Canadian Inuit come out in force at UN Indigenous forum
This year’s theme is “traditional knowledge: generation, transmission and protection”
Kelly Fraser speaks at the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues on Monday, April 22. (Photo from Canada Mission UN/Twitter)
Canadian Inuit have come out in force to represent their homelands and culture at the 18th United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues in New York.
The forum, which started Monday, April 22, and ends May 3, will focus on the theme of “traditional knowledge: generation, transmission and protection.” There will also be emphasis on human rights issues in connection with Indigenous peoples.
Canadian Inuit participants range from the presidents of Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. and Inuit Circumpolar Council Canada to Inuit-language artist Kelly Fraser.
During her statement to the UN, Fraser spoke of pride in culture and community: “My name is Kelly Fraser, I’m a singer from Sanikiluaq, Nunavut. I am a proud Inuk that speaks Inuktitut despite mom going to residential school.”
“With loss we gained resiliency, and by working with our governments, let’s responsibly implement laws, treaties and land claims through being heard and together, we can save the world.”
She also made recommendations on the European sealskin ban and the recognition of Indigenous languages as national languages.
ICC Canada President Monica Ell-Kanayuk in New York for the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues on April 22. (Photo from ICC Canada/Twitter)
In addition to the main forum, side events also feature a strong Inuit presence.
Some events are Inuit-organized, like the ICC’s “Indigenous Children’s Rights: How to take action in Indigenous communities” and Isuma TV’s co-organized “Rights to Indigenous Communications: Honoring our cultures, languages and traditions through digital storytelling.”
Other events have Inuit participation, like the panel discussion on “Implementation Mechanisms for Indigenous Rights and Agreements with States” with NTI President Aluki Kotierk.
“When land claims are signed, the Crown immediately gets what they wanted,” Kotierk wrote on Twitter, “whereas Indigenous peoples must then work, often for years or decades, to push for governments to live up to the agreement they signed with us.”
The UNPFII also provides a stage to release new materials, such as NTI’s latest report on Nunavut’s education system.
And, next week, there will be an Arctic region dialogue between Indigenous peoples and member states. Discussion questions will cover Indigenous autonomy, securing territorial rights, climate change and resource management, and introducing Indigenous languages into educational systems.
Past UNPFII sessions heard discussions about the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, debate over the forum’s title and calls for more support for Indigenous youth and recognition of Inuktut as a founding language.
If Inuit want Inuktitut to be recognized as a founding national language they should consider creating their own nation-state. This seems like the most legitimate model available to furthering this goal.
Neither of these is going to happen, and it is fantasy to think otherwise. No one is going to open a constitutional convention to make changes to the Charter, just not going to happen.
Nation state? Seriously? In what world do you think that Canada would consent to that? Canada would legislate Nunavut out of existence before allowing such a thing. Given that Nunavut has its own home-grown ethno/linguistic separatist issues in the west of the territory I’d think that this is a can of worms that no one would want to open.
What does the Charter have to do with this, Israel? Canada doesn’t have to ‘consent’ to an independent Inuit state, it’s not up to ‘Canada’ it’s up to the inhabitants of Nunavut in the same way an independent Quebec is not up to the rest of Canada, only Quebecois. Strange reply.
You can’t compare Quebec, or any province, with a territory, they are apples and oranges. In short, provinces are sovereign (hence their Lieutenant Governors as the Queen’s representative, unlike territories, which only have Commissioners) within confederation, and have inherent rights. Territories are not sovereign, and do not have these inherent rights. Territories are the creation of Parliament, and only have those powers that Parliament has chosen to give them. Parliament can create, abolish, re-size, or give or revoke powers to a territory just through an act of Parliament; Parliament can’t do that with provinces, as they aren’t created by Parliament.
Recently, the federal government, when giving more powers to the territories, especially in the case of the Northwest Territories, has been very careful to make it clear that they are giving (yes, giving, the powers don’t inherently belong to the territories, unlike a province) ‘province-like powers’, keeping it clear that they aren’t provincial powers.
In this same vein, provinces can vote to secede from confederation (under certain clarifying laws, like the acts to clarify Quebec’s various questions), but territories, as the creation of the people of Canada through their Parliament, don’t have that authority. In short, it is a decision for the people of Canada, through their parliamentary representatives. I can’t imagine any circumstances in which Canada would vote to allow a territory to secede.
Actually Israel there is a bunch you don’t know about Nunavut and Canada. First I agree that Canada would not allow Nunavut to become independent, but that only prouves the perpetuation of colonial policies. Inuktut is the word for all Nunavut dialects that are now being unified. It is an official language of Nunavut, and actually Canada is about to recognize several indigenous languages (including Inuktut) has founding languages of Canada. The federal is creating a official indigenous languages commissionner office as we discuss now.
Yes, it very well may be recognized as ‘founding language’, which is in no way the same as an official language, which would require a constitutional revision. Founding language status is essentially symbolic, and nothing more, not to mention completely historically revisionist, and just sop to ethno-nationalist.
Colonial policies? I fail to see how Canadians, making decisions about Canadian land, resources, territories and people can be seen as colonial.
This little review of the Gendron Report is timely:
https://lop.parl.ca/sites/PublicWebsite/default/en_CA/ResearchPublications/201481E
The important part for us is section 3, which says in part:
“In Canada, the two official languages – English and French – are also national languages, but the term carries no legal weight under Canada’s current structure. The languages of Canada’s Native Peoples could also qualify as national languages, but for various reasons, the country does not use the concept of national languages in its legislation”
To designate a language as a ‘founding language’ or ‘national language’ has very little legal meaning in Canada, as our system currently works, it is either an official language, with all of the associated constitutional protections and obligations, or it isn’t. To change that would require a constitutional amendment, which isn’t going to happen.
Any attempt to create ‘founding language’ status for various minority languages in Canada, while well intentioned, is a backdoor workaround of the constitutional ‘official language’ issue. It is also fraught with future problems, as the report makes clear:
“In principle, all of the languages spoken by a country’s inhabitants could qualify as national languages.” Canada is not in a position to designate every indigenous language as a ‘founding language’, so it needs to be careful about opening a can of worms where every linguistic minority group wants recognition and funding – a completely unworkable option.
Correction to the statement that “Inuktut is the word for all Inuit dialects that are now being unified.”
Dialects are not being unified. There is an attempt to unify the writing system. That is a very different thing. No-one is talking about unifying the dialects (that is, language as it is spoken), although that is one thing that Inuit often fear is happening when they hear about orthographic reform. They aren’t the same.
Interesting little civics lesson, but it is truly not relevant. Nunavut may be a territory but it is also a lands claims settlement area and the ancient and traditional homeland of the Inuit; your suggestion that it could all be wiped away with the stroke of a pen reveals both your hubris and your colonial attitude; talk about a fantasy, this one laughable.
Nunavut is absolutely comparable with Quebec in that it is comprised of an ethnic and cultural composition that is unique within Canada, it is also home to a distinct society and a nation within the broader Canadian society. Your only counter points seem to hinge on the notion that the Canadian state can be held together by mechanisms of control radiating from Ottawa. If a separatist movement ever took hold in Nunavut, and I believe that day may come, the Government of Canada would be forced to reckon with it in the same way it has been forced to reckon with Quebec separatism; that is, to negotiate in good faith. The question of whether Canada would “allow” it is a non-starter.
Yes, Nunavut was created as a result of the land claims, and? That in no way changes its status as territory. Nunavut did not exist, except as an aspiration, before 1999, end of that conversation. Canada has created and abolished a territory in the north before, it is an option that exists. Extremely extremely, extremely, unlikely, but it is an option that always exists.
That’s nice that it is the traditional home of Inuit, and also completely not relevant to any part of this conversation. It is ultimately subject to the Charter and Canadian laws and traditions, just like any other part of Canada, and any Canadian, regardless of ethnicity or language has a right to live and work here. As for your Quebec analogy, another non-starter. Quebec, or any province, can invoke the not-withstanding clause, as a creation of Parliament, a territory doesn’t have that tool.
I can think of no quicker way to destroy Inuktut and Inuit society, and impoverish its people, than to separate from Canada, but that is an entirely different conversation to be had over a G&T.
Just a question for you on a completely unrelated subject, how do you think that the traditional population of Nunavut will react to its changing demographics? Specifically, I’m curious whether anyone has really twigged that the fasted growing segment of Nunavut is immigrants to Canada? I’m afraid that our population is very unprepared for these changes.
Well someone has to state the obvious.
Quebec believed they could be financially independent once they stopped sending all Federal taxes to Ottawa and that might make up for the lost Federal transfers. What would Nunavut’s plan be?
An independent Nunavut would be destitute and starving. How would Nunavut survive?
Yes, I didn’t want to state that at all as I figured that it would go over like a lead balloon, but you are absolutely correct.
Sorry IThink that is not what the Supreme Court of Canada said.
In the event of a clear majority in a separation referendum, Quebec cannot unilaterally separate from Canada, and that no mechanism in Canadian or International law exists to allow it.
After a yes vote, Quebec then must negotiate with Ottawa and the provinces in order to be “allowed” to separate. There would be serious issues to discuss such a Quebec/Nunavut”s share of the Federal debt, ownership/payment for Federal infrastructure , ownership or payment for military bases etc. Not until these issues are settled could either separate. If you don’t believe me, look it up.
Neither Quebec or Nunavut can be party of an economic relationship that benefits them and then think…… you can just walk away on financial commitments.
Begs the question though: when kind and caring nations such as Russia and China show up to explore Nunavut’s resource potential, what’s your plan to stop them?
Sorry guys, I’ve been trying to respond. But alas the gatekeepers at Nunatsiaq news have decided to hand you control of the narrative. Congratulations!
If we want to be taken seriously, take someone who knows and understands these issues not some woman with stars in her eyes
typical lateral violence response or critism for a fellow Inuk from another Inuk. Instead of supporting and encouraging one and other we hurt each other and not fight the real enemies of our people.
Lateral violence? Seriously? That something they pushing at NS?
Regrettably, the biggest ‘enemies’ of Inuit hopes and dreams at this time are other Inuit, mostly based in Iqaluit.
Stop talking about Inuktitut and start teaching it… or at least acknowledge that the lack of ISL teachers isn’t systemic. NAC has a good program, take it, teach, improves your situation. No one should do it for you.
I teach kids how to make inuktitut songs, so I actively am teaching my language and culture, no one is “doing it for me”.
The way i will make sure inuktitut keeps staying alive is by lobbying our government to make sure Inuktitut is a recognized language in Nunavut and other regions. Just because I am an artist does not mean i dont have a voice to be heard. I am confidemt in my role to advocate for Inuktitut and issues Inuit face. Have a great day everyone.
Who are the Kitikmeot and Kivalliq delegates?
To be honest, I don’t think our Inuktitut language is the issue here. The issue here, is that we as Inuit are “fighting” for our traditional ways while we are living and loving the ways of the white man? Living in such a way that everything is quick and meaningless. We are living in a mixed culture that we have adapted to so forcibly yet acceptingly because it is not in our Inuit blood to fight back. The issue here we have, are numerous suicides and lack of spiritual healing. Kelly, I’m sure you have a voice, please use it to sing and put somebody more intelligent, wise and spiritual in that seat.