Did Canada have pass laws/pass system against Indians?

Oh please.

I could find websites which say anything, too.

At the drop of a hat, just like you did.

But here's a question for you: if Canada had a passlaw system, what did a pass look like? Who signed it? Which section of which law was it based upon? What were the penalties? Are there records of people being arrested for violations of these laws?

As I said, above, if you are REALLY interested in who had passbook systems, (and you know, not just spouting propaganda points) you might wish to take a look at the USSR, which DID have such a system. I know that isn't a convenient fact for you, but reality bites:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_passport

quote:An internal passport is an identification document issued in some countries. Its main purpose is similar to that of an identity card, however in some countries internal passports had other restrictive functions. Examples of countries that used or use internal passports include Russia (modern as well as Imperial Russia), the former Soviet Union and, currently, North Korea

quote: In particular, passports were used to control and monitor the place of residence by means of propiska, a regulation in the Soviet Union designed to control internal population movement by binding a person to his or her permanent place of residence.

Listen sonny, you claimed in the previous thread that Canada had a passbook system like South Africa.

Actually, the South African system had more in common with the Soviet system. That is uncomfortable for you, I know. I forgive you for namecalling, it is far from your worst flaw, God knows!

But go ahead, tell me about the number of arrests in Canada for violation of this nonexistent passbook law, and let me know where I can look up the sentences imposed by the courts enforcing this system.

Why, you might even show me where I can see the passes that were supposedly issued under this system! I mean, even you know what is meant by evidence, right?

Hey, good idea!

And I'll put yours under the Great Stalin's Little Helper file.

Actually, all of yours fit under that title.

Now what about the evidence of the passbook law?

OK, let me get this straight. You want evidence of an illegal law? A statute, perhaps? Ahahahahahahahaha! Ohohohohoho! Hehehehehehe!

Jeff, you lightweight. Go play with the Conservatives, or something.

babble is for the big kids who don't soil their underwear or reach for sidearms when we hear the word "socialism" or "communism" or any other "ism" that's out there.

Is this a bait, or is there actually some uncertainty about there having been a pass system for Indians?

My dad lived through the pass system. You couldn't sell anything without first obtaining permissions from the local Indian Agent. You couldn't even go look for firewood. You had to get a permit to slaughter your own livestock for food. You needed a pass to visit friends on other reserves.

Those Indian Agents were usually bratty, snot-nosed, beaurocrat's sons. But what could our ancestors do? A few of our past community members spent time in penitentiaries because of the lack of permits. My mushom (grandfather) did time in a pen for slaghtering on of his steers.

Please do some self educating.

Nasty thread that should be closed and Jeff, I cannot understand you at all anymore. I am seriously wondering just what the hell is going on with you.

An apology for the way you behaved in this thread would be welcome.

My Uncle has told me a number of stories of having lived during the pass system, whereby he could be stopped by RCMP or Indian Agents at any time while off reserve, and could be arrested if he could not produce his pass and account for his whereabouts.

Jeff, this forum is not for your turgid debates about communism, and you could perhaps stand to listen to accounts from Aboriginal people on issues that you know little about. I will not be closing the thread at this stage, in case some FN people or allies want to add something valid, but I want to see this discussion resume in a more respectful manner.

[ 15 May 2008: Message edited by: Makwa ]

Thank you Makwa, I just saw this documentary, I think it speaks to the issue, and more:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6637396204037343133

The pass system exists today, only in different forms.

Sure I can drive to Ottawa, but to cross the border I need "your" passport.

Sure I can recieve Medical Care, only using "your" health card.

Sure I can buy a lion, but I need "your" permit to keep him.....anyone watching the news should appreciate that attempt at humor..

But seriously, the pass system did exist, and as all governments attempts to eliminate us, have evolved...

quote:Originally posted by SavageInTheCity:
Sure I can drive to Ottawa, but to cross the border I need "your" passport. ... Sure I can recieve Medical Care, only using "your" health card.Oh? Is the Jay Treaty of 1794 not still in effect? And can we not use a status card in lieu of a Provincial Health card? Just wondering, sorry for the drift.

Near the bottom of the page it mentions the pass system. But this more or less explains the totalitarian powers of an Indian Agent had over the local community.

http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ch/rcap/sg/sg25_e.html

I guess that Government of Canada web site pretty much ends this debate. [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]

quote:The notorious pass system was never part of the formal Indian Act regime. It began as a result of informal discussions among government officials in the early 1880s in response to the threat that prairie Indians might forge a pan-Indian alliance against Canadian authorities. Designed to prevent Indians on the prairies from leaving their reserves, its immediate goal was to inhibit their mobility. Under the system, Indians were permitted to leave their reserves only if they had a written pass from the local Indian agent. The agent would often act on the advice of the reserve farm instructor

So, it would seem that pass laws in Canada were not directly a legislated tool of enforcement, but the ad hoc creation of the agents of the government. They made it up, in other words, on the authority invested in them by the state. Interestingly, in the context from which this debate started, that of the Palestinian issue, it is also a fact that much of the day to day running of the occupation is not legislated per se, but in fact the ad hoc will of military officials acting on the authority invested in them by the state.

Therein lies another problem with this kind of thing, since it is essentially an inscrutable, and unchallengable law that's application varies at the discretion of the delegated authority. It has a whole lot of "plausible deniability" therefore, "plausible deniability" being something that the authors of the Apartheid laws in South Africa lost when they tried to make their racism "legal".

My previous summary was more succinct that the one provided by the DIA, I guess.

[ 15 May 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:Originally posted by Cueball:

...So, it would seem that pass laws in Canada were not directly a legislated tool of enforcement, but the ad hoc creation of the agents of the government. They made it up, in other words...[ 15 May 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

This passes/permits were likely an instrument for the administration of the IA. The Minister likely consented to the pass/permit system through a Miniterial order. With the proper research I'm sure that this would be found to be the case.

Neither the Indian Agents, Indian Commissioners, nor Superintendents would have had the authority to one day enforce this system. Although they would have been granted authorities to exercise, it would have been Ministerial authorities that were being delegated and enforced.

Just to clarify: A ministerial order would indeed have been the law. Laws aren't created solely by the parliament of Canada. Ministers can have sweeping authorities if the main legislation permits.

[ 15 May 2008: Message edited by: sknguy ]

Sgt. Colin Campbell Colebrook, the RCM Policeman who was shot by Almighty Voice is still on the RCMP Honour Roll over 100 years after he died trying to enforce the Canadian pass law/pass system.

[ 20 May 2008: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

quote:Originally posted by sknguy:

This passes/permits were likely an instrument for the administration of the IA. The Minister likely consented to the pass/permit system through a Miniterial order. With the proper research I'm sure that this would be found to be the case.

Neither the Indian Agents, Indian Commissioners, nor Superintendents would have had the authority to one day enforce this system. Although they would have been granted authorities to exercise, it would have been Ministerial authorities that were being delegated and enforced.

Just to clarify: A ministerial order would indeed have been the law. Laws aren't created solely by the parliament of Canada. Ministers can have sweeping authorities if the main legislation permits.

[ 15 May 2008: Message edited by: sknguy ]

I agree the minister almost certainly knew, and wisely failed to comment or to make an issue of it when he was told. The minister, and the system thus provided itself with "plausible deniability" that to this day can be used to defend the system, because there was no "law" per se. This thread is an example of this happening.

I have been down this road with Jeff before. My point with him in the past is that the entire system of justice, not just the courts or the laws they apply define the system. Clearly as system that mainly picks up ghetto kids in Compton, is unjust, no matter if the the people themselves are guilty, and the entire system, not just the law itself comprises "the law."

It was the actions of a few wayward individuals, acting beyond the scope of their power, or so it is posed. This is in fact more or less the same arguement often made in defence of Hitler by many latter day Nazis, in terms of his treatement of the Jews of Europe. It is the same arguement that can be made when defenders of the Israeli occupation speak disapprovingly of the military official operating on the authority of martial law.

Plausible deniability is a valuable tool of opression everywhere.

What I think is interesting though, is that the "plausible deniability" disappears and the system iteself is open to challenge on its own terms when it becomes law. And this is the situation under Apartheid in South Africa, where the "pass book" became official, as an act of law. Suddenly, there is a shift, where the system can be challenged on its own terms. It is not an accident that Nelson Mandella was a lawyer.

The loss of plausible deniability was a public relations nightmare for Apartheid.

[ 22 May 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

There are some people with stories about their relatives' experiences with the pass system... but really, they and I may be confusing the pass system with the stories of the regulation on commerce. I've not done any research on this subject, only taken note of the experiences which have been conveyed through conversation.

Come to think of it, the stories I'm aware of have to do with the cases where people required permits and permissions to sell goods or livestock. I've heard of instances were people were restricted in their sales by a specific quota. Mainly at the discretion of the Indian Agent. I have heard one story where someone had spent time in jail for selling too many of his livestock. But I have no details as to the circumstances.

But specific to the pass system, most of those with pass system experience have passed on. I think that while the pass system may have eventually fallen into disuse, other restrictions prevailed for a long time after, like leadership selection, ceremony, and commerce. I think that at one time, even simple community gatherings were controlled. This could have related to ceremonials though.

Hmm... there's probably a lot of dormant knowledge on this out there. Interesting and helpful. Thanks Alex.

BTW, I just remembered that there seems to be a communities out there who are interviewing, researching and documenting their own community's history. I know that members of my own community have a wealth of experiences to yet share.

The Potlatch, banned by the racist Canadian regime in 1885, played a political role of bringing together - for the purpose of decision-making by members of the FN communities - in addition to the roles described by anthropologists and such. So politics and ceremonies overlapped.

I don't want to say ALL potlatches in BC. However, I think it's worth pointing out, if true, that there was more to this ceremony than a status event devoid of any political importance. A FN professor drew this aspect of potlatches to my attention over the past year. And it's important to bear in mind that the (racist) Government of Canada and its Indian Agents were all about preventing, and not just breaking up, anything in which FN peoples came together for any reason whatsoever.

The current strategy seems to be one of supporting "moderate" FN leaders (esp. from the previous Liberal admin in Ottawa) , with the sinister Flanagan in the background wishing for the extinction of Aboriginal title (and everything else Aboriginal) and representing the mostly quiet, and bigotted, Conservative benches.

sknguy II, thanks for your response, and to clarify, there was a separate system to control agricultural sales from FN communities called the Permit System. It's a little confusing, because the term permit and pass are often used to describe the Pass System. The system lasted until at least 1966. There is a permit from 66 at the Saskatchewan Archives in Saskatoon. A large amount of permit receipts are at the Glenbow. Elders have told us that there were long waits in certain Agent's offices for permits that may or may not be granted. It appears that this system likely caused significant economic damage, and an historical audit of it would be important work, but that is beyond the scope of this project. In practice, The system appears to have been formalized by the issuance of two receipts to First Nations farmers, both filled out in advance by the Indian Agent or Farm Instructor, and the price for goods fixed. The FN farmer would then find a buyer for their goods, hand them over, obtain a signature on one of the receipts, and take the receipt back to the Indian Agent, who would then collect the payment from the settler. So no money exchanged hands between the FN farmer and the settler, unless the exchange was not sanctioned by permit and for that offense, it seems some people were led to believe they could be imprisoned - one elder told us that the duration of incarceration was two months. The rationale was much like many policies of the time - intended to protect First Nations people from exploitation by settlers. How this squares against people's right to free commerce, just as the settlers had, and the pressures from some of the settlers not to have First Nations farmers as competitors (many accounts exist of successful ones, and Sarah Carter's "Lost Harvests" is seminal in this area), is where the government transgressed treaty, and First Nations people's fundamental rights to pursue their own economic freedom. The system however is not a first concern of our research, so any stories or documentation anyone has to share would be of great interest. 

N.Beltov, you couldn't be more right. The elders are so precious in terms of this disappearing information, and there were two times last summer when we were suggested elders to meet who then passed on that very summer. So it is disappearing fast, but many stories have also been passed down and they need to be accorded the same weight, as you point out, given protocols surrounding oral history. We've also gone looking for former IA officials, particularly Indian Agents, Farm Instructors and their support staff, with little, but some success. They in fact, can know more about the machinations of the Agents on the ground of course, and their motivations. We've also tried to contact former NWMP to obtain their testimony as well, and have found one that remembers the system. Quite often, however, we have come across senior researchers, policy makers and others, whose knowledge of the system is significantly limited or nonexistent. There are many oral history recordings that may prove useful, in many archives across Western Canada, and those may be useful in tracking the Government's policies on the ground. Generally speaking, Government of Canada treatment of FN is a mix of law, policies and practices that were often arbitrarily applied, and what's particularly suspicious about the pass system is how light the surviving documentation is, considering its powerful and illegal control of people. 

Well, this is just an idea, but it might be an interesting and productive idea for a Master's or Doctorate thesis to compare and contrast how some historical crimes and cruelties were well-documented after the fact (Nazis, eg, were great record keepers; English factory inspectors during the industrial revolution got the admiration of one German researcher, Karl Marx; etc) and others were noticeably not well documented. Is this a reflection of a desire to erase the evidence in some cases and indifference to such questions in others? Why the differences? etc.

This relates a little to the Wikileaks issue. Exposing what governments do, routinely and to this day, is generating a lot of venom from those same governments. If Wikikeaks is the beginning of something that will be PERMANENT, then Hallelujah, I say. It may change governments permanently.