Introduction

The world’s original nations have laws, cultures and governing authorities. They are not incorporated under the authority of a state. As Distinct Peoples, they draw their authority on the inherent powers as bestowed by God, The Creator.Footnote 2

There remains much confusion on the inherent rights of RECN’s people. This confusion is arguably caused by Canada’s controlled dominant narrative and unilateral interpretations of the Crown. The people of RECN have their own defined inherent rights; they are not confused about this truth. As they say in RECN, “Mamawe Kohtawihnaw kakepay ayaht Nehiyawa ota askiy” (Our Creator put the Crees here on this earth). RECN understands that while the Crown may have limited their location and livelihood to “reserves,” it is not, by any extent, Canada who can create or define their rights and existence. It is through Canada’s paternalistic approach in their relationship with RECN that those true inherent rights are not properly affirmed and recognized.

The history of Canada is well documented, but the history of peoples on this land began long before colonization and remains grossly untold. Little is done regarding research on Indigenous legal systems. What does exist seems to denote an intrinsically connected legal order with the colonial regime, presuming Indigenous Legal Traditions (ILT) does not or can not exist in isolation of colonization or her Crown’s interpretations. A comparison does not honour the autonomy of an Indigenous legal system.

Will it be contended that the territorial rights, political organization such as it was, or the laws and usages of Indian tribes were abrogated - that they ceased to exist when these two European nations began to trade with [A]boriginal occupants? In my opinion it is beyond controversy that they did not - that so far from being abolished, they were left in full force, and were not even modified in the slightest degree….Footnote 3

The quote above speaks to Canada’s knowledge of ILT survival even against such great onslaught of assimilative strategies and imposed laws and regulations against them. This knowledge is known as the Doctrine of Continuity. It is unfortunate that many Canadians have not had the opportunity to learn about the beauty of Indigenous culture and societies. It is far better known throughout this land that the Indigenous populations were considered savages by early settlers and their governments. Because of this disregard, Indigenous peoples have been dispossessed of their lands and ways of life. The education system, controlled by the dominant narrative of Canadian society, as it is today, perpetuates a lack of integration and inevitably carries on the oppression of Indigenous people and ways of being. Canada’s education system constantly urges people to abandon their own ways and join the mainstream system, as if saying “come to our side of the river, leave your small canoe and climb aboard our great steam ship.” However, this contradicts the treaties that were established with the principle of continuity in mind, as seen in the language of Treaty 5, which states, “for as long as rivers flow.”

And so, rather than acknowledging the competency of Indigenous nations to govern, control and sustain their own lands and society, colonial arrogance continues to suppress and reduce Indigenous legal orders to simplistic ideologies and myths. This contributes to maintaining instead the view of a culture unremoved from savage and nomadic stereotypes: hunters, gathers, heathens, inferiors.

This presumption finds its roots in the colonial notion that Indigenous nations had or have no laws of their own. The concept of the noble savage being without law has led to the greatest contempt of Indigenous humanity. Everything we are as Indigenous peoples—our conduct, our behaviour, our worldview—is immersed in our law. Indigenous laws have existed long before colonial statutes, legislation, or acts. So Indigenous rights also existed well before they were defined by another, centuries before 1982 or 1867. What we see, by looking at Indigenous worldviews through non-Indigenous lenses, would be contemporary research on evolved ILT coping with the impacts of colonization and assimilation policies, as opposed to ILT themselves. Really, studying ILT from within colonial parameters promotes colonial state efforts to “civilize the Indian” and absorb them into the body politic.Footnote 4 Using colonial law, structures, or institutions as a base point for researching ILT delegitimizes the sovereignty of an Indigenous group’s laws and all its parts. Seemingly, we are far too accustomed to the fiction of assumed colonial authority that we tend to forget, we/they are a people of our/their own, distinct from the Crown and Canada.

Much is written about the colonial structure and reality we live in today. However, these colonial structures and institutions are not the defining parameters of ILT. If anything, they can be said to be the restricting parameters. ILT existed long before colonial impositions so to categorize ILT as “within” colonial structure is to serve further injustice to their functionality, operationalization, and distinct existence.

Relying on Canadian jurisprudence is easy. It is accessible and readable. What is difficult is finding the Inninewak (Cree) truth. To do so, one must talk to the people, listen to the oral accounts of their history, their perspectives and understandings. This task has yet to reach the archives of Canada and her classrooms at any level of education.

Fortunately, respect is growing, the Canadian state and her people are learning and opening to the truer narrative that Indigenous peoples are, have been, and will continue to be grounded in their natural laws.