Consent - Vital to Indigenous Engagement

Hello, you absolutely amazing person, you. This week this video is going to have a ton of information for you. We're going to talk about terms that come up in conversations that we should really look at what they mean and in some cases what they mean to indigenous people as opposed to non indigenous people. Let's talk about it. Sam. Boju Mishko Pognon Qui, everybody. My name is Andy Boucher. I'm Red Thunderbolt, woman of the Loon clan, a proud member of Seine River First Nation in Treaty 3 Territory in Northern Ontario. And I'm actually still getting over a wicked cold, so forgive me if my voice still sounds a little funky. Now, as I mentioned in the opening, there's just so many things that have come my way, come up in conversations, terms, descriptions, just things I needed to share with you. So let's just jump right into it. First and foremost, Jay Shetty. Not sure if you've ever heard of him. I heard of him through Ed Mylet. I know you're shocked. Everyone knows I love Ed Mylett, but. But Jay Shetty has a podcast called On Purpose. It is literally how I'm spending my evenings these days rather than mindless YouTube videos I throw on. His podcast episodes are usually anywhere from an hour to two hours long. And just learning so much from these people. So what I wanted to comment on and share with you today is this is probably a couple years ago now, the interview, but Jay Shetty was interviewing Jada Pinkett Smith. Now whatever you think of Jada, let's just set that aside for a second because listening to the interview, one of the things that came to my mind and I just wrote this down, I wanted to share it with you. The fastest way to burn a bridge was a healed, empowered indigenous person. If you're a non indigenous person is to lie to them. Now I'm not talking about, I said healed, empowered indigenous person. Like are we ever totally healed? I doubt it. But I'm not talking about someone that's totally traumatized and just starting their healing journey. I'm talking about an empowered, confident, self assured person. If you want to burn a bridge, I lie to them. And one of the things Jay shared now remember, what is it? A couple videos ago I shared the comments from the trolls. This is why I'm sharing this. So Jay shared with Jada that how we judge others is how we judge ourselves and how we speak to others is how we speak to ourselves. And I can honestly say that that had my heart soften to those trolls because that person that is just spitting out that insult to you. That's what they're willing to share publicly. Imagine the ugly they are saying to themselves. And that person you meet that seems so kind and so warm and outgoing. That's because they talk to themselves that way. They are sharing with us what they hear, what they do to themselves. If someone else is condemning someone. We hear this all the time in modern day body shaming. Right? And that's what they're doing to themselves. This could be the tiniest person you've ever met. The. The stereotypical size zero woman. By the way, have you figured out yet they want women, Society wants women to be a size 0. Literally not exist. Take up space woman. Take up space. Let's not do that. But they are shaming other people. That is the restrictions they are putting on themselves. I needed to hear this. I needed to see this because it's definitely changed my. My view. I just noticed my do not disturb just clicked off. So I'm just gonna turn it back on. We're all good. Let's just keep that in mind. You don't need to understand what they're going through through. You don't need to know what hurt them. You know that, that, that ever popular who hurt you? Like none of your business. Maybe they don't want to share. Just know that the ugly they throw at you or throw at you once. It's the kind of ugly they're throwing at themselves every single day. God knows how many times a day. I don't know. I think I have a. A few trolls that I need to virtually hug. How's that? So that was one. And yes, we have four sections to this video as well. I like the way that works. It's. I just like the way it works. I hope. Do you like the way it works? That was section one. Now consent. What is it? Free prior and informed consent is the standard in Canada now. I'm jumping ahead but let's. Let's do this first. If there's one thing that I hear often when a non indigenous person is trying to define Anishinaabe teachings or any type of indigenous teachings, one of the things I hear often is our teachings seem to be rooted. Excuse me. I could eat something. Now I'm going to start yawning. It's better than coughing or sneezing. Let's go there then. Our teachings seem to be rooted in common sense. And that's amazing. And I'm not saying you're wrong. Practical common sense. Be respectful, lead with love. Be honest. Be authentic, be brave. Whatever Rattling off the seven grandfather teachings here. But one of the disclaimers I guess I'm going to put on this is the people that say our teachings, how are rooted in common sense are not the people that are trying to get something right. And what I mean by that is those people that are trying to gain something from the interaction, things like consent and consultation. Yeah, they don't think that's rooted in common sense at all because it's preventing them from opening the mind or harvesting the trees or whatever the case may be. So going back to the common sense mentality around consent, and I'm totally owning this, could very easily be and probably is an Indigenous worldview, Anishnaabe worldview of the term consent. Can we, on a common sense basis, agree that consent can be withdrawn? Like think of interactions, like the whole intimate relationship, sexual relationships, when you need consent. Just the fact that you consented 10 minutes ago doesn't mean you can't say no. Now you can say no, consent can be withdrawn. That applies to Indigenous peoples and the relationships with Indigenous peoples as well, much to the chagrin of many Canadian industries. So I have to send a shout out to Yellow Hand Institute in the Landback course that I'm still working my way through. Almost done now. Highly recommended. I'll put the link in the show notes for that. They reminded me of a Nishnaabe teaching. They mentioned it specifically and it was like I needed to remember that and I wanted to share this with you. So imagine traditional Indigenous existence, hunting and fishing for survival. In our worldview, the animals have agreed to be hunted, that we share this land and that they understand that one of them might come down if our hunters are out and we offer our tobacco and we thank them for our sacrifice, them giving up their life to ensure that our lives continue. But that consent can be withdrawn at any given time during a season. If there's no deer or no moose in the area, it is our understanding that, that that consent has been withdrawn. Usually it's because of the natural order. The deer or the moose understand that they need to bring their numbers back up. Not that we ever over harvest. That when we don't do that is direct. You never take more than you need. That's directly against the Anishinaabe teachings. But we understand that if we can't go fishing because there's a huge storm today, the consent has been withdrawn. For whatever reason, you're not able to fish today and you just respect that the deer are not here or the fish can't happen today. I think that makes common sense, right? Sounds like common sense. But now think of the Canadian Indigenous relationship. First off, when we look back to section 35 here, of. Of the charter. Charter. I don't. Section 35. I will put it in the show notes. When my cold. Remember, still suffering from a cold. For the longest time, consent wasn't the thing. And I remember the frustration working in Indigenous agencies and working with Indigenous communities, knowing we were constantly hearing, we want to consult with you, we want to consult with you. And we knew that the second we attended a meeting with whatever government official, check, they've been consulted. We can now do whatever we want. All that was required is they talk to us. We could be screaming from the rooftops that we did not want them to do whatever they wanted to do in our territories. But check, they consulted with us. Now that in those days, talking with us meant, yeah, okay, we talked to them. Bring in the bulldozers. Then that morphed. Nowadays, we're talking about free prior and informed consent. So free without coercion. Right. We are giving consent freely before any activity. Prior and with full knowledge, informed. Now, that part's debatable. Do they really tell us all the information or is it the sales pitch? Right. Do they really tell us how much our land is going to be damaged? But that's the goal. Free prior and informed consent. So now the question is, but can it be withdrawn? Consent, at its core comes with the ability to withdraw it if things are no longer working for us. But think we live in Canada. We have a federal government that bought a pipeline because the First Nation said no. We got to look at that. And I honestly believe we're getting closer to reconciliation. The day that an Indigenous person or a community saying no is actually heard and adhered to, we're not there yet. Okay. But just for a second, going back to our common sense where we started this discussion, imagine how much easier it would be to live together. Everyone, not just Indigenous people, like everyone. How much easier it would be to live together if we respected each other as much as the deer and the moose and the fish are still respected by traditional hunters. Today storming no fish. Not meant to. For today, consent. Tonight you want to have a conversation. You want to have a working relationship. Today, awesome. Tomorrow you change your mind. That's okay. I respect that you have the power of consent. Forcing something removes the right of consent. And whether you're talking about an intimate, personal relationship or Canadian Indigenous relationships, no consent is a problem. A serious problem. Okay, that was section two. How you doing so far. I told you, I have so much now we're going to run. I put a whole new section in here. We're still running with consent, but if there's. One of the things I mention all the time, and I definitely mention it in my new onboarding program, is the fact that working with Indigenous communities or nations is like working in another country. And I say it that way as a metaphor to get people thinking. Just because you do something a certain way or you say a phrase and you think you know what it means, it may mean something different to them. And consent is one of those things, because now we're going to look at consent from an Indigenous worldview. Indigenous consent. And this was highlighted again in the Land Back course by the Yellowhead Institute. Again, the link is in the show notes. I really, really, really, really suggest you take this course. It isn't that long, but boy, is it informative. I'm doing it in little bits because I like running a business, but you got this. So four different. Four, four. I can do this. Four different elements. First, one, for it to be fit into the definition of Indigenous consent, it's got to be restorative, is the way they describe it, restoring Indigenous governance and law by centering Indigenous ways of knowing and being, like I do on this YouTube channel. What that may mean, and I say this honestly, but knowing the pushback that could come from Indigenous people. Banned councils are a result of the Indian Act. Now, we do have some First Nation communities, some reserves that are banned custom, which means they followed their customary way of electing a chief and electing whatever their governing body was. It may be hereditary chiefs, it may be elders councils, it may be grandmother's councils, whatever the custom was for that community. So for you to achieve and get Indigenous consent, it has to be restorative of the ways that community would do things. So that's unpacking, that's supporting the ways that community was before the other came. Now think of the Wasuwetin out in bc, the hereditary chiefs and the elected chiefs, and that became a thing thing. Right. Now, did your mind just go to. Well, that's a pain in the butt. That's not easy. Easy is assimilation. Easy is more cultural genocide. We'll talk about that later. Easy is not the goal. Doing this properly is the goal. Restoring this relationship. So Indigenous consent, first, fact is, it has to be restorative of our ways of knowing and being. Secondly, closely related, it has to be rooted in Indigenous ways of knowing, using our frameworks and our ways of knowing. So again, that's customs recognizing the land as having entity, as Mother Earth or agency, I should say Mother Earth. And being an essential part of this discussion. Not just something to be extracted and used, but a valuable part of our framework. So Indigenous consent has to be restorative and has to be rooted in indigenous ways and knowing. And I actually talked about this in a member only video last week. Reciprocity is so incredibly huge. Indigenous consent, this process has to be. It can't be a one way process, right? Indigenous communities have to develop the terms of consent as they see it, as opposed to mainstream just asking them to consent. What does consent look like for this Indigenous community? Right and ingrained in that is the ability to revoke consent when they define. When the indigenous community is allowed to define consent, then it gives indigenous authority over their own lands. Or more importantly, it doesn't give it to them. It recognizes indigenous authority over its own lands, which is why that is so important for Indigenous consent, so restorative of our ways of being, rooted in our ways of knowing. Not a one way process. It has to be reciprocal. Consent has to be defined by the communities. And last but not least, it has to be legitimate in the eyes of the community, which means it has to be authorized by who they see as their leadership. In some cases that may be chief and council. In some cases that's hereditary chiefs. In some cases that's a grandmother's council. That might be the elders, that might include the women in youth councils. Whatever the case may be, that community chose the people on those groups in those councils to be their voices. So whatever is being consented to has to be recognized by the leaders that the community recognizes, not someone that's just assigned that by the Indian Act. Now, again, it might be chief and council, but it might not be. So again, to receive Indigenous consent in line with repairing our relationship restores Indigenous governance and ways of being rooted in our ways of knowing. Reciprocal. The definition of consent and what that looks like has to be defined by the community. And yes, it can be revoked. And it has to be authorized and accepted by who the community says their leaders are. Easy, no. Easy would be assimilation. And we're not doing that anymore. No more cultural genocide. That's why we have to work together, because no one's going to know all of this just on their own. Okay. And I am back to discuss the last four terms I wanted to touch on in this fourth section of today's video. The terms are, and you do hear them all the time. Genocide. Cultural genocide. Systemic racism. And one you may not have heard of, but one I haven't been able to forget since I heard it, the idea of unworthy victims. So let's look at this. You have heard it said that Canada has practiced genocide against Indigenous people. And I've heard lots of pushback on that. That's a bunch of baloney. Well, here's the definition you think about it. According to the United Nations Genocide Convention, which was established in 1948, genocide is defined as ready acts committed with the intent to destroy in whole or in part a national, ethnic, racial or religious group. Now the acts that can be committed are defined as and include such things as the killing of the members of that group, causing serious bodily or mental harm to the members of that group, deliberately imposing living conditions that seek to bring about the physical destruction in whole or in part of that group, preventing the births. Can you say birth? Birth tags. And last but not least, forcibly transferring children out of the group to another group. I can think of examples of every single one of those. So I agree with the UN Genocide Convention. Canada has inflicted and to a large extent is still inflicting genocide on the Indigenous peoples living within Canadian borders. Now, the trc, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission added another layer to this cultural genocide. The TRC and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in Canada concluded the residential schools were, and this is a direct quote, you can look it up on the TRC website. The residential schools were a systemic government sponsored attempt to destroy Aboriginal cultures and languages and to assimilate Aboriginal people so that they no longer existed as distinct peoples. The TRC characterized this intent as cultural genocide. Why do you think I stress all the time quit expecting Indigenous people just to do it the mainstream way, that is assimilation, that is more cultural genocide. You do not fix a problem by keep repeating the behavior. That's the problem. Getting a little passionate here. I mentioned something in that definition, the idea of systemic racism. So that exists in a lot of different systems. But just to make it tie in with our last one, I want to look at an area that is a huge problem for Indigenous peoples and that's policing and the justice system. So the issues of Indigenous people being both over policed and under policed has been identified as an example of systemic discrimination. So in some cases, like flying communities, sharing one police officer, that's got to fly between them under policed or in the States it's driving while black. While in Canada you can get pulled over or watched just for being indigenous. Indigenous people are believed to be more often targeted by police at the Same time, studies have found that biases have led to Indigenous people being seen as unworthy victims by the police, having their credibility questioned and their request for assistance ignored or not adequately supported. This is every single time an Indigenous person, an Indigenous woman, calls the police because she's in danger of physical harm, and they don't bother showing up because they're just partying. Been there, done that. And that led into that last term, I wanted to touch on the idea of unworthy victims. So Herman was a professor of finance at Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, and Chomsky is a linguist and activist scholar who wrote many, many, many books, such as Towards a New Cold War. So, according to Herman and Chomsky, worthy victims are individuals who are abused or killed either domestically or abroad. But unworthy victims are individuals who are treated with equal or greater severity than abusers or killers. And this is done by their own government or clients. In the case of Indigenous peoples in Canada, the idea that Indigenous people somehow bring their situation on themselves and therefore are not worthy of protection or empathy is an example of classifying us as unworthy victims. Blaming the victim means we're unworthy of protection. Welcome to Canada 2025. I know we can do better, and I hope you're with me. So that was a lot of information. I'll put as much as I can into the show notes, but I hope you found it worthwhile. Which part resonated with you? Which part surprised you? Let's talk about it in the comments. Until next time. I love you. Take care. Bye Bye.