Her Majesty's Justice Be Done: Métis Legal Mobilization and the Pitfalls to Indigenous Political Movement Building

Abstract

Indigenous peoples have, to varying degrees, turned to the courts to litigate their ongoing disputes with Canada's settler colonial governments. Scholars have examined well the ways courts are used for strategic political ends by a variety of Indigenous and non-Indigenous litigants and are laden with settler values and institutional logics that are foreign to Indigenous peoples. However, it is less clear what effect turning to the courts in pursuit of strategic goals has on specific relationships between Indigenous peoples. This gap is more pronounced in Métis scholarship where there have been few final appellate cases. This paper argues the interaction between the Manitoba Métis Federation and Treaty 1 peoples seeking leave to intervene at the Manitoba Court of Appeal in MMF v. Canada illuminates the way litigating Indigenous-settler disputes can advance divisive, exclusionary, zero-sum political relationships between Indigenous peoples. These fractious interactions serve to undermine the construction of a co-ordinated and related inter-Indigenous decolonizing politics.

Taking the Field: 50 Years of Indigenous Politics in theCJPS

“…Unlike the articles published in the 1970s on the Metis resistance of 1869, recent publications demonstrate what it means to study Metis politics as “Metis” politics such that the focus is on the Metis and not on Canadian political history with Metis on the sidelines. More importantly, this new Metis politics literature demonstrates that it is indeed possible to see beyond the state as political scientists, to overcome the discipline's epistemological and methodological limitations and to engage with Metis constitutional traditions, Metis political thought and Metis-First Nations political conflict (Dubois and Saunders, 2013; Voth, 2016).…”

The Future of Canadian Political Science: Boundary Transgressions, Gender and Anti-Oppression Frameworks

“…Returning to these abstracts but using the terms (and their derivatives): oppression, dominance, settler colonialism, colonization, exploitation, marginalization, sexism, heterosexism, homophobia, heteronormativity, homonormativity, racism, poverty, settler, privilege, whiteness, white supremacy, intersectional, resistance, justice, liberation, Indigenous, citizenship, anti-oppression, and Aboriginality, yielded 22 more articles in CJPS/RCSP. Articles in CJPS/RCSP and CPSR that adopt an intersectional antioppression approach disrupt specific concepts that have defined CPS including, but not limited to, identity (Hakivinsky and Dhamoon, 2013;Nath, 2011;Page, 2017;Thompson, 2008), Aboriginality (Ladner, 2017;Lugosi, 2011, D. MacDonald, 2007Murray, 2017;Panagos, 2007), sovereignty (Bruyneel, 2010;Green 2001Green , 2006Hudon, 2017;Voth, 2016), mobilization (Tungohan, 2017) and equality (Abu-Laban and Couture, 2010;Hakivinsky, 2005Hakivinsky, , 2012. While these concepts are an intrinsic part of CPS and are discussed extensively in CJPS/RCSP and CPSR, analysis typically reproduces structural forms of power inside and outside the discipline.…”

“…Articles in CJPS/RCSP and CPSR that adopt an intersectional anti-oppression approach disrupt specific concepts that have defined CPS including, but not limited to, identity (Hakivinsky and Dhamoon, 2013; Nath, 2011; Page, 2017; Thompson, 2008), Aboriginality (Ladner, 2017; Lugosi, 2011, D. MacDonald, 2007; Murray, 2017; Panagos, 2007), sovereignty (Bruyneel, 2010; Green 2001, 2006; Hudon, 2017; Voth, 2016), mobilization (Tungohan, 2017) and equality (Abu-Laban and Couture, 2010; Hakivinsky, 2005, 2012). While these concepts are an intrinsic part of CPS and are discussed extensively in CJPS/RCSP and CPSR , analysis typically reproduces structural forms of power inside and outside the discipline.…”

“…Certain scholars (Alcantara and Davidson, 2015; Ladner, 2005; Voth, 2016) assessing the state's treatment of Indigenous peoples have abandoned this traditional focus on institutional factors. For example, Alcantara and Davidson (2015) compare the institutional and non-institutional factors influencing successful self-government negotiations between the federal government and specific Aboriginal groups.…”

Wahkohtowin in Action

“…37 Daniel Voth has also shown how Aboriginal title litigation in southern Manitoba funneled the Manitoba Metis Federation and Treaty 1 peoples into "divisive, exclusionary, zero-sum political relationships between Indigenous peoples. " 38 In regard to citizenship, Indigenous governments have moved to a situation where they have a stable membership. Indigenous individuals with Indian status in Canada can only hold membership in one First Nation -a phenomenon I refer to as singular band membership.…”