it wrong.

Shocking.

Bill C-31 not only deals with indigenous women's loss of status when they marry non-indigenous men, but it also puts the ownership of reserve membership and band membership back into the hands of the Band Council.

I know what you're thinking, and please don't get too excited. I agree with the Native Women's Association in that "While some women applauded the recognition of the discrimination many women agree that the Bill is not the mechanism to address the scope and depth of that discrimination. " (Native Women's Association, 2007, p.3)

This seems like basically a way to kill two birds with one stone; dealing with the discrimination against indigenous women, but also a leap forward towards Self-Government. This isn't the case, sadly. The Government actually purposefully designed Bill C-31 in this way, if only to perpetuate the discimination of women. Only this time it would not come from their hands totally, but at the hands of the Band Council itself. Funding for bands is based off membership level, but funding did not increase after the bill was passed. Bill C-31 also clearly stipulates that an Indigenous woman must identify the status of the father. Further more,  "A "6(2)" woman who cannot or will not name the father of her child born out of wedlock (because, for example, the child is the result of rape) will see that child denied status under the Act even if the father is a status Indian." (Native Women's Association of Canada, 2007, p. 11).
Wait, hang on a moment here. Wasn't this Bill supposed to end the discrimination against indigenous women? What about in cases of rape? Mullaly illustrates this by way of Williams (1989) as the main argument for the ideology of Radical Feminism, where "Patriarchy has been defined in two ways by radical feminists- male power and control over women's sexuality and male power and control over women's biology in terms of their reproductive capacity." (Williams, 1998, as cited by Mullaly, 2007, p. 166). The identification of the father to decide if a child is status or not only goes to re-enforce the Indian Act previously. The only difference, as seen by some like the Native Women's Association, is that now indigenous men cannot bestow their Status onto their non-indigenous wives as they could previously, nevermind that now their Band Council of Bill C-31 women can decide if they can stay on reserve or not, or are eligible for things like education, housing and health care. It throws the Race card into the feminism mix in terms of forcing a definition of who is more "Indian", and Bill C-31 women are not seen as "Indian enough."

Still think I'm blowing smoke? Sandra Lovelace (Maliseet) had to go to the United Nations Committee on Human Rights to file her complaint of discimination after her divorce from her non-aboriginal husband. She tried to return to her reserve and was denied because she had lost her Status upon marrying her husband in 1970. Even though she was divorced from him, under the Indian Act, only Band Members can live on reserves.
She couldn't go to the only other organisation at the time, the National Indian Brotherhood, as it was fighting for it's own issues and their main stance was that they would not support revisions to any part of the Indian Act unless it was the whole Indian Act that was reviewed.

I guess we still haven't gotten as far as we'd like to think on indigenous women's issues.

~Shauna


Daniels, H.W., (1998) Bill C-31: The Abocide Bill. Congress of Aboriginal People. Retrieved on November 8, 2011 from http://www.abo-peoples.org/programs/C-31/Abocide/Abocide-1.htm

Dickason, O.P., Newbigging, W. (2010) A Concise History of Canada's First Nations (2nd ed.) Don Mills: Oxford University Press.

Mullaly, R. (2007). The New Structural Social Work (3rd Ed.). Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press.

Native Women's Association of Canada. (2007) Aboriginal Women and Bill C-31: An Issue Paper. National Aboriginal Women's Summit (2007). Corner Brook; NL.Retrieved November 8, 2011 from http://www.laa.gov.nl.ca/laa/naws/pdf/nwac-billc-31.pdf

Native Women's Association of Canada. (n.d.) Aboriginal Women's Rights are Human Rights. Canadian Human Rights Act Review: An NWAC Research Paper. Retrieved November 8, 2011 from http://action.web.ca/home/narcc/attach/AboriginalWomensRightsAreHumanRights.pdf

Look for the "bear" necessities...from a Marxist perspective...

Marxism has had a negative view for the last 50 or so years because of the ruling paradigm's opposition towards it. While conservative views focus mainly on the Individual and the right to participate in the capitalist free market, Marxism's core social values are Liberty, Collectivism and Equality. Mullaly expresses that "Marxists believe that these rights or liberties can only be exercised fairly of they are complimented by social freedom- freedom from want, freedom from unemployment, and so on- and by opportunities to work, to earn, to develop oneself, to enjoy life." (Mullaly, 2007, p.144). This idea would hold strongly in many pre-contact Indigenous societies, where egalitarian systems were frequently used. The best person was chosen for the task at hand, but otherwise people were left to live their lives as they chose. "In those societies, available resources were open to all, and their leaders used influence rather than force." (Dickason and Newbigging, 2010, p.15)

Pre-contact Indigenous people also believed that no one person owned the earth and it's resources, and that all people had the right to live by the virtue of being a living creature. This is not far from Marxist ideology as well, where Mullaly states "Marx believed that individuals had a claim on society's resources, not on the basis of unequal individual endowment, but on the basis that everyone is equal by virtue of being a human being." (Mullaly, 2007, p.142)

Pre-contact peoples also recognized the value of equality between classes and sexes, though there were traditional roles assigned to both men and women under the basis of biological function. While there was cross-over in traditional roles for helping to other. As Mullaly illustrates "Equality does not mean sameness to Marxists; rather, it means the absence of special privilege and the availability of opportunities to all." (Mullaly, 2007, p.144) The community at large within Pre-contact groups was one based on need, rather than on mass consumption. Leather was prepared by women, but the men were the ones to hunt to provide such things.

Marxism also believes that Capitalism is the cause of all human suffering, and in regards to Indigenous people, the shift from an egalitarian society to a capitalist one could be blamed on the current state of Indigenous people. In regards to issues like clean, running water for Reserves, education and health care. Under Marxist ideology, having these basic needs cared for would allow people to have meaningful and productive lives. "For example, some Marxists would establish minimal standards of living necessary to retain full citizenship in society and would ensure that everyone in society was living up to these standards before dealing with needs above the social or civic minimum." (Laski, 1925, cited in George and Wilding, 1985, Mullaly, 2007, p.145).

According to the Congress of Aboriginal People (CAP), "Moreover, decent housing provides space for all members of a family to be satisfactorily accommodated. This is especially beneficial in the case of extended Aboriginal families, which frequently include grandparents and many children, some of whom may or may not be the natural children of the householder. Adequate, suitable and affordable housing in this situation enable the elders to have direct contact with youth on a daily basis, passing along the language and customs of Aboriginal peoples, thereby fostering family cohesiveness and maintenance of their traditional cultures." (Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, 1998). Perhaps the reason why Indigenous People have such a hard time gaining adequate services like housing is because, as Marxists would re-iterate, that Capitalism functions on class struggle. "The Marxists believe that any significant social change can come about only through class conflict." (Mullaly, 2007, p.146)

~Shauna

Mullaly, R. (2007). The New Structural Social Work (3rd Ed.). Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press.

Congress of Aboriginal People. (1998). Urban Native Housing Program. Retrieved November 7, 2011, from http://www.abo-peoples.org/programs/housing.html

Dickason, O.P., Newbigging, W. (2010) A Concise History of Canada's First Nations (2nd ed.)Don Mills: Oxford University Press.

"...you can come on my land whenever you want?"

            When I think of the role of the government, I think of a slow-acting, money-burning, self-perpetuating machine that is not so well oiled; it appears that Karl Marx is significantly more critical of the role of the government when he looks at the impact they have on the people. Mullaly states that Marxists believe that the capitalist government basically is there to “to act in opposition to the real interests of all members of society by constituting an ‘illusory community’, which then serves to disguise the real struggles that classes wage against each other” (Mullaly, 141). In this post, I would like to probe at truth found in examples of how the BC and Ontario governments attempted to ignore the indigenous people’s way of life by green-lighting the extension and construction of mines on Indigenous land.

            In my first and less dramatic BC example, I read that Place and Hanlon did a study involving the consultation process of Indigenous people in the extension of a copper and gold ore mine on traditional but untreatied land. They looked over ideas such as the short-term benefits, such as jobs, and long-term consequences, such as blows to the environment and to the people who live there (Place and Hanlon, 2008); one participant effected by the potential mine stated that dealing with the government “means working in accordance to ‘their policies, not ours’” (p. 170). In Ontario, I read that the events leading up to the a mine project on a portion of land belonging to the local Indigenous people resulted in court battles, several arrests and an injunction for the Native people to remove themselves from their occupation of the site where the company planned on searching for Uranium (Algonquins threaten to reoccupy Ontario uranium site, 2008); one grandmother even reported to fight by means of a hunger strike (Forsey, 2008).

            From what I read here, it would appear that each province is mostly in favour of construction each mine but are willing to entertain jumping through the hoops of meeting with the respective Indigenous groups residing in each province. While these people groups are bringing up valid concerns of environmental hazards and health of those who live there, the provinces are hoping that some compromise would still be reached. The whole idea of a government/business/force coming into an indigenous area to harvest material despite obvious destruction to natural resources sounds like plotline to a Hollywood movie, but apparently is more real than we realize (minus the love story, but it is happening in 3D). The bourgeois, er, the government needs to stand up for their citizens and not allow large corporations to treat them like pylons. The role of the government should be to seek the best for the individual and collective needs of those who reside in their countrys, not ask them to move aside when money could be made to bring the economy up. Citizens needs to hold government officials accountable in making sure their actions and policies benefit the people, not just the market; after all it's 2011, not 1984.

- Kel

Mullaly, R. (2007). The new structural social work (3^rd Ed.). Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press.

Place, Jessica & Hanlon, Neil. (2011). Kill the lake? kill the proposal: accommodating First Nations' environmental values as a first step of the road to wellness, GeoJournal, 76, 193-175

Algonquins threaten to reoccupy Ontario uranium site. (2008, January 11). Retrieved from http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/story/2008/01/11/ot-sharbot-lake-080111.html 

Forsey, April. (2008, April). First Nations Fight To Protect Rheir Land, The Monitor.