Frankie Young: Reconciliation Between Members of Christian Communities and Indigenous Nations

Reconciliation Between Members of Christian Communities and Indigenous Nations: Lessons from the Past —Frankie Young

Prof. Frankie Young is a Mi’kmaw woman from Atlantic Canada who teaches at Western Law. Her scholarly research and teaching areas include Indigenous economic development and self-government, the legitimacy of Indigenous laws, trust law, banking and finance law, business law and secured property transactions. After working overseas on Native Title claims in Sydney, Australia from which she received the Saskatchewan Innovation and Opportunity Scholarship, Professor Young worked in the area of specific claims, trusts, secured transactions

and litigation funding. She also served as the Regional Vice President at RBC Wealth Management in the Indigenous Trust Services division where she was responsible for the oversight of the administration of trusts for numerous Indigenous clients throughout Saskatchewan, Alberta, and Atlantic Canada. Professor Young is currently involved as a research partner with the Legal Reform for Indigenous Economic Growth Project, a multi-jurisdictional research initiative involving scholars from Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United States. The mandate of this project is to explore critical legal options for Indigenous economic growth and to make research readily accessible to scholars, lawyers and government and Indigenous policymakers.

18 Summer 2020/Volume 29/Issue 2 christianlegalfellowship.org

In Canada, the concept of reconciliation between Indigenous peoples and the greater Canadian state has raised questions of how to reconcile the legal, political and socioeconomic positions of Indigenous peoples within Canadian society.

More robust discourse has taken place as it relates to human rights issues associated with the violation of land and Aboriginal rights,1 while the historical role that Christian institutions have played in contributing to human rights violations has engaged limited discussion. Prior to the Constitution’s

amendment in 1982 to include the Charter and section 35, a provision that recognizes and affirms Aboriginal rights, there were no explicit constitutional protections for such human rights violations.2 Rather, the limited recourse related to how one could position a division of powers argument. Notwithstanding, significant historical events that deleteriously impacted Indigenous Nations would be considered, by today’s legal standards, serious violations of human rights.

Many are familiar with the human rights violations associated with the establishment of the Indian residential school system in the 1880s when it became mandatory for Indigenous children to attend custodial schools in Canada.

At that time, the government collaborated with Christian missionaries to embolden religious conversion so that Indigenous peoples would become more “civilized”. However, long before this, in 1815, Britain adopted a policy—developed out of the evangelical humanitarian movement that saw missionary work sponsored among Indigenous populations—in which the civilization of Indigenous peoples was a key mandate.3 The Aborigines Protection Society, subsequently established in 1837, persuaded the government of the importance of working in Upper Canada to instruct Indigenous peoples in European civilization.4 Plans for moral and religious improvement were to be combined with purposeful schemes to advance tribes socially.5 While the Society appeared to be guided by humanitarian impulses, its primary motivations were to “promote the spread of civilization among [Indigenous peoples], and to lead them to the peaceful and voluntary reception of the Christian religion”.6 Consequently, the government developed what would at that time be considered “experimental” reserves where the Indigenous population was segregated and instructed in religious matters and agricultural training.7 The idea was that tribes would be sufficiently trained so that they could be assimilated into the greater society as “civilized” human beings void of heathenism and paganism.

In fact, assimilating and civilizing members of tribes were the predominant policy goals of legislation passed in 1857, An Act to Encourage the Gradual Civilization of the Indians in this Province, and to Amend the Laws Respecting Indians.8 After Canada entered into confederation, policies of “civilizing the Indians” persisted. Alexander Morris, the Lieutenant Governor of the District of Keewatin and later Manitoba, noted as much in speaking before Parliament in 1880: [Native people] are wards of Canada, let us do our duty by them […]. Let us have Christianity and civilization to leaven the masses of heathenism and paganism among

the Indian Tribes; let us have a wise and paternal government faithfully carrying out the provisions of our treaties, and doing its utmost to help elevate the Indian population, who have been cast upon our care, and we will have peace, progress, and concord among them […].9 Most notably, government policy that signified oppression and compulsion for Indigenous peoples was affiliated with Christianity. The predominant view was that coercion was required to reform Indigenous peoples from their heathenistic cultures and lifestyles. In fact, in order to force assimilation, Christian missionaries and Indian agents petitioned the federal government to legally abolish Indigenous ceremonies, such as the Potlach which was said to represent the “savagery and depravity of Indians.”10 In 1880, the “Potlach Law” came into effect under the Indian Act, which made it a criminal offense under penalty of law to engage in the Potlach and the Sun Dance ceremonies.

The government and missionaries were of the view that Potlatch ceremonies were unnecessary, extravagant, barriers to assimilation, and a “debauchery of the worst kind”.12 Members of Indigenous communities largely resisted efforts of forced assimilation into EuroCanadian Christian culture.13 However, even before these methodical attempts at “civilizing” Indigenous peoples through religious training, some Indigenous peoples aligned themselves with the Christian faith as early as the 1600s. Indeed, we see an example of this in the Atlantic region where Grand Chief Henri Membertou, a Mi’kmaq Chief from Mi’kmaki (Nova Scotia), was baptised in 1610 along with twenty-two of his family members as a sign of good faith and allegiance to the French.

Nevertheless, there are many more examples of Indigenous peoples’ reception of Christianity as being “masked with hesitation, doubt and even hostility.”14 Therefore, historical examples of religious conversion, such as that of Grand Chief Membertou, cannot be used to minimize the many ways that institutions associated with Christianity (including some government bodies) were complicit in committing human rights violations against members of Indigenous communities.

Through coercion and the imposition of colonial laws, Indigenous culture and spirituality were oppressed. These violations negatively impacted some Indigenous Nations’ and individuals’ views of the kind of spirituality that the missionaries and Christian institutions represented.

What do we know today about how the courts would address the banning of Indigenous ceremonies and forcing assimilation of Indigenous peoples into a dominant Euro-Canadian Christian ethos? In R v Big M Drug Mart Ltd., Justice Dickson, writing for the Supreme Court

19 Summer 2020/Volume 29/Issue 2 christianlegalfellowship.org

BENCHMARK FOR IP Discover a team that is committed to quality and achieving success. With experts in trademark and patent law, Bereskin & Parr LLP provides practical and strategic solutions to help create, manage and enforce worldwide intellectual property portfolios while understanding your business needs. As Canada’s top-tier IP firm, we consistently raise the benchmark for IP law.

In the business of brilliance.

For more information on the services provided, please contact: Timothy Sinnott, Partner 519.783.3212 | tsinnott@bereskinparr.com

bereskinparr.com

of Canada, emphasized the role of the state as one that must “accommodate a wide variety of beliefs, diversity of tastes and pursuits, customs and codes of conduct” as it relates to freedom of religion and religious equality.15 Justice Dickson further held that citizens who hold contrary views to the majority are entitled to hold fast to their religious beliefs, and should not suffer from the imposition of the views of majoritarian religious groups, or the state acting on their behalf; unlike periods in history that saw the imposition of laws such as the Potlach Law, the Charter safeguards the rights of religious minorities from oppression by the majority.16 More recently in 2017, though not a freedom of religion claim, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice dealt with a specific Indigenous claim related to the loss of Indigenous identity. In Brown v Canada (Attorney General), Justice Belobaba held that the Crown had a common law duty of care to take reasonable steps to ensure that Indigenous children in Ontario, who were placed in non-Indigenous foster or adoptive homes, did not lose their Indigenous identity; it was held that the Crown had breached this duty.17 This decision recognizes the insidious impact on identity when children are torn from their Indigenous culture and spirituality. While there is still much progress to be made, these

20 Summer 2020/Volume 29/Issue 2 christianlegalfellowship.org

kinds of decisions demonstrate a marked departure from the kind of outcomes we would have seen in the first 150 years of Indian policy.

While the rule of law has a role to play in justice outcomes, how members of the Church work to reconcile this relationship and thus contribute to the healing of Indigenous communities is also essential. Arguably, for Christians in contemporary times, unjust historical policies should be reconciled with an alternative approach to Indigenous rights issues that is discerning of injustice in a manner inherently consistent with true Christianity.

Such an alternative approach will provide a pathway for reconciling Christian communities with Indigenous communities. There are several things that Christians – and in particular, Christian lawyers – could be more mindful of.

First, if Christians are to truly demonstrate the love that Jesus stands for, then the deeper function of justice requires accountability for the role that representatives of the “Church” have played in impacting the personhood of numerous Indigenous persons, thus impacting communities as a whole. The debilitation of Indigenous personhood by members of Christian institutions has left a legacy of mistrust, fear, hate, and deeply rooted pain in the lives of numerous Indigenous peoples. While several

churches have extended apologies, including the United, Anglican, Presbyterian, Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada, and Oblates of Mary Immaculate churches, the role of individual Christians is vital going forward. On this note, some churches have established specific Indigenous ministries to facilitate healing in this historically broken relationship.18 This is key and emulates more concrete ways that individual Christians can contribute to helping Indigenous peoples heal from past trauma which some Christian institutions were instrumental in perpetuating.

The role of Christian lawyers is particularly nuanced because of the privilege of working within the legal system as ambassadors of the justice-focused gospel (Luke 21:15). Christian lawyers should be guided by a balance between accountability, justice and love. Luke 12:48b (NKJV) implores Christians to be mindful that “[f]or everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more.”

Further, Proverbs 21:15 (NKJV) entreats us to embrace justice because “[i]t is a joy for the just to do justice, but destruction will come to the workers of iniquity.”

How might Christians balance this responsibility for doing justice with love? I have always found it particularly troublesome when Christians have attempted to hold the world to the same standard as members of the Church.

Paul guards against holding non-believers to the standard of believers in 1 Corinthians 5:12 (NKJV) when he inquires of the brothers and

1

sisters, “[f]or what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside?” The Church’s history with Indigenous peoples is a good example of Christians judging non-Christians by the standard of the Church.

It very well may be true that while few people have been judged into making changes in life, many have been loved into it.19 It is essential for Christians to build healthy relationships which embrace inclusivity with Indigenous peoples, as some churches have begun to do.

Further, given that some Indigenous peoples and communities are now Christian, the need for reconciliation, with its biblical roots as between God and Humanity, implores Christians to embrace the possibility that Indigenous interpretations of scripture can add value to the Church in meaningful and diverse ways. Rather than reject Indigenous culture outright as counter to Christianity, one may find that in significant ways Indigenous theology parallels key precepts of Christianity grounded in the Bible.20 For example, Indigenous theology embraced by many Indigenous Nations in the tenets of the seven sacred teachings–love, respect, courage, wisdom, truth, honesty, and humility–relate to parallel teachings found in Scripture (for example, see I Corinthians 13; 1 Peter 2:17; Deuteronomy 31:6; James 1:5; John 8:32; Proverbs 11:1; Proverbs 29:23). To encourage reconciliation with Indigenous peoples, I hearten Christian lawyers, who have a particular interest in justice, to consider how Indigenous perspectives may support diversity in Christian thought.

Constitution Act, 1982, s 35, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11; Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11.

2 Although sections 93 and 133 of the Constitution did and does provide protection for minority education and language rights. Constitution Act, 1867 (UK), 30 & 31 Vict, c, ss 93, 133, reprinted in RSC 1985, App II, No 5.

3 Ivan B Johnson, Helping Indians to Help Themselves – A Committee to Investigate Itself: The 1951 Indian Consultation Process (Canada: Treaties and Historical Research Centre, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, 1984) at 3.

4 R.J. Surtees, The Development of Indian Reserve Policy In Upper Canada (Ontario History Vol. CXI, June 1969) at 87-90.

5 Kenneth D. Nworah, “The Aborigines’ Protection Society, 1889-1909: A Pressure-Group in Colonial Policy” (1971) 5:1 Canadian Journal of African Studies 79 at 80.

6 Ibid at 79.

7 Johnson, supra note 3 at 3.

8 SC 1857, c 26.

9 Alexander Morris, “The Treaties of Canada with the Indians of Manitoba and the NorthWest Territories” (Toronto: 1880) at 296-7 (emphasis added).

10 Tina Loo, “Dan Cranmer’s Potlatch: Law as Coercion, Symbol, and Rhetoric in British Columbia, 1884-1951” (1992) 73:2 Can Historical Rev 125 at 128-9.

11 An Act Further to Amend “The Indian Act, 1880”, SC 1884, c 27, s 3: “(3) Every Indian or other person who engages in or assists in celebrating the Indian festival known as the ‘Potlach’ or in the Indian dance known as the ‘Tamanawas’ is guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than six nor less than two months in any gaol or other place of confinement; and any Indian or other person who encourages, either directly or indirectly, an Indian or Indians to get up such a festival or dance, or to celebrate the same, or who shall assist in the celebration of the same is

guilty of a like offence, and shall be liable to the same punishment.”

12 Indian and Northern Affairs, Historical Development of the Indian Act (1978), Treaties and Historical Research Centre, P.R.E. Group; and Judge Alfred Scow, Royal Commission of Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP), Transcriptions of Public Hearings and Round Table Discussions, 1992-1993.

13 A notable example of resistance to such laws occurred in 1921 when ‘Namgis Chief Dan Cranmer held a six day Potlatch ceremony on Village Island (in order to hide from the Indian Agents and missionaries). Over forty-five people were arrested and twenty-two jailed. At that time, numerous priceless ceremonial items, including masks and regalia, were confiscated and later ended up in museums around the world. Loo, supra note 10.

14 Olivia Patricia Dickason, “Review of Moon of Wintertime: Missionaries and the Indians of Canada in Encounter since 1534, by John Webster Grant” (1985) 66:2 The Canadian Historical Review 267 at 267.

15 R v Big M Drug Mart Ltd, [1985] SCJ No 17 at para 94. Note that although this case engaged religious equality nuances, it did not specifically deal with section 15 per se.

16 Ibid at para 96.

17 Brown v Canada (Attorney General), 2017 ONSC 251.

18 For example, see the Presbyterian Church in Canada, “Ministries with Indigenous People”, online: <http://presbyterian.ca/canadian-ministries/native-ministries/>; the Anglican Church of Canada, “Indigenous Ministries” (2018), online: <https://www.anglican.ca/im/>; The Mennonite Church Canada, “Indigenous Relations – Overview” (2017), online: <http:// home.mennonitechurch.ca/indigenous>; and The Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada, “Indigenous Canadians”, online: <https://paoc.org/donate/priorityindigenouscanadians>.

19 Carey Nieuwhof, “Why Christians Should Let Non-Christians off the Moral Hook” (2016), online: <https://careynieuwhof.com/blog/>.

20 John W. Frieson, Aboriginal Spirituality and Biblical Theology: Closer Than You Think (Brush Education: Edmonton, 2000).

21 Summer 2020/Volume 29/Issue 2 christianlegalfellowship.org