“Ongoing genocide:” An interview with Bruce Clark

Written by Brett Stanford on December 28, 2018

Bruce Clark in 2012. Photo from Wikipedia.

Bruce Clark’s new book Ongoing Genocide caused by Judicial Suppression of the “Existing” Aboriginal Rights argues that the Canadian judicial system has legalised the ongoing genocide of Indigenous peoples in Canada by suppressing the constitutional truth in the name of political expediency.

Clark has litigated over 40 cases regarding Aboriginal rights in Canada and started doing so in 1972.

The Ottawa-based lawyer has dedicated his life defending the constitutional truth that all land in Canada belongs under Indigenous sovereignty, possession and jurisdiction until Indigenous people legally cede their territory to the federal government, whereby jurisdiction is turned over to the provincial government.

In 1997, the Canadian judiciary wrongly disbarred Clark and imprisoned him for “criminal contempt of court” for vigorously advancing his client’s case.

I recently had the opportunity to interview Clark about his new book.

Brett Stanford (BS): What is the nature of Aboriginal rights in Canada?

Bruce Clark (BC): The introduction to Ongoing Genocide caused by Judicial Suppression of the “Existing” Aboriginal Rights says in part:

Jurisprudentially, there are two values that compete for paramountcy in judicial decision-making: to serve truth or, alternatively, fairness. In the Aboriginal context, the Canadian judges seem to be trying to be fair to the vast majority of people and the building of their nation, at the expense of the constitutional truth.

When defining the nature of Aboriginal rights the definition depends upon whether one is assessing how judges think at the present time versus what the constitutive legislation and precedents settle. To say the judges pursue fairness over truth signifies that they think politically, as opposed to legally.

BS: What does the constitutional truth mean for us in a province like New Brunswick where there has never been any land surrendered to the Crown?

BC: The province still holds the bare title subject to the Indian Interest not to be molested or disturbed in the possession of all lands, unless and until the Indians consent by treaty with the federal government to relinquish their possession, which accrues to the provincial government.

BS: Even though Aboriginal rights in Canada have always been constitutional in nature, has it been federal and provincial government practice to ignore these rights and hence act unconstitutionally?

BC: Yes, at least as to British Columbia, the Maritimes, Eastern Ontario and part of Quebec.

This is so despite the fact that the Supreme Court of Canada holds that section 35(1) enacts the Crown can take their proclamation-reserved land without their consent by treaty. That holding is not constitutionally “true,” but to the judges’ way of thinking it is “fair.” This is a “Pretence” within the meaning of Canada’s first constitution, the Royal Proclamation of 1763, which enacts:

…no Governor…do presume, upon any Pretence whatever, to grant Warrants of Survey, or pass any Patents for Lands…upon any Lands whatever, which, not having been ceded to, or purchased by Us as aforesaid, are reserved to the said Indians, or any of them. [Emphasis added]

BS: How has Canada suppressed these rights?

BC: By the Supreme Court’s treasonable, fraudulent and genocidal misinterpretation of section 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982, it decided in favour of fairness not truth, for political not legal reasons. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has the last word on ‘the law,’ even when in constitutional truth it isn’t the law.

The Court’s illegal denial of the Indians’ right to treat imposes ‘serious bodily or mental harm’ within the meaning of article 2(b) for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 1948, and this turn finds expression in the Indians vastly heightened mortality rate attributable to the angst caused by institutional injustice of a nation or race of people. The judicial suppression of the true law in other words results in ongoing genocide.

BS: What can be expected from any new court cases in Canada regarding Aboriginal rights?

BC: New court cases will follow the Supreme Court of Canada unless the judges of that Court read Ongoing Genocide and overrule themselves.

BS: What would Canada look like if these rights were no longer suppressed?

BC: In all probability the whole country would be covered by Indian treaties ceding Aboriginal rights. Mostly treaties were understood by the Indians as a recognition of their Aboriginal rights, when as worded the treaties are an extinguishment of them. When that early fraud became less tenable with experience, Canada’s courts warped the law to make non-consensual taking ‘legal.’

Ongoing Genocide caused by Judicial Suppression of the “Existing” Aboriginal Rights is a book that every Canadian should read, understand and use in order to advance the existing rights of Indigenous peoples in Canada. We must end the ongoing genocide that was legalised by the Canadian judiciary and is perpetuated by our governments.

Brett Stanford was born in Ottawa, Ontario and grew up in Fredericton. He will be graduating from St. Thomas University with his Bachelor’s degree in Criminology with a minor in Native Studies in 2019.

Comments are closed.