Protesters, stop using oil

This is my father, Konrad J. Tittler, who did real environmental work, inventing new products and technologies back in the 1970’s to treat lumber and pulp & paper with more environmentally friendly products, and to do water treatment in industry, and for cities and towns down the west coast all the way down to Chili. They cleaned water and treated sewage with their technology.

They cleaned up oil spills, long ago, the technology is not new. Why do protesters not know this?

Konrad J. Tittler Diachem days-3 business in Vancouver magazine-1

Now, at the age of 83, my father just sold his innovative technology to BASF, to clean up the tailings ponds on the oil sands.

To me, the radical protesters and even the “moderates” who are anti-pipeline, are emotionally triggered people who got sucked into somehow thinking THEY cared about the environment because they attacked, blamed and abused the oil industry, and industry as a whole, when MEANWHILE, it’s industry and guys like my dad and all the brilliant talent he pooled, challenged and paid to do amazing things, who DID & DO amazing things without ever going to one protest.

As protesters have been wasting everyone’s time play acting as the caretakers, knowers, and doers of all things sanctimonious in the name of holy mother earth and the environment, the REAL movers and shakers were out innovating ways to make their lives more comfortable, as they used all the technologies to rail against all the industries who brought them those technologies.

I don’t feel in the least bit rude, out of place, uninformed, or even guilty for being so intolerant in any way towards the current environazis, and/or anyone protesting pipelines. I know there is NO GLOBAL WARMING. because people who did extensive research figured it out early on, and now the data has been completely debunked, and “I told you so”, and I was able to do that because I learned. I know, it’s radical, but I actually EDUCATED myself on these issues, instead of just being emotionally histrionic, pretending I cared about the environment, by abusing oil and pipeline companies, as I used their products and all products associated to oil.

Our father taught us, and everyone he hired and influenced, including a young Patrick Moore when he was still with Greenpeace and they did a radio show together, that we march forward, not backwards, and that it’s our ingenious thinking which propels us to the next phase, the next level, the next innovation. He taps into the part of human nature that naturally wants to explore and problem solve, invent, create, imagine, and build, and he is one of those people who dreamed ahead of his time, and inspired people to come along with him.

Not only did they invent, employ, and contribute to Canada, they put a lot of time, money, effort and importance on giving back. They sponsored academic and athletic scholarships, commissioned artists, and got involved in sports Canada with Harry Jerome, the fastest man in the world, when our mother was also a runner. In total, our father has contributed so much to the world around him, and never stopped innovating, and excelling. His motto at age 70 was “70 and accelerating”.

Konrad J. Tittler Diachem days-The Province news 1990-1

At one point, my father’s company, which both our brothers were an integral part of all their lives, took over every last pulp and paper mill in Canada, driving out all the American companies and competition, and they grew until they were bought out, then they started over again and continued on their journey, just recently selling again, all free to do new things.

Konrad J. Tittler Diachem days-9 Vancouver sun Diachem partners

My father has been on the oil sands half the year, for the last 5 years, and he’s never worked harder trying to solve the problem of the tailings ponds, and they bloody did.

THAT is how it’s done people….you don’t go to protests and pretend you care, you get an education and learn to bring new ideas to the table.

STOP USING OIL & ALL PIPELINES, or start getting to work coming up with new technologies, and quit abusing the people who are. Eco-nazis really and truly do not care more than others, they just abuse more, and do nothing to help solve anything.

Suzuki, that means you. You were one of the few people my father dissed, he absolutely could not stand your hypocritical, arrogant, holier-than-thou fake persona of being some enviro guru, when you never did one single thing to help the environment, you just abused people who had to exist for a living, and who did the work for you. My father’s biggest complaint was that you, Suzuki, NEVER gave any advancements credit, all you ever did was look for ways to scare people into following your fear mongering cult, making you their cult leader.

Suzuki is no where near the great man people like our father is, and that includes so many like him who do the work, while the protesters freak out about the perils of life. They can’t even handle a pipeline, yet no one has even died from one. It’s nuts, and nothing short of it, so be prepared to be called what it is if you protest.

I refuse to take even one person seriously, who protests pipelines, and/or oil, especially when they do it on social media, which does not exist without oil, and even MORE especially from the film industry.

If they can’t stop using oil, they can’t keep bothering everyone about it. They need to show everyone how they can exist without all that oil brings to them, but they can’t tell anyone else what to do, or to speak on behalf of the earth, when the earth will spit us out any time she wants. They need to worry about surviving, not acting as if God. Their only job is to survive, but you’d never know it with the suicide wish they have in turning out the lights and driving us all back into the dark ages, towards a 7th century war lord.

The current times feel like a strange world compared to the one I was raised in, where we were proud to create, build, innovate, and improve the lives of others….when we were proud to be Canadian…..when we were proud to have vaccines that saved millions of lives, when now the only unproven story told is of one small-pox infested blanket from centuries ago, yet all anyone who is not native hears is that they (“whiteman”) killed off all natives on purpose, no thanks at all for the bloody vaccines invented, just abuse for not being the right skin colour. Vaccines saved lives, and yet now they are vilified, and/or not given credit.

We accept this narrative, and allow our country, the people who built it, and the amazing innovations we have produced, to be abused, bullied, vilified, and “decolonized”, as if they mean they’ll give back the technology, when all that means is abuse towards those who invented it all.

We have every right and reason to keep building this great nation and feel proud of our hard work, and proud to be Canadian.

Michele Tittler.




‘DECOLONIZATION’ is cultural genocide of Canada


Oh yes we’re going there…

Chiefs who pushed their way into our constitution in 1982, to bully us to ASSIMILATE to their communist dictatorships, when we are a democracy and we vote for our leaders, were pushing cultural genocide onto Canada and her peoples.

Bullying Canada to ASSIMILATE to race demands to steal land and resources when we have Treaties that state clearly the land was ceded, is cultural genocide towards our Canadian culture.

Bullying our courts to ASSIMILATE to one race’s “oral history” aka, making up stories, when our culture has a history of the written word and formal law so people can’t lie so easily, or make up laws as they go along, is cultural genocide.

Bullying our entire nation into ASSIMILATING to a two tiered justice system, when we are otherwise not that kind of culture in Canada, is cultural genocide.

Bullying our entire nation to ASSIMILATE to a race based extortion blame game because 2% of the population had to go to the same school system as 98% of the population, who all lost their languages and past cultures, and are still losing them as they arrive in Canada, is cultural genocide.

Bullying our entire nation into ASSIMILATING to race based agendas when we are not the kind of culture that believes in race supremacy, or racism, yet we are being forced to ASSIMILATE to native racism and supremacy, is cultural genocide.

The list goes on.

What would people say if today  Canada started declaring they were going to “deNatify”, advertised it and had meetings about how to undo all influence of native culture? That is the what “decolonization” sounds like, yet they can’t seem to hear their own blatant racist talk, that they said was so bad when someone long ago suggested to “take the Indian out of the child”, so now they just want to “take Canada out of the child”, all except the money and benefits part.

“Decolonization” really just means to disrespect and bully what is not their race or culture. There is no end game, it’s just abuse.

It’s misappropriation of the English language, and cultural genocide of our language to use words as improperly as they do, for the express purpose of stunning people who are not their race, into shutting up.


game on.

Michele Tittler

ERBL 1-FB profile green BG-blue trim CAELDERA 800x800

same post on websites:

Michele Tittler gives it to Perry Bellegarde – Chief race supremacist AFN 2016

Michele Tittler gives it to Perry Bellegarde – Chief race supremacist AFN 2016

You are the grand chief of the “Assembly of First Nations” aka, “the gang of UNELECTED race supremacists of various earlier migrant tribes in Canada”, and I, Michele Tittler, am holding you and your elitist gang accountable for inciting hate against Canada, and everyone who is not your race, in particular this so-called “whiteman” you teach your people, (aka your race) to blame, abuse, extort from, discriminate against, TAKE THEIR LAND, and dehumanize.

“If our lands and resources are to be developed, it will be done only with our fair share of the royalties. It will be done on our terms and our timelines,” Mr. Bellegarde told the assembly. “Canada is Indian land.” Perry Bellegarde

The RCMP have been called and I will keep following up until they enforce the criminal code against you for inciting hate against an identifiable group. Section 319.



Canada never did anything like this to the natives. They just tried to protect them and get them ready for the 21st century. No one in our society ever speaks to them and treats them in the unabashedly abusive way their leaders now treat us, “us” being those they perceive as not being their race, mostly “whiteman”.

They had land, and lots of space to exist here, more space than any other race was given for free. They had all the same opportunities everyone else had. We all lost a lot in this new modern world, languages, cultures, homelands, and we all get on with it, yet nothing is ever good enough for them, or so it seems when their leaders never stop promoting race blame. It all gets down to their racism, nothing else. They still nurture hatred for other races living on this land. It’s like an illness of the mind from which their leaders won’t allow their people OR Canada to move on. They keep everyone stuck on the race based blame game narrative, because that’s how they get their millions. It works…kids get online and attack innocent taxpayers whom the kids see as “white” (an identifiable group) and they say such awful things, blame them, bully grown-ups twice their age, and tell people who never did a thing to these kids, to “go home Jew”, and that all of this land belongs to the natives. Kids say that all the time to the identifiable group they call “whitey”, and they learn this hatred and race supremacist bullying from their leaders, their VERY irresponsible, unaccountable leaders whom none of us vote for, not even the grassroots aboriginals.

It has to stop.


Canadians deserve the right to be as offended by Perry’s racist bullying hate speech, as anyone should have been if Hitler was saying the same things about race supremacy over the land, which, in fact, he did.

The teachings, words, narrative, dialogue and blame game the race baiting propagandists from the 26 billion dollar a year “Indian Industry” of lawyers, lobbyists and UNELECTED, UNACCOUNTABLE Chiefs, have incited hatred in no uncertain terms, and, must be addressed within the framework of the criminal code of Canada. For these race supremacist leaders to openly use a public forum to incite hate against an identifiable group, we Canadians who are “white”, as well as all the other races who live here, is a criminal offense. We kept all the proof that the inciting of hate has indeed filtered down to their youth and spilled out online to bullying people who are not their race. It’s actually a very serious problem, death threats, gang rape threats, threats to burn our houses down, threats to shut down the economy, to get people fired, you name it, we all got it because we were seen as “white” and for no other reason. They all told us this was their land and we could “go home” if we didn’t like it. THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of native youth, teenagers, spoke like bullies to everyone who was not their race.

It’s appalling racist dialogue that came from their race baiting, hate inciting leadership, who depend on keeping up the race divisions and blame game, because it’s their bread and butter…their industry. They get rich off race baiting, blame, division and the misappropriation of our language, while taking advantage of our kindness and empathy.

Case closed.

Chiefs are not accountable enough, in any direction,not to their own people, not to Canada, not to the United Nations, not to taxpayers, not to anyone, and all they seem to do is use being their race to incite more hate and division among their people, more blame, more passing the buck, while they seem to only be able to concentrate on how to extort more and more and more out of people who are not their race, getting richer and richer, while their people live in squalor, and they tell them it’s Canada’s fault. It’s so much inciting of hate against an identifiable group, it’s toxic to the maximum degree, and has to be dealt with.

The resources in Canada belong to all of us, no matter what race, but look at these race supremacists literally bullying 36 million people who are not their race, TELLING them they are now going to get what is rightfully theirs, for their resources, on their land.

WE DO NOT VOTE FOR THESE CHIEFS. THEY ARE NOT OUR LANDLORDS OR OUR SLAVE OWNERS. Yet that is literally how Perry is speaking to us…us who are not his race…racism.

It’s a racism so huge, so repugnant, so abusive, so disrespectful, so ungrateful, so void of any and all acknowledgement of the millions and millions of men and women who built this nation out of barren, harsh land, when in all that time, the natives just wandered it, and now these leaders, who say they don’t want to “assimilate”, which only ever seems to mean they don’t have to respect Canadian law and our elected officials, or our people, because it sure as hell never means they won’t “assimilate” to all the modern things others bring to this society, now they want to just take over what everyone else built, all based on their race supremacy.

ERBL sm it's 2016 where people pay for land 800x800

And…we are all “indigenous” to mother earth. Using it to elevate only one group is racism. To disregard others as not having the same significance on this land, is racism. I am “indigenous”. I was born here, and no where else.

The Japanese have been “indigenous” to their island for centuries, yet no one there gets free land just because they inhabited the island before other races of people.

In fact, no where in any nation does anyone get free land, except Canadian aboriginals, and even on Reserves the individual grassroots Aboriginal cannot own his/her own home, it belongs to the Chief.

So, if all the land in Canada belongs to the aboriginal CHIEFS, based on the bogus argument that they were here first, then which tribal Chief heir was the first? If it’s about “FIRST” then which one of the 4 different waves of Siberian/Mongolian migrant tribal families arrived first over the thousands of years of slow migration across the Bering Straight?

You can’t have 600+ “firsts”, that’s not what the word “first” means. Shoving “first” and “nations” down our throats when they are both misappropriated from the English language, and the meanings misused, is sly, unfair, and racist. It’s a kind of subversive bullying to MAKE everyone bow to the terms, , to remind everyone just ‘who’ was here first, yet the tribes themselves don’t bow to that pecking order and call each other by their order of 1-600+, it begins and ends with other races of people ONLY.

The aboriginals could come and go at their leisure for centuries, kill each other for land, instead of paying for it like we do now-a-days in modern societies around the world, and not have to ask anyone’s permission to be their race on this land. Yet here they are, and by “they” I mean their race based leaders, literally bullying our entire nation of races from around the world, telling all Canadians who pay rent and mortgages, who are not their race, that in 2016 ONLY ONE RACE IS THE ULTIMATE SUPREMACIST RACE WHO CAN OWN LAND….all based on the one and only lame premise of being here “first”, as if that is some magical rule that makes their racist bullying and abuses ok against innocent taxpayers who paid for land.

AS IF THEY UTILIZED THE MASSIVE LAND MASS IN TOTALITY, OR MINED, OR HAD ANY HISTORY AT ALL OF INDUSTRY AND RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT. Now they want what others worked hard for, for free, simply because of their race and this meaningless argument that being first means race supremacy for all time.

Ok, then, let’s find out who was actually “first”, the FIRST migrant family to arrive, and get this b.s. over with, shall we? They can’t back peddle now and say it’s not about being first when we are all being massively extorted from and bullied and blamed, for exactly that one reason.

The argument that the Canadian aboriginals own all the land, simply because of being their race, is racism. It’s sheer unabashed, unchecked, unapologetic, uncaring, unprecedented, unrelenting, unacceptable racism.

Everyone else pays for land, so technically it’s these race supremacists who are “stealing” it, or trying to. It’s not their land, it’s just their racism.

native supremacy


(DONATE to help us advertise this post across Canada, so these race supremacist leaders get the message that there is a grassroots pushback on their bullying. I put it all to advertising, every dollar counts. Thanks! 🙂

Michele Tittler



Treaty 1
“The Chippewa and Swampy Cree Tribes of Indians and all other the Indians inhabiting the district hereinafter described and defined do hereby CEDE, RELEASE, SURRENDER and YIELD UP to Her Majesty the Queen and successors FOREVER ALL THE LANDS included within the following limits….(description of territory)



(same post on)

(audio only)

‘END RACE BASED LAW calls out Aboriginal Chiefs to public debates’

Here’s what all Canadians need to know about race laws and race agendas in Canada. You REALLY need to know this, so please read…. 

ERBLChallengesChiefsToDebate800x800The overwhelming impetus and activity is, ultimately, that the Aboriginal Chiefs are pushing for “sovereign nations”; in other words, to break up Canada. To claim all the land, all the resources, and to be landlords to those who are not their race, who will pay them to exist here and breathe the air they, their one race, own (an actual quote by James Gosnell of the Nisga’a Tribe in B.C., see the end of this post). 

A few Chiefs bullied their way into the Canadian Constitution when it was being amended in 1982, and polite politicians obliged, which enshrined the Treaties in the constitution (a huge mistake) and added a clause that gave “aboriginal” and “Treaty” rights, both of which were undefined ( a colossal mistake that costs a fortune every year and will eventually break up our country, if they can at all help it.).

The wording of the clause in the constitution was ambiguous, leaving it open for interpretation, which gave way to an entire industry for lawyers, judges, Chiefs and Race Agenda Activists to “interpret” it in never-ending ways. Court case after COSTLY court case ensues, costing and giving away innocent taxpayers’ money by the MULTI billions each and every year; lands, resources, and powers awarded to people who are, admittedly, in much disarray, and who can’t seem to be grateful for anything in life if it means accepting that people of “other” races live here, and have created a culture and a cohesive, successful, real nation called Canada.

They are reinterpreting Treaties every day, treaties that were written simply, clearly and without ANY misunderstanding; yet you should hear the bull*^#@ coming out of the native narrative now, about how it all has to be retrofitted to today, so what was five dollars every year has to now be ramped up to millions. Natives got free university educations and many of them took law.

They want it all, and they want it for free, forever.

That’s what the most vocal are promoting and pushing for. 

It’s unbridled, unprecedented, unabashed racism so huge, no one will even question it anymore. Everyone has been pummeled to feel sorry for them because they were given free schooling at the same kinds of boarding schools many other children went to in their lifetimes. They need the Residential School blame game to stun anyone who questions their race supremacy agendas. Apparently, they figured out Canadians are a polite bunch of suckers who feel guilty on behalf of anyone with lighter skin, as the race blame game has ensured.

One race — 4% of the population of Canada — want all the land, all the resources, not having to follow any of our education system, or Canadian laws (except the ones that benefit their race agendas), and all that free cash from hard-working taxpayers, while they (their race) call the shots, and we don’t even vote for any one of them. 

I get emails from a blogger whose address is “canadaslandlords”, and they have no shame in stating that the natives run this country. The truth is that in many ways they do, and have for a while now, like a ‘mafioso’ kind of hold on our collective conscience. Who you vote for means nothing, because any politician will be beholden to the oppression of race agendists or they’ll be called “racists” and lose their seat. Period.


The truth is they have NEVER, EVER, EVER “honoured the treaties” — including the obligation that they have to follow the law — yet they have taught their kids to go around chanting, marching, protesting and lamenting for Canada to “honour the Treaties”, as if Canada doesn’t. What that comes from, and now means is, “give us what the courts say to give us in the newest interpretation of whatever Treaty or land claim is being argued in court by 600+ “nations” (tribes)”; so you do the math at what those court costs are. It’s their industry to take Canada to court, all paid for by YOU and your kids.

They use Canadian laws and Canadian courts to try to stop industry, to take land they did not pay for from people who did, to get billions of dollars they did not earn, and to advance their cause to be “sovereign nations”, all while we pay for it, and have no say in their laws, their worlds, their leaders…nothing…not one single thing are we even allowed to participate in, or expect that they deliver. They have NO OBLIGATIONS, ONLY DEMANDS. One race bullying the entire nation of Canada, using their race as the single thread of clout.

CANADA HAS NO ONE REPRESENTING TAXPAYERS. The government’s obligation is towards the aboriginals because of all these race laws, so no one is really watching out for, or speaking for Canadians. It’s been a stacked deck, a one-sided conversation for decades now, one which has successfully silenced any dissenters (and we’d know, as we get massive bullying and abuse for daring to speak up, as have many).

Incredible greed and corruption on reserves, and so much abuse and bullying in their culture. Chiefs making millions each and every year while their “people” (it’s a tribal thing) are kept oppressed, living in squalor, as they are brainwashed to blame Canada for it all so the Chiefs can keep up the divide. How else do they remain in control? They have to keep teaching their kids to hate and blame Canada, to bully us, to be an enemy of “assimilation” and to not have any conscience about it — that’s what the blame game is all about, deflection. Any resistance is automatically called “racist” and this word game, this dialogue that’s developed from “The Indian Industry” of lawyers and race baiters, is a magic language that misuses words all the time, which lies, and cons, and manipulates and bullies, all for one race and one race only. At no time do we hear this conversation include people who are not their race, except to blame them, but never to include them, accept them, go to bat them for them, care about them like they did for the natives.

500 years later, this current generation of race agendists are so resentful and bitter that other races live here on this land, they have such a strong disassociative state of mind towards all the great peoples here who built this amazing country, the BEST SOVEREIGN NATION IN THE WORLD, that they are actively engaging in the race discrimination of “dehumanizing”, aka “decolonizing”. That means nothing else except being racist and rejecting towards those who are not their race. They’ll use their iPhones to post their “decolonization” rants.

It’s all racism from their own racism issues. Why won’t anyone just call them on it? It’s bizarre, and nothing short of it, that 500 years later this one group’s youth speak as if at war with the enemy, at the same time as their leaders are demanding more and more and more money for their own race agendas — never once thanking, never once offering to contribute something themselves, never once so much as speaking as if they have to be accountable, only ever speaking with arrogant hubris about what they, their race, demands from Canada.

So here’s the question of the millennium (based on a true story, see link below):

“If an aboriginal Mohawk man claims a piece of land in Quebec and says “this is my land, (simply because he was born a certain race) so I am going to grow beans on it”, then what happens when another aboriginal Mohawk man comes along and says “this is MY land and I want to put a Casino on it?”…/…/kahnawake-in-land-battle-with-neighbours/

If other Aboriginal tribes had inhabited the areas that some natives are now disputing, would they be taking them to court? The answer is in the past. They did not have courts and/or land titles, they instead killed each other and took slaves for land they stole from each other. That was how it was until other peoples and cultures came here to build this nation and bring peace and opportunity for all, regardless of race.

Think about this clearly, rationally, fairly — they used to rape, pillage and murder each other for this land, the same way all tribal warfare was and still is in many parts of the world. WHY are we letting this one minority drag us all back into tribalistic, racist warring for land, when our Canadian culture has a tradition of PURCHASING land, and of honouring those deeds?

THE REASON MAN CREATED RULES FOR LAND TITLE IS SO SOME THUG COULD NOT COME AND TAKE WHAT WE PAID FOR AND BUILT, ESPECIALLY NOT JUST BECAUSE HE WAS BORN A CERTAIN RACE!… So why are our politicians not standing up for land owners who actually worked and paid for their land? Why are we giving away Crown Land that’s for ALL Canadians, not just some from one race? Why are we catering to race bullying from people who are using being their race, 500 years later, to claim lands their ancestors fought and killed each other for?

Canada…wake up….this is not what OUR ancestors built, not what our culture is all about, not what our society should ever aspire to. Do not give in to this native supremacy narrative, when it’s at the expense of 30 million innocent taxpayers and landowners. These native leaders need to stop promoting race blame, stop demanding race supremacy, stop pushing our elected politicians around and start being respectful, humble and grateful to all those from whom they receive free money. This is a great nation, and they spit on it and all who built it whenever they open their mouths.

Let’s get race out of the picture, and deal with all peoples the same way. These race agendas and demands are counter to our values and way of life in our Canadian collective histories. Our ancestors fought and died for our freedom and democracy, not to be under race rule. This is not what people fought and died for in WWII. 

Time to make our demands heard.

I’m ready to take on the whole lot of them, the entire “Assembly of First Nations”, which are tribes, not nations. I want to meet with and to argue with these Chiefs, to lure them into debates that the country hears. They have to be accountable to everyone, since it’s our tax dollars and OUR country they are bullying us for, and yet they are accountable to no one. Not even the media will take them on…but I will.

Michele Tittler

“We are the true owners of British Columbia. The Indians across the province own everything — the rivers, the trees, the bugs, the animals. You name it.

“Subsurface rights, the air, the rain, the whole shot. That’s what we mean when we say we have aboriginal title to the land.”

–James Gosnell, Chairman, Nisga’a Tribal Council (Globe and Mail, April 30, 1984),
explaining the Indian definition of ‘Aboriginal Title’  


Petition to END RACE BASED LAW in Canada


WE, the undersigned citizens of Canada, draw the attention of the Government of Canada to the following:

THAT whereas the Indian Act and Section 91(24) of the Constitution Act, (1867) have divided Canadians by race and heritage; have perpetuated the unequal treatment of Canadian Indians, providing the legal framework for segregation via the reserve system; have prevented reserve Indians from equal provincial educational access; have prevented reserve Indians from having the full legal, economic and property rights and opportunities of other Canadian citizens;

AND whereas the inclusion of Sections 35 and 25 in the Constitution Act (1982) have divided Canadians by race and heritage; have disrupted legal commercial and exploration activities; have introduced legal uncertainty into property ownership; have left some Canadians without proper police protection, as in Caledonia, Ont.; and have left most Canadians with diminished rights with every expansion of ‘indigenous rights’ based on Section 35;

AND whereas the inclusion of “with particular attention to the circumstances of aboriginal offenders” in Section 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46) has resulted in a two- tiered system of justice, wherein Canadians receive different legal outcomes, depending on their race/ethnic heritage;

AND whereas the United Nations “Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples” contains provisions that are fundamentally incompatible with Canada’s constitutional framework;

THEREFORE, your Petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to take the following actions:

THE passage of the repeal of the Indian Act;

THE passage of the removal of “with particular attention to the circumstances of aboriginal
offenders” in Section 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46);

THE removal of Canada’s signature from the United Nations “Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples”;

THE calling of a Constitutional conference, pursuant to Section 35.1 of the Constitution Amendment Proclamation (1983), leading to the repeal of Sections 35 and 25 of the Constitution Act (1982), and Section 91(24) of the Constitution Act (1867);

THE active encouragement of the provincial legislatures to do the same, or via provincial referenda; and the calling of a federal/provincial Constitutional conference to finalize these changes desired by the people of Canada, including setting a date for the final termination of Treaty and land claims submissions.


Petition signed by the citizens of Canada.
Name & Address (city, province, postal code)



Please note, this part is for information purposes only and does not form any part of the Official Petition.


*Note that the pages must be free of erasures and contain only original signatures and addresses written directly onto the front AND also the back of the petition page.

The request contained in the Petition to END RACE BASED LAW has been reviewed by Richard Bernier, Procedural Clerk and Clerk of Petitions, House of Commons, and found to meet the official requirements.

Names will not be used in any way other than for the purposes of this Petition conforming to the requirements of the Canadian Government, it is to be presented to the House of Commons.






not legal,

as the printed and signed version is,

but it’s worth signing anyway.

END RACE BASED LAW Radio-2 “The Petition” with Gerry Gagnon & Michele Tittler

Why End Race Based Law?

Canadians believe in equality, that all men and women have equal rights. We have determined that all shall be treated fairly and that no one shall be shut out of Canadian life, and especially that no one shall be shut out because of his, or her, race.

Only a policy based on this belief can enable Canadians of Aboriginal heritage to realize their needs and aspirations.

Native Aboriginal relations with other Canadians began with special treatment by government and society, and special treatment has been the rule since Europeans first settled in Canada. Special treatment has made of the Aborignals a community disadvantaged and apart.
Obviously, the course of history must be changed.

The changes proposed recognize the simple reality that the separate legal status of Aboriginals, and the policies which have flowed from it, have kept the Aboriginal people apart from, and behind, other Canadians. The treatment resulting from their different status has often been worse, sometimes equal and occasionally better than that accorded to their fellow citizens.
What matters is that it has been different.

We can no longer perpetuate the separation of Canadians.
Now is the time to change. 
The Government should be prepared to take the following steps to create this framework:

–Propose to Parliament that the ‘Indian Act’ be repealed and take such legislative steps as may be necessary to enable Indians to control Indian reserve lands and to acquire title to them;

–Start the Constitutional amendment procedures necessary to remove the specific references to ‘Indians’ from the Constitution;

–Propose to the governments of the provinces that they take over the same responsibility for Canadian Aboriginals that they have for other citizens in their provinces. The takeover would be accompanied by the transfer to the provinces of federal funds normally provided for Aboriginal programs, augmented as may be necessary;

–Wind up that part of the Federal Government which deals with Indian/Aboriginal/’First Nation’/’Indigenous’ Affairs. The residual responsibilities of the Federal Government for programs in the field of Aboriginal affairs would be transferred to other appropriate federal departments.
Canada cannot seek the just society and keep discriminatory legislation on its statute books. The ultimate aim of removing the specific references to ‘Indians’ from the Constitution may take some time, but it is a goal to be kept constantly in view.
In the meantime, barriers created by special legislation can generally be struck down.

Under the authority of Heading 24, Section 91 of the ‘Constitution Act, (1867)’, the Parliament of Canada has enacted the ‘Indian Act’. Various federal-provincial agreements and some other statutes {i.e. Section 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46)} also affect Aboriginal policies.

Removal of this, and other, references in the Constitution {i.e. Sections 35 and 25 of the Constitution Act (1982)} is necessary to end the legal distinction between Aboriginals and other Canadians.
In the short term, repeal of the Indian Act and enactment of transitional legislation to ensure the orderly management of Aboriginal land would do much to mitigate the problem.

Services must come through the same channels and from the same government agencies for all Canadians. This is an undeniable part of equality. It has been shown many times that separation of people follows from separate services.
There can be no argument about the principle of common services.
It is right.

It cannot be accepted now that Aboriginals should be constitutionally excluded from the right to be treated within their province as full and equal citizens, with all the responsibilities and all the privileges that this might entail. It is in the provincial sphere where social remedies are structured and applied, and the Aboriginal people, by and large, have been non-participating members of provincial society.

Canadians receive a wide range of services through provincial and local governments, but the Aboriginal people and their communities are mostly outside that framework.
It is no longer acceptable that the Aboriginal people should be outside and apart. The Government must ensure that services are available on an equitable basis, except for temporary differentiation based on need.

Services ought not to flow from separate agencies established to serve particular groups, especially not to groups that are identified ethnically.

Therefore, the traditional method of providing separate services to Canadian Aboriginals must be ended. All Aboriginals should have access to all programs and services of all levels of government equally with other Canadians.
The terms and effects of the Treaties between the Canadian Aboriginal people and the Government are widely misunderstood. A plain reading of the words used in the treaties reveals the limited and minimal promises which were included in them.

The significance of the Treaties in meeting the economic, educational, health and welfare needs of the Aboriginal people has always been limited and will continue to decline. The services that have been provided go far beyond what could have been foreseen by those who signed the Treaties.
A policy can achieve no more than is desired by the people it is intended to serve. The essential role of a new approach is that it acknowledges that truth by recognizing the central and essential role of the Aboriginal people in solving their own problems. It will provide, for the first time, a non-discriminatory framework within which, in an atmosphere of freedom, the Aboriginal people could, with other Canadians, work out their own destiny.

Government policies must lead to the full, free and non-­discriminatory participation of the Aboriginal people in Canadian society. Such a goal requires a break with the past. It requires that the Aboriginal people’s role of dependence be replaced by a role of equal status, opportunity and responsibility, a role they can share with all other Canadians.

We must not perpetuate policies which carry with them the seeds of disharmony and disunity, policies which prevent Canadians from fulfilling themselves and contributing to their society.

Governments can set examples, but they cannot change the hearts of men. Canadians stand at the crossroads.

For Canadian society, the issue is whether a growing element of its population will become full participants, contributing in a positive way to the general well­-being or whether, conversely, the present social and economic gap will lead to their increasing frustration and isolation, a threat to the general well-being of society.

For the Aboriginal people, the only road that existed since Confederation and before was the road of different status, a road which has led to a blind alley of deprivation and frustration. This road, because it is a separate road, cannot lead to full participation — to equality in practice, as well as in theory.

This belief is the basis for our determination to open the doors of opportunity to all Canadians, to remove the barriers which impede the development of people, of regions, and of the country.

–paraphrased from “Statement of the Government of Canada on Indian policy (The White Paper, 1969)”:




On Using The Term ‘Indian’

On Using The Term ‘Indian’

“Indian” is the precise, legal and denotative term for what is in fact a purely race-based legal category of persons in Canada. It’s in the title of the Indian Act and used throughout that statute. It’s in the constitution of our country, referring to that class of aboriginals who inhabit southern Canada. (The other two legally defined types of aboriginals in the constitution are “Inuit” and “Metis”.)

“It’s used by our courts in their many decisions emanating out of this burgeoning area of law. Indeed, in a very recent and important Court decision, ‘Keewatin’, the court extensively discussed what it clearly regarded as the important and worthy concept of “Indianness”.

“To me, it’s offensive and counter-intuitive to our basic civic values that we should still have, and want to permanently keep, any category of Canadians defined solely on the basis of their race — and who would possess a whole series of special legal rights and entitlements based solely on the mere fact of their race — the mere accident of their birth… 

“Canada’s ultimate goal in this regard should be for us all to have no need or desire to have the word “Indian” in our constitution, in any of our statutes, or to be a meaningful legal term generally. Canadian history at least provides us with an explanation and a reasonable “excuse” for the original legal separation of Indians from non-Indians.

“But now, there is no reasonable excuse for our courts, our governments and governing classes generally to further entrench and expand this inherently illiberal and segregationist concept into our laws and civic life.
But even though they have the best of intentions, that’s what they’re doing…

“Therefore, in order that the essentially segregationist and benignly racist nature of this case be brought to the fore and kept there — in order that the wrong and discomfiting nature of what is happening be not just read, but felt — I will be using, as if it were a verbal hairshirt, that precise, legal, racial term “Indian”.

“If the reader feels uncomfortable seeing and reading the word everywhere because it “sounds racist”, then good! That’s the point — it is inherently racist! And as such, it’s inherently wrong that it’s in our constitution, statutes and court decisions in the way it is.

“For the same reason — clarity of unpleasant thought — I will be trying to avoid as much as possible the use of those other sanitized, progressive-sounding terms now being used to denote Indians — terms such as “natives”, “elders”, “urban elder”, “aboriginals” and “First Nations” (the last, a complete recent fabrication, nowhere to be found in the historical record or in the wording of any of the original treaties).

“These are soft, vague, very emotive, relatively modern terms. They’re politically inspired and biased terms, connotative of pre-fall Edenic perfection, poorly supported in law or history, favoured and used by governments, the media, academia and by the “Indian industry” generally, and all of whom use the word “Indian” only when, usually for legal or technical reasons, they absolutely have to.

“These terms all have the deliberate effect of masking the fundamentally (albeit unintentional and benign) racist, segregationist nature of the current situation.

“They also have the Orwellian effect, as most mandated politically-correct terminology does, of clouding clear thought and deliberately constraining and debasing free speech and public discourse on this issue.”

–Peter Best, “Terminology”
It’s amusing (as well as offensive) watching our ‘legal beagles’ and government agencies trying to grapple with the ‘definitions’ that are necessary for the continuation and administration of “race based law”…
but if you’re going to administer people by racial and ethnic categories, then you must divide people into racial and ethnic categories, which means that you must first define the racial and ethnic categories:

From Canada Revenue Agency’s page:
“Note: We recognize that many First Nations people in Canada prefer not to describe themselves as Indians. However, we use the term Indian because it has a legal meaning in the Indian Act.”

And from the Canadian Bar Association…
(“A voluntary organization representing over 35,000 lawyers across Canada”):
“The term “First Nation” has come into popular use as a term of respect for the position of aboriginal people as the original inhabitants of Canada. However, IT HAS NO CONSISTENT LEGAL DEFINITION and ITS ACTUAL APPLICATION IS BECOMING UNCERTAIN as it is increasingly defined in various statutes. Generally speaking, it applies to Indian bands or groups of bands and to Indian people, and it is used in that way in this script…”

And: “The Metis are people of mixed aboriginal and non-aboriginal ancestry, but THEIR PRECISE LEGAL DEFINITION IS NOT CERTAIN… THERE STILL REMAINS A GREAT DEAL OF AMBIGUITY.”
“I am aware that some will argue that “First Nations” is indeed accurate, given that some aboriginal groups assert that they have never given up their sovereignty, and assert nation-state status.

“However, to label a collective of 300 or 3,000 people a ‘nation’ or ‘nation-state’, when ‘collective’ or ‘cohort’ {or ‘tribe’} is more accurate, is to make language opaque and undercut its purpose. I side with Aristotle and George Orwell, who asserted that one purpose of language is to clarify, not to confuse, proper conceptions.”

–‘Government spending on Canada’s Aboriginals since 1947’,
Mark Milke, Fraser Institute – ‘Centre for Aboriginal Policy Studies’, December 2013



Trudeau and Gosnell

Trudeau and Gosnell

‘Nisga’a Chief James Gosnell, at the 1983 First Ministers’ Conference:

“It has always been our belief, Mr. Chairman, that when God created this whole world, he gave pieces of land to all races of people throughout this world — the Chinese people, Germans, and you name them, including Indians. So, at one time our land was this whole continent — right from the tip of South America to the North Pole… It has always been our belief that God gave us the land…and we say that no one can take our title away except He who gave it to us to begin with.”

‘To which Prime Minister Trudeau responded:

“Going back to the Creator doesn’t really help very much. So, He gave you title but, you know, did He draw on the land where your mountains stopped and somebody else’s began…? God never said that the frontier of France runs along the Rhine…

“I don’t know any part of the world where history isn’t constantly rewritten by migrations and immigrants, and fights between countries changing frontiers. And I don’t think you can expect North America or the whole of the Western Hemisphere to settle things differently than they have been settled anywhere else — hopefully, peacefully here.” 

–quoted in “Our Home or Native Land?”, Mel Smith, p.149-150

“So, this year we came up with a proposal. It’s a policy paper on the ‘Indian problem’. It proposes a set of solutions. It doesn’t impose them on anybody. It proposes them — not only to the Indians, but to all Canadians — not only to their federal representatives, but to the provincial representatives, too, and it says we’re at the crossroads. We can go on treating the Indians as having a special status. We can go on adding bricks of discrimination around the ghetto in which they live and at the same time, perhaps, helping them preserve certain cultural traits and certain ancestral rights. Or we can say you’re at a crossroad — the time is now to decide whether the Indians will be a race apart in Canada or whether it will be Canadians of full status.”

Those words were spoken back on Aug. 8, 1969, by then-prime minister Pierre Trudeau at the ‘Aboriginal and Treaty Rights’ meeting in Vancouver…

“We will recognize forms of contract which have been made with the Indian people by the Crown and we will try to bring justice in that area, and this will mean that perhaps the treaties shouldn’t go on forever. It’s inconceivable, I think, that in a given society, one section of the society have a treaty with the other section of the society.

“We must all be equal under the laws and we must not sign treaties among ourselves. And many of these treaties, indeed, would have less and less significance in the future anyhow, but things that in the past were covered by the treaties…things like so much twine, or so much gunpowder and which haven’t been paid, this must be paid. But I don’t think that we should encourage the Indians to feel that their treaties should last forever within Canada…”

“They should become Canadians as all other Canadians and if they were prosperous and wealthy, they will be treated like prosperous and wealthy and they will be paying taxes for the other Canadians, who are not so prosperous and not so wealthy — whether they be Indians or English Canadians or French or Maritimers.

“(This) is the only basis on which I see our society can develop as equals.

“But aboriginal rights, this really means saying, ‘We were here before you. You came and took the land from us… We want you to preserve our aboriginal rights and to restore them to us.”

“And our answer — it…may not be one which is accepted, but it will be up to all you people to make your minds up and to choose for or against it… our answer is ‘No’…”

–‘Trudeau’s words about aboriginals resonate’, Robert Head, Calgary Herald, Tuesday, January 03, 2012



Democracy and Tribalism

                        Democracy and Tribalism

“The history of progress in the world is the history of ‘detribalisation’, and the race or ethnic politics that goes with tribalised societies.
We see enough of these in today’s world to know better than to romanticise tribalism – or do we?”

“The case for ‘co-governance’ between the government and “iwi” {aboriginals} is justified, according to cultural recognition and ‘social justice’ beliefs. However, that is to make a fundamental error — one that ignores the dangers of including ethnicity into the political arrangements of a democratic nation.

” ‘Ethnicity’ refers to ‘race’ – that is, the concept that a socio-cultural group is defined in terms of its genetic ancestry. This doesn’t, of course, mean that ethnicity/ race is a scientific term. We are in fact 99.9% the same, with the remaining 0.1% being differences between individuals, not between groups.
But some groups like to define themselves in terms of their genetic ancestry, as do New Zealand’s ‘retribalists’…

“Interestingly, ‘ethnicity’ has nudged race aside only recently. By the beginning of the 1970s, almost no one used the term ‘ethnicity’. By the end of the decade, almost everyone did. If our ‘Race Relations Office’ had been established even one year later than it was, it would have the ethnicity title.

“But changing a word doesn’t change the concept signified by that word. Ethnicity still means race; still means a genetic criteria for membership.

“Earlier this year, the Herald and the NZCPR published a piece I had written about the incompatibility of tribalism and democracy. Recently, I discovered that the ‘Nigerian Observor’, in referring to my article, had used my conclusion – that there is a fundamental incompatibility between the two sociopolitical systems – to say this:

“There is urgent need for robust public discussion, review and referendum—if needed—on the democratic and political systems in Africa, with focus on the re-introduction of parliamentarism. We need to move forward.”

“What is fascinating is that progressive discussion in Africa is advocating moving towards parliamentarianism while in New Zealand {and Canada} we, or a significant number of the politically influential, are seemingly unaware of the jewel that we have in our own parliamentary system… In that innocence, they are unaware of the threat to that system.

“From the 1980s, the rather benign idea of recognising Maori culture in the wider society became a political biculturalism that has enabled a small but extremely influential group of ‘retribalists’ to capture the moral high ground of ‘social justice’ — but in their own interests.
(It shouldn’t be forgotten that the numbers of Maori in poverty has actually grown during the bicultural decades.)

“On the way to elite status — with its associated political power and economic wealth — the retribalists have successfully manipulated the rather naïve belief that social justice comes from cultural recognition – a belief which got support for biculturalism in the first place.

“Biculturalism has a new political meaning but its ongoing support lies in the old cultural one. It now means that two so-called ‘ethnic’ groups have different political interests, which should be recognised institutionally.

{The widely-discredited ‘Separate But Equal’ nonsense. Indigenous racism is forcing Western nations to retrace their steps…}

“This institutional recognition — beginning in education and health — began a veritable march into the heart of government. The re-interpretation of the Treaty as a so-called ‘partnership’ {just as in Canada} is providing the mandate for the march into the institutions…
We see this in recent months, with the assumption that ‘co-governance’ is the natural next step…

“But what is the nature of the group that will be ‘co-governor’? What are the implications for New Zealand’s parliamentary democracy?

“The justification for this elite’s power is its claim to represent a tribal people — so, such a people must be created and maintained — hence, the aggressive retribalisation {‘decolonisation’} that we have seen in recent years.
Access to Treaty settlements requires individuals to belong to a tribe… Educational scholarships require applicants to name their tribe…

‘Detribalisation’ is described as the problem, so ‘retribalisation’ is to be the solution — a slogan that assumes tribalism is a progressive form of social organisation — that it is worth having, that it should not have been destroyed.

“So, let us look at what the tribe or clan is.

“It is the oldest way to organise a social group. The cement is kinship. As the group gets larger, it becomes a race or ethnic group.
The group’s distinctiveness is the result of a shared history which may be very long, as with Australian Aborigines, or relatively short, as with Maori. However, a shared history does not mean that the tribe, or any group for that matter, should have a distinctive political system that never changes.

“If there is no change, then those people are locked into a kin-based political system for all time. There can be no modernity, no progress, no future.

“One of the benefits of colonisation, and there are a number, is the destruction of tribalism.

“For slaves and lower caste people, it was liberation.

“Of course, the chiefly caste did not agree and today we see the resurgence of those who would be their inheritors.

“The new elite is a self-proclaimed aristocracy, justifying their ambition in romantic appeals to an Arcadian past.

“Tribalism must be destroyed for democracy to exist.
Democracy’s superiority as a political system is that it is the final stage in the separation of the kin/race character of a socio-cultural group, from its political character.

“It has achieved this separation by creating the secular public space where politics takes place, and by creating the citizen as the political subject for that space. The separation has not been easy, even in its final stages, as the turmoils of the 19th and 20th centuries remind us.

“We get fascinating accounts of the beginnings of the social-political separation from historian Peter Munz and anthropologist Alan Macfarlane. Munz describes how the Roman invasion of Europe allowed three intertwined movements to weaken European tribalisation so successfully that the pre-conditions were established for new non-kinship forms of governance — although democracy was still a long way into the future.

“The Romans brought Greek civilisation, Roman law, and Christianity. This was a heady combination that undermined tribalism and laid the pre-conditions for the break-up of kin and race-based political structures.

“In his ‘Making of the Modern World’, Alan Macfarlane…also traces the rise of the modern world to the early break-up of tribalism. He refers to the legal right of women in Anglo-Saxon England to will property outside the kin-group, to show the weakening of kinship as a public political organising force by the 8th and 9th centuries.

“The history of progress in the world is the history of ‘detribalisation’, and the race or ethnic politics that goes with tribalised societies…

“Tribal politics is necessarily undemocratic because of the criteria for membership and the system of leadership… This suits those who would lead the tribe because it guarantees a population that only they can represent. Leadership is also undemocratic because there is no clear separation of kin status and political status.

“So, the question for us is not why the ‘iwi’ elite is using retribal strategies to gain increasing political power and economic wealth – any emerging elite that chances upon a direct and easy means to get its way, will take it.
The intriguing question is how has a population with 161 years of democracy under its belt allowed this to happen.

“Whatarangi Winiata, the Maori Party’s ideologue, was the brains behind the division of the Anglican Church into three racial groups in the 1980s. He must be good because here was the ‘Universal Church’, one that had played a major role in the break-up of kinship organisation since the first centuries AD, meekly accepting a return to race-based division. Winiata has said that the Church’s three-party model is the model for New Zealand. ‘Co-governance’ is the current step…

“As an academic, I find the skill of the retribalising elite’s manipulative strategies fascinating. As a New Zealand citizen, I despair for our country when we do not know the value of what we have got.”

–‘Democracy and Tribalism’,
Dr. Elizabeth Rata, November 17, 2013
“The greatest danger to democracy comes from tribalism.

“In most of the world, democracy usually fails as a direct result of tribalism. People divide up into tribes based on ethnicity, or religion, and vote exclusively along tribal lines.

“The result is that it doesn’t matter what the issues are, or who the candidates are. The result is foreordained…

“Whether we’re talking Shiites in Iran, or Xhosa in South Africa, northern Italians or Japanese nationalists, tribalism covers up corruption and makes free institutions difficult to sustain. Issues don’t matter, the candidates don’t matter, charges of corruption don’t matter. What matters is power, what matters is tribe, and you follow along.”





Why does it garner so much fear, just the mere mention to END RACE BASED LAW?

Aside from race laws in our constitution, the Indian Act needs to be abolished, and so many of the aboriginals feel the same way about it, so why are we not all doing this together? Them included.
Why can’t we END RACE BASED LAW, abolish the Indian Act, and stop feeding the Indian Industry?

It’s section 35 in our constitution that’s allowed court cases to carry on all across this country, at taxpayer’s expense, and all it’s done is continue to enable the blame game, keeping us all stuck in that dialogue, which is the backbone to the Indian Industry.
None of these laws really serve anyone, except the lawyers and lobbyists, and those who are out to use them for their own personal benefit, at the expense of others, including the aboriginals.

ALL politicians must be held accountable to the taxpayer, this is not some new concept, it’s OUR money and we have a say in how it’s spent. And so do the aboriginals who are not in charge of that money, but whose leaders get it on their behalf.

Surely if we are able to help people, we can help the individual person without having to feed an ever-growing, ever more costly Indian Industry.

Canada can offer up the programs they need, help with job training, education, and health, but since most of the money is going to lawyers and lobbyists, why are we doing it? Why are the aboriginals not on board with us?
My goal is to open up the conversation to challenge everyone to rethink these laws, and to remove them from our constitution, and get on with the reality of us ALL being in this together.

The personal attacks that came from the cyber gang of “Idle No More” created such an unfortunate image for themselves, it made it nearly impossible for us to concentrate on much else.

HOWEVER, there are many more great people out there in the aboriginal communities who are working hard to contribute positive change, and they’re the people who will make a difference. The haters will only cost everyone.

I just think it’s time for all Canadians, the aboriginals included, to stop acquiescing to the blame game Indian Industry, and to start figuring out how we all move into the future together, because it’s not going to get better the way it’s going. It’s only gotten worse.

This is not an initiative to bash the native culture, to incite hate towards them, or to see them falter.
The opposite.

This is a conversation to talk about how to help fix and change what’s broken, so things get better.

As hard as this conversation is for everyone, we have to have it because things have to change. We can do better, and we have to ask the aboriginals to come with us, and to help nurture a healthier relationship with everyone. The focus needs to shift towards unity and common goals, not on blame, hate, racism and extortion.

The Indian Industry is NOT the average man/woman/child who needs help…it’s non-native and native lawyers, lobbyists and activists who have a vested interest in keeping the blame game alive. It is so detrimental to everyone. It’s created Apartheid, segregation and divisiveness.

Like I say….we can do better.

Michele Tittler