User:Fhusis/draftpo
Pimicikamak government rests upon a constitution that is not codified.
Constitution
Like other indigenous peoples in Turtle Island (the name for North America in many languages), Pimicikamak was constituted under spiritual laws. These were passed down orally through stories, ceremonies and traditions.[1] They formed part of the culture that enabled Pimicikamak to survive as a people in a harsh environment. Some of its constitution has now been codified in written laws. They are based upon the Rule of Law.
Customary law
Though not widely known, customary law is well-recognized in Western jurisprudence. For example, in 1844, a court in the United States held that the "laws, customs and usages" of the Chickasaw Nation "governed all property belonging to anyone domesticated and living with them."[2] In the U.K., Lord Denning said "These customary laws are not written down. They are handed down by tradition from one generation to another. Yet beyond doubt they are well established and have the force of law within the community."[3] In Canada, citing Lord Denning, a court said "such rules, whether they result from custom, tradition, agreement, or some other decision making process, are 'laws' in the Dicey constitutional sense."[4] Pimicikamak government is based on such customary law. Until the 1990s none of this law was codified.
Traditional government
Oral history told by Pimicikamak elders says that traditional Pimicikamak government was consensual, like other Cree governments.[5] Its leaders were respected persons, possibly of the Midewiwin society.[6] "A leader held his position as long as he had the respect of the people."[7] As well, oral history says that Elders (the Council of Fire) and women played distinct roles in governance. Pimicikamak governance today includes three traditional councils and an Executive Council. National policy is determined by all of them together by consensus (the Four Councils). It is usually represented by a circle or fire, with the councils at the four directions. The constitutional principle of the Four Councils is traditionally said to be "It's all one" (or Pè-ak-wun ka-ki-ni-kè-gun).
Modern customary laws
Since 1990, Pimicikamak has made several customary written laws in the English language. The law-making process is based on broad consensus.[8] Pimicikamak's modern written customary laws include a citizenship law and an election law.[9][10] In 2000, the power of aboriginal peoples to make such laws was challenged in a legal proceeding. The Court said: "[T]he most salient fact, for the purposes of the question of whether a power to make and rely upon aboriginal law survived Canadian Confederation, is that since 1867 courts in Canada have enforced laws made by aboriginal societies."[11]
Canada's position
The government of Canada disputes the validity of Pimicikamak written laws. Its policy is that self-government is an inherent right of aboriginal peoples and that this right is protected by the Constitution of Canada.[12][13] However its instructions to negotiators says that recognition that any people has this right requires that it be relinquished in exchange for a municipal or dependent form of self-government granted by Act of Parliament. This form is similar to the status of Indian nations in the United States of America.[14]
Status of Women
Historically, women appear to have had higher status in Cree societies than that accorded by contemporaneous European civilizations. "Cree women enjoyed a degree of autonomy that confounded European men who married Aboriginal women."[15] "Crees viewed with contempt what they conceived as harsh treatment of women by Chipewyan males."[16] In the Pimicikamak world view, women are symbolically associated with water, life, the direction west, and the color red. The Womens' Council is first in precedence of the traditional councils. Consistent with historical status, women have key roles in Pimicikamak government.
Notes
- ^ The Supreme Court of Canada ruled on the admissibility of oral history in Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1010
- ^ Jones v. Lancy, 2 Tex. 342 (1844); cited in Felix. S. Cohen's Handbook of Federal Indian Law, University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque (1958), and see further therein.
- ^ R. v Secretary of State For Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, [1982] 2 All E.R. 118.
- ^ Campbell v. British Columbia, 2000 BCSC 1123.
- ^ Victor P. Lytwyn, Muskekowuck Athiniwuck: Original People of the Great Swampy Land, University of Manitoba Press, Winnipeg (2002), p. 23.
- ^ For example, see http://www.uwinnipeg.ca/academic/ic/rupert/bird/story.html.
- ^ Sharon Venne, "Understanding Treaty 6: An Indigenous Perspective", in Aboriginal and Treaty Rights in Canada, Michael Asch, ed., University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver (1997).
- ^ The First Written Law, 1996.
- ^ The Pimicikamak Election Law, 1999, http://www.pimicikamak.ca/law/LAWoCITf.DOC
- ^ The Pimicikamak Citizenship Law, 1999, http://www.pimicikamak.ca/law/LAWoELEf_cor.DOC
- ^ Campbell v. British Columbia, 2000 BCSC 1123.
- ^ http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/pr/pub/sg/plcy_e.html
- ^ Constitution Act, 1982, s. 35(1).
- ^ Cherokee Nation v. State of Georgia, (1831) 5 Peters, 1."They may more correctly, perhaps, be denominated domestic dependent nations."
- ^ Margaret Anne Lindsay & Jennifer S.H. Brown, The History of the Pimicikamak People to the Treaty Five Period”, The Centre for Rupert’s Land Studies at The University of Winnipeg (2008) p. 53.
- ^ Robert Brightman, Grateful Prey, Rock Cree Human-Animal Relationshops, Canadian Plains research Center, Regina (2002); citing Victor G. Hopwood, ed., David Thompson: Travels in Western North America 1784-1812, Macmillan, Toronto (1971), see p. 131.