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
    indigenous peoples.

    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
    assimilation.

    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
    States.

    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
    respond.

    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.
BROCHURE:  SUPPORT LIL'WAT PETITION AT THE
IACHR
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