 |
| Joan Jack |
Picture it. In Tlingit Country, my husband and I are sitting and listening. Immediately, I begin responding and have decided to share my response as an Anishinabekwe (human being who is female) who is also a lawyer. What follows are the parts of his speech that struck me as ironic, to say the least.
“It seems that every day we’re reminded that we live in an era of great power rivalry — that the rules-based order is fading, that the strong can do what they can, and the weak must suffer what they must.”
Scoff. Welcome to Canadian law, the Indian Act and legalized racism!
“And this aphorism of Thucydides is presented as inevitable, as the natural logic of international relations reasserting itself. And faced with this logic, there is a strong tendency for countries to go along, get along to accommodate, to avoid trouble, to hope that compliance will buy safety. Well, it won’t.”
Had to look up some words here, and then thought, no kidding, compliance doesn’t buy safety!
“So what are our options?”
“For decades, countries like Canada prospered under what we called the rules-based international order. … This fiction was useful, and American hegemony in particular helped provide public goods, open sea lanes, a stable financial system, collective security and support for frameworks for resolving disputes. Let me be direct. We are in the midst of a rupture, not a transition.”
“For decades, countries like Canada prospered under what we called the rules-based international order. … This fiction was useful, and American hegemony in particular helped provide public goods, open sea lanes, a stable financial system, collective security and support for frameworks for resolving disputes. Let me be direct. We are in the midst of a rupture, not a transition.”
Since we’re being direct: as if this hasn’t and doesn’t happen domestically! I could write a thesis on the examples of how the Canadian state has and continues to impose the [foreign] rule of law upon our people in our own homelands. While getting a PhD is useful, it doesn’t really change much in the everyday lives of our people on reserve and in the cities of the Canadian state.
“You cannot live within the lie of mutual benefit through integration when integration becomes the source of your subordination. … When the rules no longer protect you, you must protect yourself. But let’s be clear-eyed about where this leads. A world of fortresses will be poorer, more fragile and less sustainable.
And there’s another truth: if great powers abandon even the pretense of rules and values for the unhindered pursuit of their power and interests, the gains from transactionalism will become harder to replicate.”
And there’s another truth: if great powers abandon even the pretense of rules and values for the unhindered pursuit of their power and interests, the gains from transactionalism will become harder to replicate.”
Unless of course you’re Indigenous Peoples and through colonialism and capitalism your lands have been basically stolen. Then transactionalism prevails. We all know that our treaties were intended to establish equal relationship and sharing with the newcomers who simply saw and still see the treaties as a real estate deal, a transaction.
Whether it’s the negotiation of modern treaties and agreements or the long-awaited implementation of the numbered treaties, the Canadian state continues to take the position of how much is this going to cost? I’ve often said that we see the treaties and their implementation as the prenuptial agreement, while the Canadian state sees our treaties as the divorce settlement.
And apparently when the rules no longer protect you, we must protect ourselves. Well, we all saw what happened in Ipperwash and Oka, and the Canadian state continues to bring in the police and even the army when we try to protect ourselves and our lands.
“If we’re not at the table, we’re on the menu. … But I’d also say that great powers can afford, for now, to go it alone. They have the market size, the military capacity and the leverage to dictate terms. Middle powers do not. But when we only negotiate bilaterally with a hegemon, we negotiate from weakness. We accept what’s offered. We compete with each other to be the most accommodating.
This is not sovereignty. It’s the performance of sovereignty while accepting subordination.
In a world of great power rivalry, the countries in between have a choice: compete with each other for favour or combine to create a third path with impact. We shouldn’t allow the rise of hard power to blind us to the fact that the power of legitimacy, integrity and rules will remain strong if we choose to wield it together.
It means building what we claim to believe in, rather than waiting for the old order to be restored. It means creating institutions and agreements that function as described, and it means reducing the leverage that enables coercion.
That’s building a strong domestic economy. It should be every government’s immediate priority. …
So, Canada. Canada has what the world wants. We are an energy superpower. We hold vast reserves of critical minerals. … And we have the values to which many others aspire. …
The powerful have their power. But we have something, too: the capacity to stop pretending, to name realities, to build our strength at home and to act together.”
This is not sovereignty. It’s the performance of sovereignty while accepting subordination.
In a world of great power rivalry, the countries in between have a choice: compete with each other for favour or combine to create a third path with impact. We shouldn’t allow the rise of hard power to blind us to the fact that the power of legitimacy, integrity and rules will remain strong if we choose to wield it together.
It means building what we claim to believe in, rather than waiting for the old order to be restored. It means creating institutions and agreements that function as described, and it means reducing the leverage that enables coercion.
That’s building a strong domestic economy. It should be every government’s immediate priority. …
So, Canada. Canada has what the world wants. We are an energy superpower. We hold vast reserves of critical minerals. … And we have the values to which many others aspire. …
The powerful have their power. But we have something, too: the capacity to stop pretending, to name realities, to build our strength at home and to act together.”
I’m just left shaking my head. I’ve been trained in the common law and the rule of order, and I understand to some degree its value, but in law school I always asked: but what if it’s the wrong law?
When I ran for the Assembly of First Nations national chief position and was the first one knocked off the ballot, my good friend and powerful leader Ko’waintco Michel said to me, “Tell them Canada is like an eagle that has two wings. An eagle cannot fly with one broken wing.”
And if the world wants what Canada has, Canada needs to stop pretending and start recognizing that we are in fact the Indigenous Peoples of these lands. We did not immigrate and — worst scenario — we’ve been here for at least 30,000 years and for certain our tenure is stronger than that of the Canadian state! Oh, and some of us have been to law school and still know who we are!
Joan Jack is an Ojibway woman and member of the Berens River First Nation in Manitoba. She is also married and adopted into the Taku River Tlingit First Nation in B.C. She is a mother to many children, a grandmother and auntie to many more. Besides being a lawyer and educator, Joan is an activist and is proud to say stands for Indigenous women always and has most recently created a private Facebook group to bring together Indigenous grandmothers and aunties and her group now has over 20,000 members and an average activity rate of over 80 per cent. Learn more here: www.nakinacall.ca
The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada, or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.
Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.