Chronological Historical Facts as understood by Lil'wat.
Highlighting paragraph (d) of the Preamble of the American Declaration of the Rights and
Duties of Man;"[states are] to increasingly strengthen [in domestic law] that system in
the international field as conditions become more favorable”OAS Res. XXX, (1948),
reprinted in Basic Documents Pertaining to Human Rights in Inter-American System,
OEA/Ser.L.V/11.82 doc.6 rev.1 at 17 (1992)]
Ms. Loni Edward emerges for a group of individuals who felt that they, (as indigenous
people without a treaty with Canada), could not receive a fair trial in a domestic court.
The Author of this Petition prays that all pertinent facts and laws can be considered
fairly and justly in a tribunal that is able to recognize Lil’Wat sovereignty and will permit
legal equal status negotiation between the Lil’Wat and the Canadian government to
negotiate their complaints and grievances.
Double standards in international human rights leads to maldevelopment , retardation,
and political disorder. The double standard type of discrimination is so repugnant to
good governance, peace, democracy, human rights, and global social and economic
development that it has been declared a violation of human rights in all international
human rights treaties, etc., and has reached the level where it is seen as an erga omnes
obligation (see Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited, Judgment, ICJ
Reports 1970, p. 32, para. 33)
Chronological History of the Author of this Petition as it relates to Her Membership in the
Lil’Wat Nation, the only Government that she recognizes as having the Right to Protect
or Care For Her Children:
a. The Lil-wat are a peace-loving nation presently living within the territory of the
state of Canada.
b. They have lived on their lands since time immemorial, before their contact with
the British Empire, before their lands were occupied by the Crown and the state of
Canada was recognized.
c. During their occupation, they continued to desire and struggle to maintain their
sovereignty and achieve recognition of their right to self-determination. However, they
were coerced by what they saw as their circumstances to acquiesce to what they
understood to be the administrative laws of the British Crown.
d. Over the years, the Dominion of Canada combined the legislation that it and the
British Crown created to administer their occupation of the Lil’wat and other indigenous
nations to animate what is now called the Indian Act.
e. The source of the legitimacy for using the Indian Act, declared to be sui generis, to
claim jurisdiction over the Lil’wat Nation (who did not sign any treaty with the British
Crown or Canada) is legally questionable but politically feasible. Canada’s orientation to
Indian treaties and the Indian Act as “sui generis” seems to suggest that in legal
practice only the Canadian government has the final right to interpret their meaning.
f. As noted by Jake Ruperts, a reporter for the Ottawa Citizen, “it is this concept of
unilaterally declaring Indian treaties to be ‘sui generis’” that has served to bring about
an awareness and lack of trust of indigenous nations, such as the Lil’wat Nation, in the
fairness of Canadian courts and justice system in relation to their dealings with
g. The unilateral enforcement of the Indian Act over the people of the Lil’wat Nation
has led to an economic and socio-political state of dependence and underdevelopment,
as well as to a profound distrust in the “good will” and “clean hands” of the Canadian
government’s judicial system. She views it as talking about sovereignty and the right to
self-determination of indigenous peoples but in actuality driving them towards forced
h. The Author of this Petition believes that the objective of the Canadian government
is to use the enforcement of the Indian Act as a political and socio-economic policy to
control indigenous government, to exploit Indian natural resources and eventually
coerce the Lil’wat into “forced” assimilation like other minorities that make up Canadian
multicultural society, regardless of the fact that both the Lil’wat and the Canadian
government are aware of damages this concept has caused when attempted in the era
of the residential schools cases.
|IHRAAM Lil'Wat delegates James Louie, Alvin Nelson and Attila Nelson attended
the 10th Session of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues in New York,
May, 16-27, 2011. On May 25th, James Louie made an intervention urging
delegates to support the Lil'wat OAS Petition.
In 2007 the Loni Edmonds / Lil'wat Petition was
submitted to the Inter-American Commission on
Human Rights of the Organization of American
On August 22, 2011 the IACHR passed the pertinent
parts of the Petition to the Government of Canada
for its Response.
On January 11, 2012 IHRAAM received the Canada
Response with the IACHR request for its
Observations on same.
IHRAAM's Observations were submitted to the
IACHR on February 9, 2012, which the IACHR passed
to Canada to respond.
Further documentation on the exhaustion of
domestic remedy was submitted to the IACHR on
April 2, 2012. On May 9th, the IACHR advised IHRAAM
that the pertinent parts have been passed to
Canada, and Canada was given one month to
Since that time, Canada has responded four times at
IACHR request; IHRAAM is waiting it's fifth
response, requested by the IACHR on September
20, 2012. It is presently overdue.
|LILWAT SPEAKING TOUR Nov. 19-24, 2014
|RAPPORTEUR ON INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
|Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
ACCEPTS LILWAT PETITION AS
Edmonds vs. Canada,
IACHR CASE 12.929