On April 2nd, and 3rd, 1996, a First Nations International Court of Justice (FNICJ) was held in Ottawa to prosecute the government of Canada on violations of treaty, aboriginal and international human rights. In particular the Prime Minister was indicted for violations of the treaty, aboriginal, human and international rights of the First Nations citizens, including taxes and unlawfully seizing First Nations lands and resources.

The FNICJ is composed of seven indigenous tribunal judges from the four directions. They include Jim Dumont, Anishnabek Nation; Irene Watson, Tanganekald Nation; Moana Jackson, Ngati Kahungunu / Ngati Porou Nation; John Mohawk, Seneca Nation; Tupac Enrique, Xicano-Nahuatl Nation, Jeanette Armstrong, Okanagan Nation; and Leroy Littlebear, Blood Nation. The Prosecution legal team is also an all-indigenous group headed by Sharon Venne.

The Witnesses who presented evidence to support the indictment included Chief Oren Lyons, Onondaga Nation; Margarita Guitierrez, Hnahnu Nation, Chiapas, Mexico; Lavina White, Haida Nation; Darryl Beaulieu, Dene Nation and Ward Churchill, Cherokee/Creek Nation.

The Court is a direct expression of our right of self determination and inherent right to govern that First Nations peoples have held and consistently advocated during the earliest treaties with the settler governments. it is result of the inability for First Nations to receive justice in Canada as recently recognized by the Royal commission on Aboriginal Peoples. The Commission called the Canadian justice system a Acrushing failure because of oppression and systemic discrimination and Athe effects of colonialism which have systematically undermined the social, cultural and economic foundations of aboriginal peoples.

There is, however, a long history explaining how the necessity for this court came about. It starts with our earliest relationships with the euro-Canadian governments.

Who we are

Across the continent many different First Nations exist, each with their own spirituality, territory, language and culture. Despite these fundamental differences, however, we share many similarities, particularly in terms of how we view our original relationships with Canada. For example, when European settlers first arrived on our lands, we acted accordance with our instructions and attempted to live with each other in friendship and peaceful coexistence. We acknowledged each other as sovereign nations and many of us entered into agreements or treaties with the European governments in order to establish and define our relationships more clearly. It is important to remember, however, that none of our treaties stated that we were relinquishing, diminishing or extinguishing our inherent rights to govern ourselves and our futures.

Our original nation to nation relationships and treaty agreements have never been pealed, abandoned or forgotten. All parties to the treaties including the Creator as witness continue to exist. They must, therefore, continue to exist today. Any assertions by Canada that state otherwise can only be based upon a systemic process of false and racist assumptions. We need to remind ourselves of this fact and state it clearly whenever Canada attempts to block us in the implementation of our inherent rights. we already possess full powers to govern and control ourselves, our lands and our resources - it is time we took action to ensure that this reality is reflected in our communities.

Political - Legal Collusion

Over time, First Nations have come to learn that there was a weakness in our processes to uphold the treaties. There was no process provided to renew or update the relationship in contemporary terms. Instead, Canada manipulates their legal system to interpret the treaty relationship and to place it in their domestic legislation such as the Indian Act. These external legal systems were used to validate the theft of our lands based on case-precedent. Since the earliest decisions of the British courts dealing with our rights, First Nations were not present to defend themselves or their rights. In fact, until 1951, it was illegal under Canadian law for Indians to hire lawyers to defend their land rights issues and conflicts. As well, this system of common law revived an outdated concept which is known as a Ausufructuary right. this concept is s mere Aright to take the fruit of the land but not own the land and has formed the basis for the unilateral and wholesale seizure of our lands. Case precedent has also condoned doctrines of discovery, cession and extinguishment.

We must acknowledge that the federal government has no intention of honouring its treaty obligations or of living up to the relationship recognized by the treaties. The court system continues to grind out decisions which are still consistent with their earliest or justified their assertion of jurisdiction over us or shown how they acquired legitimate title to our lands and sovereignty over our peoples. Our peoples know that Canada can never do this and they continue to resist Canada's domination and interference over First Nation peoples and territories.

Failure of the Canadian Court System

First Nation have consistently attempted to have their rights recognized by both the federal and provincial governments and by the Canadian courts. The courts, however, have consistently denied the existence of our rights or have recognized them and then watered them down. Even landmark cases such as the Sparrow decision recognize our rights and in the same breath state they can be extinguished. Canadian courts cannot be their very nature even begin to comprehend or First Nations concepts of law or justice. They are based on other cultures, British common law and French civil codes, which are totally foreign and irrelevant to First Nations peoples and cultures. they are also based on an adversarial system which forces win-lose solutions versus Fist Nations systems which seek conflict resolution through consensus and which produces win-win solutions. Even when Canada's Supreme Court has ruled in our favour Canadian government can ignore their rulings and interpret them as they see fit.

After losing the population and technological advantage necessary to enforce our rights, First Nations have realized that there are limited ways to effect change. Relying on the good will and the honour of the Crown to fulfill its treaty promises has not worked. Negotiation, Canadian courts and international pressure have all been tried to force the Canadian governments to live up to their moral and legal obligations. However, in 1969 the federal government responded by attempting to terminate First Nations through a AWhite Paper policy which serves ultimately only to strengthen the resolve of the First Nations to organize and press our claims more vigorously.

Since the late 1970s First Nations have attempted to negotiate changes to Canada's highest law - its Constitution - to force Canada to live up to its commitments. While achieving a recognition in 1982 of our aboriginal and treaty rights, Canadian governments continue to violate our rights and freedoms with impunity. They also refuse to return the land or to pay a fair return on the proceeds made from First Nations resources stolen through the treaties and other fraudulent means.

In releasing its policy paper on self government, Canada demonstrated that it has no intention of honouring our treaties and status as self determining nations through the introduction of the federal Inherent Right Policy. There is nothing inherent about this policy which clearly sets out the government agenda to define us as municipal level government whose rights and powers come from and are based upon the consent of the federal and provincial governments. It is plain that the policy is intended to rid the federal government of any fiduciary obligation for First Nations peoples and transfer responsibility to the provincial governments.

The limited list of powers that First Nations can exercise and the requirement that First Nations jurisdictions cannot be exercised without federal and provincial agreements clearly makes our rights contingent, can only be determined by First Nations. If they are circumscribed by Canada and the provinces, they are not inherent but delegated. For this reason, the federal policy is unacceptable and yet another example of the injustice confronting First Nations peoples.

First Nations have been reduced to the point where we have to Aclaim our own land and prove how we have a Alegal interest or title in our lands. The process that First Nations are forced to use is one based on Canada acting as the defendant, judge, jury and executioner. First Nations are simply seeking justice. First Nations know that our Great Grandfathers would not give up all their future interests to these bountiful lands and waters for a few trinkets, suits of clothing and $5.00 a year. First Nations know that they did not give up, sell or extinguish their rights to the land because the concept was totally foreign to them. One could more easily sell the air than they could sell the land in the First Nations view.

First Nations are seeking a process that is fair and equitable which is independent from and external to the government and is designed and implemented by First Nations. The First Nations International Court of Justice may be the appropriate vehicle to play that role.

An independent lands Tribunal is also one of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples.

What Needs to be Done

If we are to survive with all the gifts given to us by the Creator, our languages, culture, spirituality and territories must be elevated to a new stature. We must strengthen our own identities and relationships as indigenous First Nations. Creative and innovative alternatives are required to proceed with the exercise of our inherent rights.

After having tried all avenues to assert and have rights recognized, respected and implemented. it now becomes obvious that the only option open to First Nations is the simple exercise of our inherent rights and jurisdictions regardless of what non-Indian politicians and lawyers say and prepare ourselves as best as possible to deal with the consequences. The acceptance and recognition of ourselves as the source of our collective authority and jurisdiction is the foundations of our ongoing reclamation of nationhood.

The First Judgement

The First Nations Court of Justice is one such expression of Ajust do it. It is the exercise of First Nations jurisdiction. The first question that was dealt with by the First Nations International Court of Justice was Awhen and how did the government of Canada believe it acquired jurisdiction over First Nations including the power or authority to tax citizens of the First Nations?

In their preliminary session the FNICJ decided there was enough evidence against Canada to proceed with the indictment. In summarizing Maori Jurist Dr. Moana Jackson stated:

AThis Court has been convened to decide if there is sufficient evidence to call a further hearing on whether Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada is in breach and violation of the original law of the First of Turtle Island. Like my other judges it is clear to me on the basis of the evidence given before us that there has been such a violation . . . The law that was brought here by the colonizer was built on ideas and doctrines intended not just to deny the validity of First Nations laws but to also deny the value of indigenous life itself. The Government of Canada, which is responsible for the passage and maintenance of that law today did not deign to appear before us, was not so much an affront to this court as it was an act of disrespect to the ideals and aspirations of First Nations peoples and therefore also a violation of First Nations peoples and therefore also violation of First Nations law.

He went on to say, Atrue justice lies not in the written words or acts of parliament, but in visions and dreams which should underpin them. Indigenous law is based on clear dreams of how life should be lived and a clear vision of the sovereignty and political power required to give effect to give effort to them. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada has trampled upon dreams ans remains today in breach of the law which came from First Nations.

The Decision

The First Sitting of the First Nations International Court of Justice issued the following seven orders:

1. That this Court reconvene at a date to be determined in September 1996 to hear substantive evidence on the claims made against Her Majesty in Right of Canada.

2. That the Indictment as presented at this Hearing be amended to include a call to justice of Her Majesty the Queen not just in Right of Canada but in Right of Great Britain as well.

3. That the Indictment be further amended to include a call to justice of Governments of the United States of America and Mexico which are complicitous in the violation of the law of the First Nations of Great Turtle Island.

4. That should the government not respond to the call to justice a Friend of the Court be appointed on their behalf for the next scheduled hearing of this Court. But that friend be made aware that such hearing of the Court will be conducted according to the processes and visions of First Nations law and not the law of the colonizer.

5. That prior to the next sitting of the Court, hearings for the collection of evidence be held in such First Nations as wish to participate in order to gather such information as the prosecution thinks necessary and to be held at such time and place as the First Nations concerned thinks is appropriate.

6. That in view of the fact that clear violations of First Nations law have occurred, First Nations be encouraged to impose a moratorium on the conclusion of any treaties, negotiations or other arrangements with the government of Great Turtle Island until such time as this Court delivers its final judgement.

7. An finally, that the findings and evidence of this preliminary hearing be given wide circulation within the community of First Nations and within Canada and elsewhere.

How do First Nations Participate?

The next stage will be for the Court to collect additional evidence from First Nations communities themselves about the Crown's violations of First Nations rights. The first sitting in April 1996 only had time to hear from five indigenous witnesses but the Court had indicated that it is prepared to hear and gather evidence from a wide variety of written and oral source including sworn affidavits and video tape evidence from elders who may not be able or willing to travel.

It is especially important for First Nations governments to support this initiative to help demonstrate the legitimacy of the Court by beginning to use it. The International Court of Justice at the Hague was not fully accepted at its inception. For example, it could be utilized to settle disputes among or between First Nations. This court or tribunal could also eventually be used as an alternative dispute with Canada under existing processes such as Land Claims or Land Rights, tax rulings and arbitration. The UN Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples has also been suggested as the standard against which Canada will be measured and prosecuted for violations of International Human Rights laws. The more we as First Nations use and support this court, the more it will gain stature.

Next Steps

The Court has postponed its next hearing to enable fundraising efforts to come to fruition. Everyone is encouraged to support the work of the Court be contributing to it. Copies of the first session are available in transcript and video format through the Chiefs of Ontario, 344 Bloor Street West, Toronto, M5S 3A7.