Indian Rights for Indian Women

Last updated

Indian Rights for Indian Women (IRIW) was a grassroots activist collective, formed in 1967, that advocated against the gender discrimination in the Indian Act. [1] The group's primary goal was to eradicate Section 12, paragraph 1(b) of the Indian Act, which removed the Indian status of Indigenous women who married non-Indigenous men, and prohibited them from passing status onto their children. Among others, the group was founded by Mary Two-Axe Earley, Kathleen Steinhauer and Nellie Carlson. IRIW used the voices of many Indigenous women who had lost their status across Canada to protest and stand up to the government. Due to their activism, Bill C-31, an amendment to the Indian Act, was implemented in 1985. Bill C-31 protected the status of Indian women and brought the Indian Act in line with the increasing gender equality of the time.

Contents

History

History of Legislation on Indian Women's Status

Although political and governance systems varied across different First Nations, many are matrilineal societies. [1] In others, men were the leaders, and men and women had different roles in society but they were considered equals. With the Indian Act, women lost numerous rights. For example, they lost their equality, as the Indian Act is paternalistic. They lost many of their traditional rights and roles and they lost the right to own property.

Part of the way the Government of Canada legislated Indigenous populations was by assigning Indian status. When assigning status, the Government of Canada disregarded Indigenous systems that were already in place for determining identity and instead used a patrilineal system. [2] This means status was passed down through men. Before total enfranchisement, Indigenous women who married non-Indigenous men did not lose their status. Instead, they kept their status but were labelled as “red ticket holders.” Having this distinction meant that these women were still legal Indians, but they lost all right associated with being Indian, such as having the power to advocate for their rights on the reserve. [3] The concept of status being taken away was first seen in 1869, with the Gradual Enfranchisement Act. For an Indigenous woman to maintain status, she had to marry an Indigenous man. [4] If a non-Indigenous woman married an Indigenous man, she would be designated with Indian status. If an Indigenous woman married a non-Indigenous man, she lost her Indian status, and so did her children. [2] Another example of gender discrimination seen in the Indian Act can be seen with the “double mother” clause. If the child's grandmother on their dad's side, and if their mother only received status from marrying an Indian, they would lose their status at the age of 21. [4] The loss of status led to an imbalance between those with power and those without, which divided itself along gender lines. [4] Indigenous women subject to these gender discriminatory rules set out by the Indian Act had to relocate from the reserve, lost all their rights, and lost their band membership. [3]

Background of Indian Rights for Indian Women

Women's rights movements started to become more relevant and popular in the 1960s and 1970s. Increased activism in Canada was partly in response to government actions, such as the Royal Commission on the Status of Women, and the 1969 White Paper. [3] Internationally, the Women's Liberation Movement began to gain ground in the 60s. There was a notable court case proceeding in Canada at this time as well, as Jeanette Corbière Lavell had brought an action against the Canadian government for discrimination under the Indian Act, after she had lost her status for marrying a non-Indigenous man. [5] Around this time, Indian women in Canada took advantage of the trend of activism and started to collectivize in the fight for their rights. [6]

Before the solidification of the group known as Indian Rights for Indian Women, there were regional political activist groups that preceded it. One of these was a group called Equal Rights for Indian Women, which was formed in 1967 by Mohawk activist Mary Two-Axe Earley in Quebec. [7] Likewise, Nellie Carlson and Kathleen Steinhauer founded a group in Alberta for the particular purpose of combating the discriminatory Indian Act, calling themselves the Ad Hoc Committee on Indian Women's Rights in the early days. [8] Another contributing group was Voice of Alberta Indian Women.

Formerly Nellie Makokis, Nellie Carlson married Elmer Carlson in 1947. [9] The government revised the Indian Act in 1951, ruling that women who married non-Indian men, and their children, were no longer status Indians, and could not live on reserve. [10] Similarly, when Mary Two-Axe Earley married an Irish-American electrical engineer in New York, she lost her Indian Status. [11] Earley held a fellow Mohawk woman named Florence in her arms as she died, and believed her cause of death to have been the stress of losing her status and being ordered to sell her house and leave the reserve. [6] Additionally, after her marriage to Gordon Margetts in 1960, Jenny Shirts Margetts lost her treaty rights and status to Saddle Lake Cree Nation. [12] The effects of the Indian Act on these women would act as motivation for their founding of the Indian Rights for Indian Women group.

Founding

Prior Indian women's rights groups coalesced and resulted in the formation of Indian Rights for Indian Women in 1967. [6] In the late 1960s, Kathleen Steinhauer wrote to several other women who she thought might be opposed to Section 12(I)(b) of the Indian Act. She contacted Jeannette Corbière Lavell, Jean Cuthand and Mary Small Face Marule to gauge their support. [13] She describes a meeting resulting from these messages as follows:

Then one day Marie rang up and said: "Call your women together. I'm coming to Edmonton." So I called Nellie and Nellie phoned Jenny Margetts and Myrtle Calahasen. We met here, and sat around this table. Gordon Margetts, Jenny's husband, was here. Some guys came here to listen. Marie was very supportive. She got us started. "This is what you must do," she said. She wrote it all down for us, the legal resolutions, all of it. And we were off.

— Kathleen Steinhauer, describing an early meeting, pg. 60

A meeting of the Voice of Alberta Indian Women group was held in Saskatoon in March 1968. In attendance were all of the founders except for Nellie Carlson, who had pneumonia: Steinhauer, Earley, Lavell, Marule, Margetts, and Monica Turner, who went on to become the group's first Eastern president. [14]

Earley and Margetts took on the roles of co-presidents immediately. [7] The Alberta end of the organization, consisting primarily of Carlson, Margetts and Steinhauer, began to work with leading male Indigenous activists to foreground the issue of gender discrimination. [7] Marie Small Face Marule, mentioned in the quote from Steinhauer above, was the executive director of the National Indian Brotherhood when Steinhauer wrote to her, and became an integral member of the group in the early days. [8]

Goals

The primary goal of Indian Rights for Indian Women was always to end Section 12 (I)(b) of the Indian Act, the section that mandated the loss of Indian status for women who married non-Indian men. [15]

Subsidiary goals of the group included obtaining the rightful Indian Band assets that the government stripped from them through the Indian Act. [8]

The group faced pressure from national women's groups, including the Native Women's Association of Canada, to expand their focus to other important issues, such as foster care. However, the group remained steadfastly focused on Section 12(I)(b) of the Indian Act. [16]

Challenges

Indian Rights for Indian Women often faced opposition. As Kathleen Steinhauer stated, "A lot of our difficulties were within our own communities, from our own people." [17] Some felt as though changing the section on gender and marriage in the Indian Act would make the treaties invalid or even destroy them, and that the reserve lands would be taken away as a result of the group's advocacy. [18] The group faced opposition from its very inception, and only survived due to the determination of its founders. A major source of opposition came from women who had married into band membership. According to the Steinhauer, at the time, these women felt threatened by the advocacy of the women who had married out of their band membership. [19] Many well known Cree women were against them in the early days, including Agnes Bull and Helen Gladue.

Nellie Carlson cites opposition from the women's own families and close friends. Her own grandparents, and band councillors on her reserve, punished her for speaking out. [18] The women often faced aggressive opposition, especially from Indigenous men, who referred to them as "squaw libbers". [20] Kathleen Steinhauer cited opposition to the goals of Indian Rights for Indian Women from her own parents. [16]

Another significant challenge the group faced was funding. Since IRIW was a collective made up of non-status Indigenous women, the government did not fund them like other Indian organizations. [21] Much of their funding was regularly in jeopardy as a result of concerns that the finances were not being handled well. In the early days, the group didn't have much money for lobbying, conferences, or significant organizing. What the group did have came mainly from family allowance cheques from the government. [19] Long-distance phone calls fell to Nellie Carlson, who received money from her husband to do so. [19]

Achievements

A large achievement of Indian Rights for Indian Women was that this was a national activist group that fought for rights for nearly 20 years. [3] Important protests took place in the late 1970s and early 1980s. In 1977, Bill C-25 was passed in the House of Commons and sent to the Senate for review. [1] This proposed bill had the intention of amending the Indian Act but made no reference to marital or gender discrimination. Due to the strong condemning of this bill to the committees reviewing it, IRIW gained support from those, especially women, in Parliament. [21] Their protesting gained significant attention nationally and also from government members, such as Gordon Fairweather, the Human Rights Commissioner, who publicly voiced their support that the Indian Act needed to be amended. [21]

Along with protesting, IRIW drafted a policy paper during a large conference in Alberta 1978. [21] This paper discussed ways to define an Indian using a quarter blood-quantum, as this would be gender-neutral. It also proposed giving back status to the women who became enfranchised as well as all the Indian rights they lost.

An almost-success can be seen with Bill C-47, which was introduced by the Liberals and was intended as a non-discriminatory amendment to the Indian Act. [1] This was the first attempt at a change to the Indian Act that would have taken gender discrimination into account. This is a success as the protesting and hard work of IRIW led to the acknowledgement of the discrimination Indigenous women faced, and a concrete step taken by the government in attempting to fix it. However, once the bill reached senate, it was voted against.

Despite this first loss with Bill C-47, in 1985, a major achievement was made as the government passed Bill C-31. [21] [22] This bill included an amendment to section 12(I)(b) of the Indian Act to eliminate gender discrimination. With this new legislation, women who lost their status, and their children, were allowed to re-obtain it, and from then on, women would not lose their status if they married a non-Indigenous man. [2] Non-Indigenous women would also no longer gain status if they married an Indian man. Also, although the government was still in control of the legal status of Indians, Bill C-31 allowed band-membership to be controlled by the First Nations bands. Additionally, Bill C-31 outlined the different types of status, which are 6(1), in which both parents of the person are status Indians, and 6(2), in which only one parent has status. [21] [22]

Outcomes

One of the main outcomes of IRIW's activism and advocacy, which is the creation of Bill C-31, led to more than 100 000 women and their children to either get their status back or be given status. [23]

Although Indian Rights for Indian Women fought for rights for Indigenous women, and the group played a big role in the implementation of Bill C-31, another outcome is that gender discrimination in the Indian Act did not stop despite the group's efforts. With this legislation, a new concept was created, called the 'second generation cut-off,' which was supposed to be non-discriminatory based on gender. [24] In this cut-off, if two consecutive generations of status Indians, no matter what gender, married a non-status Indian, the third generation, or the grandchild, would not have status. [25] This still included gender discrimination as the children of a woman who regained status after Bill C-31 would have 6(2) status, meaning that they would not be able to pass on their status to their children. [22] For men, their children would have 6(1) status, meaning that their grandchildren would also have either 6(1) status, or 6(2) status, as the men never lost their status before 1985, and their wives gained status even if they were not Indigenous. [26]

Also, with bands being able to control their own membership, IRIW feared that although there was less legal gender discrimination, that women would be discriminated against within their own bands, as the bands would be able to decide who has band membership and rights. [21]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Discrimination</span> Prejudicial treatment based on membership in a certain group

Discrimination is the process of making unfair or prejudicial distinctions between people based on the groups, classes, or other categories to which they belong or are perceived to belong, such as race, gender, age, religion, physical attractiveness or sexual orientation. Discrimination typically leads to groups being unfairly treated on the basis of perceived statuses based on ethnic, racial, gender or religious categories. It involves depriving members of one group of opportunities or privileges that are available to members of another group.

First Nations is a term used to identify Indigenous peoples in Canada who are neither Inuit nor Métis. Traditionally, First Nations in Canada were peoples who lived south of the tree line, and mainly south of the Arctic Circle. There are 634 recognized First Nations governments or bands across Canada. Roughly half are located in the provinces of Ontario and British Columbia.

<i>Indian Act</i> 1876 Canadian act of Parliament

The Indian Act is a Canadian Act of Parliament that concerns registered Indians, their bands, and the system of Indian reserves. First passed in 1876 and still in force with amendments, it is the primary document that defines how the Government of Canada interacts with the 614 First Nation bands in Canada and their members. Throughout its long history, the act has been a subject of controversy and has been interpreted in different ways by both Indigenous Canadians and non-Indigenous Canadians. The legislation has been amended many times, including "over five major changes" made in 2002.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Transgender rights in Canada</span> Rights of transgender individuals in Canada

Transgender rights in Canada, including procedures for changing legal gender and protections from discrimination, vary among provinces and territories, due to Canada's nature as a federal state. According to the 2021 Canadian census, 59,460 Canadians identify as transgender. Canada was ranked third in Asher & Lyric's Global Trans Rights Index in 2023.

Human rights in Australia have largely been developed by the democratically elected Australian Parliament through laws in specific contexts and safeguarded by such institutions as the independent judiciary and the High Court, which implement common law, the Australian Constitution, and various other laws of Australia and its states and territories. Australia also has an independent statutory human rights body, the Australian Human Rights Commission, which investigates and conciliates complaints, and more generally promotes human rights through education, discussion and reporting.

Mary Sandra Lovelace Nicholas is a former Canadian senator representing New Brunswick. Sitting with the Progressive Senate Group, she was the first Indigenous woman appointed to the Senate. As an activist on behalf of First Nations women and children, she received international recognition in 1979 for bringing her case to the United Nations Human Rights Committee. In 1985 she succeeded in having Parliament revoke a discriminatory section of the Indian Act, which had caused women marrying non-Aboriginals to lose status and also deprived their children of status but did not treat men the same who married non-Aboriginal women.

<i>Canada (AG) v Lavell</i> 1974 Supreme Court of Canada case

Canada (AG) v Lavell, [1974] S.C.R. 1349, was a landmark 5–4 Supreme Court of Canada decision holding that Section 12(1)(b) of the Indian Act did not violate the respondents' right to "equality before the law" under Section 1 (b) of the Canadian Bill of Rights. The two respondents, Lavell and Bédard, had alleged that the impugned section was discriminatory under the Canadian Bill of Rights by virtue of the fact that it deprived Indian women of their status for marrying a non-Indian, but not Indian men.

The history of feminism in Canada has been a gradual struggle aimed at establishing equal rights. The history of Canadian feminism, like modern Western feminism in other countries, has been divided by scholars into four "waves", each describing a period of intense activism and social change. The use of "waves" has been critiqued for its failure to include feminist activism of Aboriginal and Québécois women who organized for changes in their own communities as well as for larger social change.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Human rights in Canada</span>

Human rights in Canada have come under increasing public attention and legal protection since World War II. Prior to that time, there were few legal protections for human rights. The protections which did exist focused on specific issues, rather than taking a general approach to human rights.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Women's suffrage in Canada</span>

Women's suffrage in Canada occurred at different times in different jurisdictions to different demographics of women. Women's right to vote began in the three prairie provinces. In 1916, suffrage was earned by women in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta. The federal government granted limited war-time suffrage to some women in 1917 and followed with full suffrage in 1918, at least, granting it on same basis as men, that is, certain races and status were excluded from voting in federal elections prior to 1960.

Saddle Lake Cree Nation is a Plains Cree, First Nations community, located in the Amiskwacīwiyiniwak region of central Alberta, Canada. The Nation is a signatory to Treaty 6, and their traditional language is Plains Cree.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Michel Band</span>

The Michel Band is an Indigenous nation of central Alberta, Canada, which the Government of Canada recognized as a nation and treaty partner from 1878 to 1958. The descendants of that historic band, now organized as an association called the Michel First Nation, are engaged in legal and political action to regain recognition.

<i>An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code</i> Canadian federal law relating to gender identity

An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code is a law passed in 2017 by the Parliament of Canada. It was introduced as Bill C-16 of the first session of the 42nd Parliament. The law adds gender expression and gender identity as protected grounds to the Canadian Human Rights Act, and also to the Criminal Code provisions dealing with hate propaganda, incitement to genocide, and aggravating factors in sentencing.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mary Two-Axe Earley</span> Mohawk and Oneida womens rights activist

Mary Two-Axe Earley was a Mohawk and Oneida women's rights activist from the reserve of Kahnawake in Quebec, Canada. After losing her legal Indian status due to marrying a non-status man, Two-Axe Earley advocated for changes to the Indian Act, which had promoted gender discrimination and stripped First Nations women of the right to participate in the political and cultural life of their home reserves.

Sharon Donna Mclvor is a leading Aboriginal women's rights activist, a member of the Lower Nicola Band and is a Thompson Indian. She challenged the government of Canada in a landmark case regarding sex-based discrimination among Indigenous women and children.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Marie Smallface Marule</span> Canadian academic administrator, activist, and educator

Marie Smallface Marule was a Canadian academic administrator, activist, and educator. She served as executive director of the National Indian Brotherhood (NIB), chief administrator of the World Council of Indigenous Peoples (WCIP), and secretary of the Indian Association of Alberta. Marule was president of Red Crow Community College for two decades, and led the creation of several indigenous studies programs. She was previously an assistant professor of Native American studies at the University of Lethbridge.

The Indigenous Famous Six was created by The Feminist Alliance for International Action for the purpose of advocating for Indigenous women's rights. This collective action by six Indigenous women is similar to the collective effort taken by the "Famous Five" that gained Canadian women the right to vote. Collectively the Indigenous Famous Six were active in challenging the sex discrimination in the Indian Act in Canada during the twentieth and twenty-first centuries.

Lillian Shirt was a Cree women's rights activist from Saddle Lake Cree Nation in Treaty 6 Territory, Alberta, Canada who was known for her political initiative against the discrimination towards Indigenous women and their inadequate access to housing, employment, and human rights.

Jenny Margetts was an Indigenous woman who advocated for women and children.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Lynn Gehl</span> Algonquin author and activist (born 1962)

Lynn Gehl is an Algonquin Anishinaabe-kwe from the Ottawa River Valley, Ontario, Canada. She is a writer, blogger and Indigenous human rights advocate. Gehl was involved in legal challenges aimed at eliminating the continued sex discrimination in the Indian Act. She is also an outspoken critic of the contemporary land claims and self-government process, as well as Indigenous issues in Canada. In April 2017, Gehl was successful in defeating Indian and Northern Affairs Canada’s unstated paternity policy when the Court of Appeal for Ontario ruled the sex discrimination in the policy was unreasonable.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 Two-Axe Earley, M.  (1994). Indian Rights for Indian Women. In H. Dagenais & D. Piche (Eds.) Women, feminism and development / Femmes, Féminisme et Développement (pp. 429-433). Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press.
  2. 1 2 3 Grammond, S. (2009). Discrimination in the rules of Indian status and the McIvor case. Queen's Law Journal, 35(1), 421.
  3. 1 2 3 4 Carlson, N., Steinhauer, K., Goyette, L., & Campbell, M. (2013). Disinherited Generations: Our Struggle to Reclaim Treaty Rights for First Nations Women and their Descendants. Edmonton, AB: The University of Alberta Press. 55-56.
  4. 1 2 3 Lawrence, B. (2003). Gender, race, and the regulation of Native identity in Canada and the United States: An overview. Hypatia, 18(2), 3-31.
  5. ↑ "Jeannette Corbiere Lavell, Lifetime Achievement (2020)". Indspire. 2020. Retrieved October 28, 2020.
  6. 1 2 3 Carlson, N. et al., 56.
  7. 1 2 3 Carlson, N. et al., 57.
  8. 1 2 3 Carlson, N. et al., 61.
  9. ↑ Carlson, N. et al., 28.
  10. ↑ Carlson, N. et al., 32.
  11. ↑ Robinson, Amanda (March 23, 2017). "Mary Two-Axe Earley". The Canadian Encyclopedia. Retrieved October 28, 2020.
  12. ↑ Carlson, N. et at., 71-72.
  13. ↑ Carlson, N. et al., 60.
  14. ↑ Carlson, N. et al., 63.
  15. ↑ Carlson, N. et al., 58.
  16. 1 2 Carlson, N. et al., 68.
  17. ↑ Carlson, N. et al., 70.
  18. 1 2 Carlson, N. et al., 67.
  19. 1 2 3 Carlson, N. et al., 66.
  20. ↑ "Nellie Carson School: School Profile". Edmonton Public Schools. Retrieved October 28, 2020.
  21. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Hartley, Gerard (2007). "The search for consensus: A legislative history of Bill C-31, 1969-19851". Aboriginal Policy Research Consortium International (98): 5–34.
  22. 1 2 3 "What is Bill C-31 and Bill C-3?" (PDF). Assembly of First Nations Legal Affairs and Justice. 2020-01-16. Retrieved 2020-10-28.
  23. ↑ "Bill C-31". The Canadian Encyclopedia. May 12, 2020. Retrieved 2020-10-29.
  24. ↑ "Second Generation Cut-Off Rules" (PDF). Assembly of First Nations Legal Affairs and Justice. 2020-01-06. Retrieved 2020-10-28.
  25. ↑ "Remaining inequities related to registration and membership". Government of Canada. 2018-11-28. Retrieved 2020-10-28.
  26. ↑ Conn, Heather (May 6, 2020). "McIvor Case". The Canadian Encyclopedia. Retrieved 2020-10-28.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.