Lecture leads to call by FBI
January 11, 2011 - 3:23pm
A University of Victoria professor of indigenous studies says the FBI called her after she gave a lecture in the United States about Native American land rights.
Waziyatawin, who splits her time between Victoria and her home in Minnesota, is an author, historian and activist for land rights of the Dakota people.
After a lecture at Winona State University in Minnesota on Nov. 8, a student accused her of inciting violence against white people, Waziyatawin told CBC News.
Thanks, Caissa, I was just about to post the same story.
It is very encouraging to note that the U.S. authorities are extremely vigilant when it comes to speech which could lead to violence. Apparently, it's not the legislative vehicles which are lacking.
My prof at U of S who taught a Latin American history class was awesome. One day over coffee he told me he had been offered a tenured job with one of the South's leading universities but he turned it down because he was afraid of being killed if he taught his view of Latin American history in the states.
The white boy complaining is why in Canada you have to be a member of a disadvantaged group to invoke discrimination or Charter remedies. No whiny white frat boys allowed.
The white boy complaining is why in Canada you have to be a member of a disadvantaged group to invoke discrimination or Charter remedies. No whiny white frat boys allowed.
Um You sure about that?
Unionist, I don't care for this drive-by, oblique attack. Of course, if you are going to do it anyway, it would be nice if you at least got my position correct.
The white boy complaining is why in Canada you have to be a member of a disadvantaged group to invoke discrimination or Charter remedies. No whiny white frat boys allowed.
Um You sure about that?
Yup at least according to the SCC. This is the first case on how to interpret the Charter rights sections and sets out the Canadian approach. The crudeness of my non legal internet speak aside what I said above is true. In Human rights law again you have to show on what grounds you have been discriminated against and mere unequal treatment is not sufficient. As well in Canada discrimination is not an actionable tort. The only remedy is through the human rights tribunals.
5. Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 143 (February 2, 1989)
43 votes
The Supreme Court of Canada held (4-2) that legislation which made citizenship a requirement to practice law in British Columbia violated s.15(1) of the Charter and was not saved by s.1.
Section 15 of the Charter was deferred until 1985, and the Supreme Court’s first pronouncement on the equality guarantee, in Andrews v. Law Society of Upper Canada, was met with great anticipation. Several conceptions of equality had been proposed, and it was up to the Court to choose a direction for s.15. That is the context of Mr. Justice McIntyre’s opinion in Andrews, which made fundamental choices about the scope of s.15 and the relationship between the right and its limits under s.1.
The Supreme Court definitively rejected a formal definition of equality based on same treatment in favour of a conception which would focus on remedies for discrimination. In doing so, the Court endorsed an effects-based approach which confirmed s.15’s concern with redressing histories of group-based disadvantage and exclusion. It is notable that the Court limited the scope of s.15 to the grounds enumerated by the guarantee, and to analogous grounds, such as citizenship status.
Even though ten years passed before the Court agreed on a definition of discrimination in Law v. Canada, Andrews chose a model which opened the door to a series of significant decisions under s.15 As one panelist remarked, all that is right and wrong about the s.15 jurisprudence begins with Andrews.
Here's the link. I found it interesting that when I googled to answer your question with a link it came up as one of the top ten cases in Charter law over the first 25 years thus really easy to find.
http://www.thecourt.ca/2007/04/12/top-10-charter-cases-as-revealed-at-th...
I'm pretty sure Richard Warman is neither black nor Asian. Is he FN?
I'm pretty sure Richard Warman is neither black nor Asian. Is he FN?
First of all which Richard Warman do you mean and could you post a link to the case where he has brought an action on his own behave and it was not based on discrimination under enumerated grounds?
Snert if you know so much then share it with links and quotes. I will be waiting to see the cases you cite.
You've never heard of Richard Warman?
Of course but I don't understand how he is germane to this unless you have that cite I asked for. No I did not say Canada has a law that says white males can't be lawyers and bring whatever actions they or their clients please.
Please could you give me some relevance here.
Ahh I was confusing the Charter with Human rights tribunals which anyone can access for unequal treatment. My apologies
Ahh I was confusing the Charter with Human rights tribunals which anyone can access for unequal treatment. My apologies
No only people who have been discriminated against on the grounds set out in the legislation and other grounds the courts find to be analogous.
The home page of the BC Tribunal states:
The Tribunal deals with human rights complaints that arise in British Columbia and are covered by the Human Rights Code. The Tribunal cannot deal with any other type of discrimination. For more information about the Tribunal, see the Tribunal's Guide 1 - The BC Human Rights Code and Tribunal.
The BC Code is at this link. Unfortunately it seems I cannot cut and paste the relevant sections. Of note some of the types of discrimination in this particular Code have slightly different enumerated grounds.
http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/ID/freeside/00_96210_01Sounds more enlightened than Ontario then
Unionist, I don't care for this drive-by, oblique attack. Of course, if you are going to do it anyway, it would be nice if you at least got my position correct.
You seriously believe my post was aimed at you? I was attempting to expose and ridicule, in driveby fashion, the danger of the disgusting hypocritical "Democrats" who are calling for inhibition of freedom of expression in the wake of the Arizona incident. If you misunderstood my intent, my advice would be to try harder.
Sounds more enlightened than Ontario then
They are very similar in fact. The difference is that our right wing Liberals here have disbanded the Commission and left marginalized people with complaints on their own to litigate in front of the tribunal. There are a couple of non-profits who take cases but not a Commission funded by the people to fight on behalf of those discriminated against.
As far as their Ontario Code is concerned it also requires coming within an enumerated ground of discrimination before the Code provisions are triggered. What is the ground of discrimination is the first stage of any inquiry.
DP
Your post had very little to do with this thread topic and suspiciously contained the same contested language from another thread. I'll "try harder" to think that this wasn't about me or others who disagree with you if you "try harder" to recognize why someone might read your above post as a drive-by attack.
Please could you give me some relevance here.
For starters, Warman seems to also be the primary complainant in many of the cases he brings to the HRT, not just a lawyer acting on behalf of someone else.
Anyway, I was originally responding to " in Canada you have to be a member of a disadvantaged group to invoke discrimination or Charter remedies." and I pointed out that Warman isn't a member of any such group, and in fact he's pretty active in this regard. Certainly far moreso than any member of any disadvantaged group. So I'm not sure what I said that's inaccurate.
On November 8th, 2010, Dr. Waziyatawin a well-known Dakota writer, activist and teacher, was invited and presented a talk at Winona State University concerning the brutal realities of the colonization of this continent’s land, its resources, and First Nations People. She also spoke of a common need to restore our environment and a way of living that is not reliant on capitalism and the destruction of nature.The timing of the speech served to reinforce some of her points. At the time she spoke, members of the Dakota Nation were holding a Commemorative March along the route that nearly two thousand Dakota people were forcibly marched in 1862. The march route passes through Winona on its way from Lower Sioux Agency to Fort Snelling, where, over the winter of 1862-1863, those who managed to survive the march itself faced confinement, starvation, disease, rape and (for many), death.
Shortly after Dr. Waziyatawin’s talk, a letter to the editor appeared in the Winona Post accusing Dr. Waziyatawin of making “terroristic threats”. In January 2011, the Federal Bureau of Investigation called Dr. Waziyatawin to question her speech and beliefs.
We, the undersigned, see Dr. Waziyatawin’s Truth Telling as an important and honorable step toward healing the injustice of this land. We maintain that targeting Dr. Waziyatawin for this Truth Telling is a continued abrogation of justice.
Truth Telling is not only about the past - it is also the present and the future. Truth Telling describes not only the harsh realities that First Nations people faced during the initial stages of genocide against them, but also of the long standing efforts of ethnic cleansing: re-location (reservations); boarding schools; forced sterilization; the illegalization of religion, language and culture; decades-long legal battles for recognition from the U.S. government in order to gain access to sacred lands; theft of land, resources, sacred objects and ancestors (burial sites); domestic violence; drug and alcohol abuse; homelessness, incarceration, and racism.
We, the undersigned, also condemn these tactics used by the United States government against human rights as state intimidation. With the Patriot Act today, and the Counter Intelligence Program (COINTELPRO) before it, government agencies have exploited their power in order to disrupt, disenfranchise and “neutralize” movements that struggle for justice and equality. The recent call the FBI made to Dr. Waziyatawin is not an isolated incident, just as the FBI raids and what is now up to at least 23 Grand Jury subpoenas that have been issued since September 2010 in Minneapolis and Chicago - are all indicative of this government’s continued targeting of social justice movements.
We assert that Truth Telling is a necessary step towards reparations, and that reparations are a necessary step towards Indigenous Sovereignty, the healing of our land and all people.
We assert that the U.S. government must recognize and be accountable for the hundreds of treaties it has broken with First Nations.
We condemn the FBI for targeting members of our community for Truth Telling and for working in solidarity with global Indigenous movements.
It is through a united vision of justice for all peoples and a healthier planet that we band together against colonization, imperialism and racism in its many forms.
Towards Justice,
International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network – Twin Cities
Thanks Catchfire.
Sorry for the thread drift but Snert give me a cite to the case that you are relying on. If you don't want to then go away because I don't have time to shadow box with your generalizations. Just explain to me what case of his you mean and how it applies to what I said. You know prove your point not just restate it without evidence or links.
I thought he gave a link? At least it was one that cited his cases and gave legal links in it?
Cites to what? He litigates against nazis and other assholes. He does not bring forward claims that as white man he is being discriminated against. He brings forward complaints that hate speech is endangering the subject groups of that hate speech.
in the context of this thread he would not be able to bring a complaint forward that this FN's academic had engaged in hate speech against white people. That is not how Canadian law works. Now if the asshole frat boys became too violent in their rhetoric about FN's he might have a case against them for inciting hatred. Does that explain it for you?
Can we get back to the thread topic? This thread is not about Richard Warman or the Charter. It is about the state-sanctioned intimidation of a FN-rights activist. Thank you.
It is very encouraging to note that the U.S. authorities are extremely vigilant when it comes to speech which could lead to violence.
Indeed. I feel so safe knowing that everyone's interests are protected.