Fall 2017 (Issue # 69) Press for Conversion! 19

By Richard Sanders

In 1496, John Cabot (GiovanniCaboto) received a license fromHenry VII to “conquer, occupy

and possess.” This piracy contractcame with an important religious ca-veat. The king only gave Cabot

“full and free authority, facultyand power to … find, discover andinvestigate whatsoever islands,countries, regions or provinces ofheathens and infidels,…whichbefore this time were unknown toall Christians.”1 (Emphasisadded.)

Three years earlier, Pope Al-exander VI issued a bull,* Inter Ca-etera, that gave Spanish and Portu-guese kings “full and free power, au-thority, and jurisdiction of everykind” over all lands “discovered” bytheir envoys, as long as no Christianking had claimed them before Christ-mas of 1492.2

Cloaking war and worldlygreed with a zeal for religious con-version and the training of Indians in“good morals,” the pope’s 1493 edict de-clared that God’s greatest pleasure was forCatholicism to be “increased and spread,that the health of souls be cared for andthat barbarous nations be overthrown.”Recognizing that in the “countries alreadydiscovered are found gold, spices, andvery many other precious things,” the popegave the “kings of Castile and Leon,” andtheir “heirs and successors, … forever …all rights” to “all islands and mainlands… discovered and to be discovered.” In-ter Caetera also awarded a trade monop-oly to the conquerors by saying the Church“strictly forbid[s] all persons … to dare… to go for the purpose of trade or anyother reason to the islands or mainlands… discovered.” The pope concluded hisbull with a dire threat. Anyone daring to“infringe, or with rash boldness contra-vene” the Church’s divine edict, would “in-cur the wrath of Almighty God.”3

A precedent for this decree wasPope Nicholas V’s Dum Diversis bull of1452 which gave Portugal’s king

free and ample faculty … to invade,search out, capture, vanquish, and sub-due all Saracens [Muslims] and paganswhatsoever, and other enemies of Christ

..., and the kingdoms, dukedoms, prin-cipalities, dominions, possessions, andall movable and immovable goods ...and to reduce their persons to perpetualslavery, and ... appropriate to himselfand his successors the kingdoms, duke-doms, … possessions, and goods, andto convert them to his… use and profit.4(Emphasis added.)

In 1455, his whole passage was repeated,almost verbatim, in yet another papal bullcalled Romanus Pontifex.5

After 1513, when Spanish conquis-tadores “discovered” Indigenous people,they were legally bound to read out an of-ficial proclamation, in Spanish, called “ElRequerimiento.” It began with a lesson inhistory: God “created the heaven and theearth;” all humans are descended fromAdam and Eve; popes are ordained by Godto lead “the whole human race;” and thepontiff “made donation of these isles andTerra-firma” to the Spanish crown. Thenative people who heard but could notunderstand this gibberish were then or-dered to “acknowledge the Church as theruler and superior of the whole world.”Then came the not-so-fine print of this sur-render-or-die threat:

But if you do not do this, … we shallpowerfully enter into your country, andshall make war against you …, and shallsubject you to the yoke and obedience

of the Church and of their Highnesses;we shall take you, and your wives, andchildren, and shall make slaves of them,… and we shall take away your goods,… and … the deaths and losses whichshall accrue from this are your fault,and not that of their highnesses, or ours,nor of these cavaliers [horse-mountedsoldiers] who come with us.6

While agents of the English andFrench crowns who were contracted toseize control of “Canada” were not re-quired to read out such ridiculous procla-mations of their genocidal intentions, theydid share the crazed fanaticism of theirSpanish and Portuguese counterparts. Allthese Catholic kings believed they had themoral, religious and legal authority to armthugs to cross oceans to seek out Indige-nous peoples, seize them as slaves, plun-der their possessions and claim dominionover the vast tracts of land they inhabited.

With its self-righteous bulls, theCatholic Church gave European kings thereligious cover stories needed to conse-crate their holy wars against the so-called“enemies of Christ.”7 In so doing, Christi-anity sanctified a brutal renaissance in thespread of imperial culture. Long euphe-mized as the “Age of Discovery,” this glo-rification of invasion, mass captivity andarmed robbery marked the beginning ofour modern era. With papal charters in

* Papal bulls are decrees, charters or letterspatent issued by Popes. “Bull” comes fromthe seal (bulla) used to authenticate them.

From Popes and Pirates to Politicians and Pioneers:

Papal Bulls, Political Bull, Legal Fictions & other Con Games

colla

ge: r

icha

rd s

ande

rs

Floating on a sea of papal bull and blown by the winds of imperial hubris,Canada’s founding, corporate pirates were armed to the teeth with

the vainglorious social narcissism of both church and state.

Papa

l Bul

l Int

er C

aete

ra

Press for Conversion! (Issue # 69) Fall 201720

By Patrick Macklem, professor of law,University of Toronto, and former consti-tutional advisor to the Royal Commissionon Aboriginal Peoples.

During the period of initial Euro-pean contact and colonial expan-sion in North America, it was ac-

cepted practice among European nationsthat the first to discover vacant land ac-quired sovereignty over that land to theexclusion of other potential discoverers.With populated land, sovereignty was ac-quired by the discovering nation not bysimple settlement, but by conquest or ces-sion, but such land could be deemed va-cant if its inhabitants were insufficientlyChristian or civilized. International lawsubsequently deemed North America to bevacant, and regarded the acquisition of ter-ritorial sovereignty by European powersas occurring through the mere act of dis-

covery and settlement. One expression andconsequence of the sovereign power of theCanadian state is that Aboriginal territo-rial interests are governed by Canadianlaw.

Based on the legal fiction that theCrown was the original occupant of all thelands of the realm, Canadian property lawholds that the Crown enjoys underlyingtitle to all of Canada....

The fiction of original Crown oc-cupancy was developed to legitimate feu-dal landholdings in England, along withanother fiction that the actual occupantsof the land enjoyed rights of ownership asa result of Crown grants. The law imag-ined the Crown as granting lands tolandholders, with the result that ownership... passed as a result of these grants tolandholders. [T]his process never truly oc-curred; the Crown was not the originaloccupant and therefore owner of the land

and by and large it did not confer actualgrants to landholders. These fictions weredeveloped to rationalize the existing pat-tern of landholdings in England, and theyserved this purpose well ....

Although the Crown was imaginedas the original occupant of all of Canada,actual Aboriginal occupants were not rec-ognized as owning their land as a result ofa series of fictional Crown grants. TheCrown was thus relatively free to grantthird-party interests to whomever itpleased: to settlers, mining companies, for-estry companies, and others. To the extentthat it refused to acknowledge the full le-gal significance of Aboriginal occupancy,Canadian property law vested extraordi-nary proprietary power in the Crown.

Source: Indigenous Difference and theConstitution of Canada, 2002, pp.91-92.<tinyurl.com/y7qluyjn>

The Canadian Legal Fiction of Original Crown Occupancy

hand as pretexts to expand their sovereign-ty, European kings issued lucrative con-tracts to glorified pirates who sailed off topillage foreign lands and “discover” peo-ples to be conquered and enslaved.

While it is tempting to believe thatwe have morally and legally evolved be-yond such reprehensible doctrines, such aleap of faith would be mistaken. The Dis-covery Doctrine is not just a bygone relicof long-lost antiquity. As Manitoba’s Ab-original Justice Inquiry stated:

Since the beginning of the Age of Dis-covery, European states have engagedrelentlessly in the process of divestingindigenous peoples of their lands, andhave sought to justify and legitimatethis practice through the use of the doc-trines of discovery, occupation, adversepossession, conquest and cession. Onthe whole, domestic courts have eitherignored or generally misapplied andmisinterpreted these doctrines in theirdiscussions of ‘Aboriginal title,’thereby upholding the status quo ofAboriginal dispossession ….The doctrine of discovery has been —and still is—rigorously advanced byvarious authors, jurists, legal scholars,nation states and domestic courts as thefoundation upon which English, Cana-dian or American sovereignty in NorthAmerica is based.8

The United Nations PermanentForum on Indigenous Issues reported in2010 that the “legal construct known asthe Doctrine of Discovery” has been

institutionalized in law and policy, on

national and international levels, andlies at the root of the violations of in-digenous peoples’ human rights, bothindividual and collective. This has re-sulted in State claims to and the massappropriation of the lands, territoriesand resources of indigenous peoples ….This ... has resulted in the disposses-sion and impoverishment of indigenouspeoples, and the host of problems thatthey face today on a daily basis.9

As Steven Newcomb, Shawnee/Lenape co-founder of the Indigenous LawInstitute, said in 2016, “the doctrine ofdiscovery is an ongoing language systemof domination that is still being usedagainst our Original Nations and Peo-ples.”10 In 2003, Newcomb described U.S.federal Indian law as a language system“comprised only of words and ideas” thatis based on the “pretension” of the Doc-trine of Discovery. The “legal pronounce-ments ... regarding Indians are considered

binding on Indians today,” he said, because“certain white men in the past, duly au-thorized by the monarchs of Christendom,are said to have ‘discovered’ the ances-tors of present day Indians.”11

Newcomb suggested a new spin onan old definition posited by British legalphilosopher John Austin in 1831. WhileAustin said laws were “commands, backedby threat of sanctions, from a sovereign,to whom people have a habit of obedi-ence,” Newcomb said law is the “habit ofobedience to a person or group of peoplewho pretend to a higher authority over oth-ers.” He also said that “to kick the habit ofobedience to a system based on religiousracism,” people “must call into question”the “‘pretension’ of conquest” and chal-lenge the state’s “pretension of a higherauthority over Indian nations on the basisof religious racism.”12

PAPAL

BULL

vs.

Alexander VI

SIT

TIN

G B

UL

L

Fall 2017 (Issue # 69) Press for Conversion! 21

“A rule assuming as true something that isclearly false.”Encyclopædia Britannica

“A rule of law which assumes as true, andwill not allow to be disproved, somethingwhich is false, but not impossible.”Black’s Dictionary of Law

“(1) a statement propounded with a com-plete or partial consciousness of its falsity,or (2) a false statement recognized as hav-ing utility.”Lon L.Fuller, “Legal Fictions,” IllinoisLaw Review, Vol.25, 1930, p.369.

“A ruling or status in law based on hypo-thetical or inexistent facts.”Duhaime’s Encyclopedia of Law

“An assumption that something occurredor someone or something exists which, infact, is not the case, but that is made in thelaw ....”West’s Encyclopedia of American Law

“The European settlement in Australia in1788 as Terra Nullius (empty land) was alegal fiction as it suppressed the fact thatthe land was inhabited ... by the aborigi-nal peoples.”Butterworths Concise Australian LegalDictionary

Lingua Nullius:The Power of Empty Words

For decades, many Indigenous organiza-tions have been demanding that the Cath-olic Church annul the papal bulls that jus-tified the Discovery Doctrine. In the early1990s, Steven Newcomb helped launch “aglobal campaign against the Doctrine ofDiscovery.” It began by “calling for PopeJohn Paul II to revoke the Inter Caetera.”13

In 2013, thirteen U.S. Catholicgroups asked the pope for “a formal re-scission of the ... papal bulls that providethe basis for the Doctrine of Discovery.”In doing so, this tiny segment of the Cath-olic community joined others, includingsome Quakers, Methodists and Unitarians,that had made similar appeals.14

In 2016, several key people fromfour Canadian Catholic organisations is-sued a statement about the Discovery Doc-trine and the Vatican’s 500-year-old bulls.These individuals, who work for the Ca-nadian Conference of Catholic Bishops(CCCB), the Canadian Religious Confer-ence, the Canadian Catholic Organisationfor Development and Peace and the Ca-nadian Catholic Aboriginal Council,signed their “statement in response to theerrors and falsehoods perpetuated, oftenby Christians, during and following the so-called Age of Discovery.”15

The first sentence of their statementis telling. It betrays their basic underlyingbias by speaking of “the historical abusesperpetrated against Indigenous peoples inour land.”16 (Emphasis added.) Whoseland do these Catholics believe Indigenouspeople were living in when they began suf-fering the “historic abuses” of Christianinstitutions more than 500 years ago?

Their statement is not an apologybut merely an exercise in apologetics. Nei-ther do these Catholics ask the Vatican toapologise for, or to revoke, its 15th-cen-tury bulls. While acknowledging some ofthe now-undeniable abuses perpetratedagainst Indigenous peoples by theirchurch, they repeatedly try to explain awaythe role of Catholicism in these injustices.In response, Newcomb concluded that they

failed to understand that Christendom’suse of domination as a means of at-tempting to destroy non-Christian na-tions has led to the grinding present dayproblems experienced by our OriginalNations....17

They also misrepresented HenryVII’s license to Cabot saying it:

made no mention of Christ or Christi-anity whatsoever .... [It] contains no jus-

tification, theological or otherwise, forthe seizure of these lands save for thewill of Henry VII.18

By putting all the blame on King HenryVII, this Catholic statement tries to deflectfault from the Vatican by distorting thetruth about Cabot’s charter. Henry’s licenseto Cabot did mention Christianity in itsjustification for land plunder. It clearlystated that Cabot could “conquer, occupyand possess” whatever “heathens and in-fidels” he discovered in lands “unknownto all Christians ....”19 This was a clear ref-erence by England’s last Catholic king tothe Inter Caetera bull. Henry’s charter de-ferred to the pope’s 1493 edict blessingthe kings of Spain and Portugal with theright to dominate the non-Christian peo-ples that they had recently “discovered”across the Atlantic.

The Catholic statement also ig-nored other links between Christianity andCabot’s mission of conquest. Contempo-rary accounts of Cabot’s voyages indicatethat they were justified and funded by theCatholic Church. And, when Cabot erect-

ed giant crosses and banners bearing the“arms of the Holy Father,” he showed thathis actions were done in the name of theChurch (See “Finding our National Ori-gins in a Royal Licence to Conquer,” p.4.)

The Catholic statement also white-washed the Vatican’s role in the brutal con-quest of the Americas saying

‘grants’ accorded to Portugal and Spainwere one tool the Popes used to attemptto ensure that the European expansion,which they could not prevent, would beas peaceful as possible and at least in-clude Christian missionaries to providefor the spiritual needs of the native in-habitants.20 (Emphasis added.)

First of all, papal “grants” wereused to sanctify the worst crimes of “Eu-ropean expansion.” Second, missionariesdid not “provide for the spiritual needs”of Natives. Missionaries were the militantvanguard of Christian efforts to eradicatethe cultural traditions that Indigenous peo-ple had developed to “provide for” theirown “spiritual needs.” Third, to say thatpapal bulls “ensure[d] that ... Europeanexpansion” was “as peaceful as possible”

A Legal Fiction is... Indian Act as Hoaxand Legal Fiction

By Derek Nepinak, Grand Chief, Assem-bly of Manitoba Chiefs. A former chief ofthe Pine Creek First Nation, Derek has alaw degree from the University of Sas-katchewan.

The Indian Act creates the legal fic-tion known as the ‘status Indian.’This legal fiction has provided for

the ongoing justification of colonization.Through capitalism, its application and in-terpretation has monetized andcommodified the original peoples of thisland. As a result, it denies our true iden-tity as human beings living in our ances-tral lands, capable of self-determinationand self-government outside a colonialframework.

Manitoba Chiefs again seek to end thecolonial paradigm perpetuated by the In-dian Act.... Even our treaty freedoms havenothing to do with the Indian Act contain-ment system. Our treaty freedoms remainintact. Canadians must learn about hoaxof the Indian Act and finally work togetherwith us to change it.

Source: Assembly of Manitoba ChiefsResolve to Abolish the Indian Act, MediaRelease, March 10, 2016.<tinyurl.com/yc46q5wa>

Press for Conversion! (Issue # 69) Fall 201722

downplays Vatican complicity in the hor-rors conducted by Catholic conquerors.

The fanciful idea that popes pro-moted benign conquest is repeated else-where in the Catholic statement:

The practice of enslaving non-Christ-ian prisoners captured in a just war wascommon practice at the time, and con-quering people often made slaves ofthose they conquered. This practice wasconsidered more merciful than execu-tion and allowed the victor to extractsome economic benefit for his losses.21

(Emphasis added.)While the Catholic Church extract-

ed huge “economic benefit” from its pos-sessions in Canada, including Indigenousslaves, it caused incommensurable harmto First Nations. Although 60% of Cana-da’s residential schools were Catholic, thischurch has yet to apologise let alone beheld to account for its crimes of genocide.

In 2007, after the largest class-ac-tion lawsuit in Canadian history, thechurches agreed to a settlement. It includ-ed a plan to help fund the healing of resi-dential school survivors. The CatholicChurch was forced to promise that it wouldmake its “best effort” to raise $25 million.Meanwhile, the Anglican, United and Pres-byterian churches agreed to pay a set per-centage of whatever the Catholics raised.

In April 2016, a month after theCatholic statement on papal bulls, mediareports said that during its final days,Stephen Harper’s Conservative govern-ment had excused the Catholic Churchfrom having to raise any more of the $25million. After seven years, the “Catholicentities” that ran most of Canada’s resi-dential schools had raised only a paltry$3.7 million, and had paid only $2.2 mil-lion. This drastically reduced the paymentsrequired from the other three churches.22

Recognising its mistake, Harper’sgovernment appealed the court decisionthat released the Catholic church from itsobligations. But, only six days after tak-ing office, the Liberals dropped the gov-ernment’s appeal, giving up the effort toforce the Catholic Church to continue itsfundraising efforts.23

The Catholic pledge to raise $25million for residential school survivors washollow. The Church could have sold someits many properties to redress the victimsof its crimes. Similarly, Liberal govern-ment pledges to Indigenous peoples havealso been vacant and devoid of real mean-ing. These examples of vacuous talk arelinguistic fictions which subvert the truth.

The Vacuous Mythof Terra Nullius

The Discovery Doctrine is related to a le-gal concept called terra nullius. This Lat-in legalese refers to empty, barren or va-cant territory belonging to no one. It is anelaborate “legal fiction.”24 (See pp.20-21.)Originally confined to meaning such plac-es as desert islands, the idea of terra nul-lius was enlarged by the Catholic Churchduring the “Age of Discovery” to encom-pass lands coveted by European monarchsand their piratical agents. As noted in theManitoba Justice Inquiry’s final report:

The concept of terra nullius was ex-panded … to include any area devoidof ‘civilized’ society. [T]o reflect colo-nial desires, the New World was saidby some courts to fall within this ex-panded definition.25

The religious dimension to this in-flated concept of terra nullius was de-scribed in the UN’s 2010 report on theDoctrine of Discovery. It explained thatduring the 1500s, the Vatican enlarged thesemantic boundaries of terra nullius to in-clude “land inhabited by heathens, pagans,infidels or unbaptized persons, whomChristians treated in a fundamental senseas not existing.”26

In 2012, the Assembly of First Na-

tions (AFN), various First Na-tions and Indigenous groups, Am-nesty International (Canada andQuebec) and the CanadianFriends Service Committee(CFSC), issued a statement say-ing that terra nullius and the Dis-covery Doctrine were “used todehumanize, exploit and subju-gate Indigenous peoples and dis-possess them of their most basicrights.” Their statement was pre-sented to the UN’s Permanent Fo-rum on Indigenous Issues byShawn Atleo, then Grand Chiefof the AFN. He pointed out thatthe “fictitious and racist doc-trines” contained in the papalbulls of the 1500s called for

non-Christian peoples to be in-vaded, captured, vanquished,subdued, reduced to perpetualslavery, and to have their pos-sessions and property seizedby Christian monarchs. Suchideology led to practices thatcontinue unabated in the formof modern day laws and poli-cies of successor States.27 (Em-phasis added.)

Among the “successorstates” on “seized” land is our PeaceableKingdom. “Canada’s laws and policies,”said the AFN and its allies, are a “misin-terpretation of international law relatingto the doctrine of ‘discovery.’”28

A month later, the B.C. Court ofAppeal denied Aboriginal title and landrights to the Tsilhqot’in Nation. It justi-fied this by saying that

European explorers considered that byvirtue of the ‘principle of discovery’they were at liberty to claim territoryin North America on behalf of theirsovereigns.29

In response the AFN said the B.C. court’sreasoning “would implement the long dis-credited legal fiction of terra nullius,” andwas “a tremendous step backwards for therights of indigenous peoples in Canadaand, quite possibly, internationally.”30

In October 2012, numerous FirstNations and Aboriginal groups joined withthe CFSC and Kairos (an ecumenicalChristian group) to make a joint submis-sion to the UN Human Rights Council.They stated that:

Doctrines of racial superiority areinvalid and discriminatory. Yet federaland provincial governments in Canadaare still invoking the doctrine of ‘dis-covery’ to deny or limit Aboriginal ti-

Ban

ksy

Fall 2017 (Issue # 69) Press for Conversion! 23

tle to lands….31

One year later, in October 2013 —on the 250th anniversary of the 1763 “Roy-al Proclamation” — the Canadian govern-ment was doing its best to promote an en-tirely different historical narrative. Ber-nard Valcourt, then Minister of Aborigi-nal Affairs and Northern Development,chose that day to make vacuous statementsthat Canada had rejected the DiscoveryDoctrine. “The Royal Proclamation and itsprinciples,” he said, “began to guide Ca-nada along a historic path that distin-guished it from practices such as the Doc-trine of Discovery ….” Valcourt then pre-tended that Canada had renounced its longreliance on this racist legal fiction and hadreversed its history of crimes against Ab-original peoples:

History reminds us of the injusticesfrom doctrines, policies and practicesbased on superiority of peoples on thebasis of national origin or racial, reli-gious, ethnic or cultural differences. Inthis vein, ... there is no place in Canadafor the Doctrine of Discovery — itplays no part in our relationship withAboriginal peoples in Canada.32

Unfortunately, these words bear lit-tle resemblance to reality on Canada’splundered ground. Government duplicitywas abundantly clear to James Anaya, theUN Special Rapporteur on the Rights ofIndigenous Peoples, who began a fact-finding mission here in October 2013.“Canada’s repudiation of the Doctrine ofDiscovery on the 250th anniversary of theRoyal Proclamation of 1763,” said theAFN report to Anaya, “further demon-strates Canada’s need to transform wordsinto action.” The AFN also noted that “on-going manifestations of doctrines, such asthe doctrine of discovery and terra nullius”had been “adopted by colonial govern-ments throughout the world.”33

These doctrines, the AFN said,“continue to directly harm the socio-eco-nomic conditions of Indigenous Peoples.”To illustrate the Canada’s ongoing seizureof Aboriginal lands and resources, the AFNreported that while Canada was “embark-ing on an aggressive strategy to formalizeeconomic relationships with other na-tions,” and was expecting $650 billion inforeign investment for resource projectsacross Canada, this money was all “hingedon access by industry to the resources heldwithin Indigenous Peoples’ lands.”34

Two days after this scathing AFNreport was published, the Government ofCanada outdid its hypocrisy in its parlia-

mentary Speech from the Throne. The of-ficial rhetoric not only invoked veiled al-lusions to such legal fictions as the Dis-covery Doctrine and terra nullius, it sum-moned up a host of cultural phantoms thatprey on the vacuous myth of Canadianexceptionalism.

But this should come as no sur-prise. For centuries, throne speeches haveepitomized the pompous oratory of kings,not to mention their insatiable greed andpropensity for war. Canada’s tradition aris-es from the days when British monarchsaddressed their Parliament with “His Maj-esty’s Most Gracious Speech.” WhenGeorge III delivered his throne speech in1763, just weeks after issuing the RoyalProclamation, he called for “stricted fru-gality” to pay the military expenses of Brit-ain’s recent imperial war with France.While focusing on the prospect of greatcommercial success to be achieved by thefirst global war (fought in Europe, Indiaand America), he called for the

support of my fleet, to which our pastsuccesses have been so much owing,and upon which the future welfare andimportance of Great Britain do mostessentially depend.35

Britain’s victory in this war, knownto Anglophone Canadians as the SevenYears’ War and to many Québécois as theWar of Conquest, gave King George sov-ereignty over the vast Indigenous lands andlucrative resources of “New France.” Inthe Royal Proclamation and his “most gra-cious speech,” George III called thesespoils of war his “valuable acquisitions.”36

But Canada’s king did not keep all this lootfor himself. “Crown land” was given toEuropean settlers, now widely eulogisedas Canada’s “pioneers.”

Pioneers:Seizing the Moment & the Land

While most Canadians may not have heardof the Discovery Doctrine or terra nullius,modern allusions to these odious dogmasstill surface in official statements. For ex-ample, the 2013 throne speech, called“Seizing Canada’s Moment” and read inParliament by Governor General DavidJohnston, gushed with reverence for thosemythic heroes — European pioneers:

[W]e draw inspiration from our found-ers, leaders of courage and audacity.…[who] looked beyond narrow self-interest. They faced down incrediblechallenges — geographic, military, andeconomic .… They dared to seize themoment that history offered. Pioneers,then few in number, reached across a

vast continent. They forged an inde-pendent country where none wouldhave otherwise existed.37 (Emphasisadded.)

The idea that no country wouldever have existed here without Europeans,ignores the existence of First Nations. Alsoploughed under is the fact that when Ca-nadian pioneers “dared to seize the mo-ment,” they also dared to seize and occupythe lands of Indigenous Peoples.

AFN Chief Shawn Atleo respondedby saying that the government’s words“echoed the legal theory of terra nulliusand the related doctrine of discovery usedby European powers to claim lands inhab-ited by Indigenous peoples.”38 Cree re-porter Doug Cuthand denounced thespeech as the

same old self-congratulatory settler rac-ism that, for many, represents Canada’sfoundation.... The fact that we still haveto deal with this form of racism in the21st century is an indication of howbackward this government and thecountry remain.39

Jorge Barrera, an Aboriginal jour-nalist, said the throne speech “painted animage of a country hewed from an unor-ganized landscape,” and continued gov-ernment efforts “to refashion the Canadianmythology by describing a countryfounded by ‘pioneers.’”40

Asked about the praise for “pio-neers,” Romeo Saganash, an NDP MPfrom northern Quebec, said “I am disap-pointed that this important speech ignoredbasic historical facts about the foundingnations of this country.” As a Cree survi-vor of residential schools, Saganash saidthe speech reminded him that “only fouryears ago … Harper said that Canada hasno history of colonialism, which we knowis historically inaccurate.”41

Harper was not the first prime min-ister to falsely claim that Canada is inno-cent of colonialism. In 2004, shortly afterCanada, the U.S. and France invaded Haiti,deposed its elected government and im-posed a brutal dictatorship, then-primeminister Paul Martin summarized a fun-damental principle of the UN’s Responsi-bility to Protect doctrine, which the Lib-eral government had helped pioneer.“Failed states,” said Martin, “more oftenthan not require military intervention in or-der to ensure stability.” Asking “Why is itup to Canada to be the catalyst?” Martinsaid “We inspire confidence ... because weare neither a former colonial power nor asuperpower.”42 (Emphasis added.)

Press for Conversion! (Issue # 69) Fall 201724

Inspiring Public Confidencein Political Scampaigns

The state’s ability to “inspire confidence”is key to political confidence schemes. Conartists working within the grand game ofpolitics, must gain public trust in order todefraud them. Political grifters solicit thefaith of citizens to sucker them into hand-ing over donations, votes and taxes. Suchcon artists hustle their marks into support-ing policies, and enrolling participation invast scams and campaigns such as inva-sions, wars and even genocide. This massswindling exploits psychological traitsfrom greed and vanity, to compassion andnaïvety. Politicians — wittingly or not —are on the front lines in this game of con-ning people into the believing that gov-ernment scampaigns are conducted formoral reasons to benefit the public.

In the 2013 throne speech, the Gov-ernor General tried to boost public confi-dence not only in the government and poli-ticians, but also in Canadian citizens andthe country as a whole. This is a centralstratagem in building the kinds of narcis-sistic national myths that can fool peopleinto thinking they are doing good, whentheir actions may be causing great harmto others and often to themselves. Here areseveral examples from the speech that in-

tertwine the crafty arts of confidence build-ing with nationalistic myth building:

Parliamentarians, you gather today withthe high confidence and higher expec-tation of Canadians.... Remember thatour nation has embraced a unique setof indelible qualities that must guideyour deliberations .... Canada’s great-est dreams are ... the dreams of a Northconfident and prosperous, the TrueNorth, strong and free ....

This is the true character of Cana-dians honourable in our dealings, faith-ful to our commitments, loyal to ourfriends. Confident partners, courageouswarriors and compassionate neighbours.

.... As we look confidently to thefuture, we draw great strength from ourpast. Beginning with our Aboriginalpeoples, Canada’s story is one of risk,sacrifice, and rugged determination.43

(Emphasis added.)By repeating the pitch that Cana-

dians must act quickly to grab prosperity,this speech also reeked of confidenceschemes. “Just as our founders dared, sotoo must we,” the government said. “Wemust seize this moment to secure prosper-ity, for Canadians now, and the generationsto follow.”44 (Emphasis added.)

It was a typical get-rich-quickscam. After gaining people’s confidence,con artists play to the greed of their tar-gets, urging them to act quickly to take ad-

Note: ‘Ca... na... da’ is the opening from the theme song for the 1967 centennial. It came from‘Ten Little Injuns’ (1868), a song derived from an 1850s minstrel skit called ‘John Brown had alittle Injun.’ This song became ‘Ten Little Niggers,’ a racist standard for blackface minstrel shows.

*

“Ca- na- da; One little, two little, three Canadians; We love thee...”*

colla

ge: r

icha

rd s

ande

rs

DANACA

vantage of a narrow win-dow of opportunity toseize wealth and pros-perity. The thronespeech continued:

[A] rare opportunitynow lies before us asCanadians: the oppor-tunity to build on ouringenuity, our im-mense natural wealth,and our values andstability; the opportu-nity to secure the fu-ture, for our genera-tion, and our chil-dren’s generation. It isthe opportunity to leadthe world in securityand prosperity.... sothat Canadian familieswho work hard, paytheir taxes and play bythe rules can getahead. This is Cana-da’s moment; togetherwe will seize it.45

In “How to spot acon artist,” Donna Andersen explains thatsociopaths “use flattery and inflated cre-dentials. They talk fast, pushing you forfast decisions” using “all manner of trick-ery and deceit.” She also notes that:

A swindler’s driving force is greed andthey have a talent for sniffing out thesame vice in others who, in their desireto get rich quick, are all too eager toput their trust and their money in thehands of unscrupulous schemers ....Bunko artists, grifters and cons all havecharisma which sometimes masks thefact that they are malignant narcissistswho like to feed on the insecurities andstupidities of the naive and weak.46

Con Artists,Cultural Narcissists,

and the Myth of CanadaBesides building larger-than-life images ofvaliant European “pioneers,” Canada’s2013 Throne Speech explored new fron-tiers in self-righteous myth building. Us-ing the same self-indulgent, narcissisticconceits of cultural superiority that oncejustified the Discovery Doctrine, the gov-ernment smugly proclaimed that Canadais “the best country on earth.” Then, say-ing “our Government is leading the worldby example,” the Queen’s representativestated in absolute moral terms that“Canada stands for what is right and goodin the world.”47

Such grandiose declarations of eth-ical purity are as imperious and sanctimo-

Fall 2017 (Issue # 69) Press for Conversion! 25

nious as any papal bull. But the thronespeech was more than bullish, it over-flowed with optimistic clichés typifyingCanada’s boastful patriotism. While iron-ically claiming that Canadians are “sus-tained by humility” and “deplore self-sat-isfaction,” the speech went on to immod-estly list a “unique set of indelible quali-ties” that “our nation has embraced”:

Consider this: we are inclusive ….Consider this: we are honourable....Consider this: we are selfless...Consider this: we are smart ….Consider this: we are caring.48

He then trumpeted that“Canada is a model for theworld. Admired for our freedom.Respected for our principles. En-vied for our openness, compassionand peaceful pluralism.”

If this vaingloriousrhetoric was not enough, con-sider this: in a section on “Promot-ing Canadian Values,” Gov. GeneralJohnson gloated that the “true charac-ter of Canadians” also includes being“honourable,” “faithful,” “loyal,” “confi-dent” and “compassionate.”49

Another “Canadian value” listedwith pride in the throne speech was “free-dom of religion.” (Freedom from religionwas never mentioned.) Oddly, only one re-ligion was named: “Our Government de-fends Israel’s right to exist as a Jewishstate,” said Canada’s symbolic head of thearmed forces. Calling Israel “the lone out-post of freedom and democracy in a dan-gerous region,”50 there was no mention ofthe rights and freedoms of Palestinianswho do not embrace Israel’s state religion.

For those assembled in our hal-lowed Parliament, the throne speech con-cluded with this prayer: “May DivineProvidence guide you in your deliberationsand make you faithful custodians of thetrust bestowed upon you.”51 Apparently,Canadians are expected to have “trust,”faith and confidence that “Divine Provi-dence” is guiding our political leaders.This assumes that a god or supreme beingis providing aid and guidance to the selectfew that we happen to elect.

Belief in divine intervention hasbeen infecting such official utterances forcenturies. In the Inter Caetera bull of1493, the pope spoke of “the Lord’s guid-ance” to kings, and how Columbus, thanksto “divine aid” had “discovered ... islandsand even mainlands [that] ... had not beendiscovered by others.”52

often praises is diversity for its ownsake, which of course amounts to jam-ming all sorts of conflicting values sys-tems into the same polity. But most ofthose things, while worthy-sounding,tend to unravel when challenged.....

A better place to go looking for Ca-nadian values, you’d think, is in theCharter of Rights and Freedoms, thecentrepiece of our basic law. But thatmodern legal document begins, jar-ringly, with this sentence: ‘Canada isfounded upon principles that recognizethe supremacy of God.....’ The sentenceis true only insofar as Canada’s found-ers were a group of professed Chris-

tians who no doubt regarded theconversion of heathens as somesort of good ....54

Trudeau has excelled atspouting the glowing narrative of

“Canadian values” as a way ofboosting confidence in officiallysanctioned national dreams. Tru-

deau and his handlers regularly tryto score popularity points with the pub-

lic by associating themselves with Cana-da’s feel-good self-image.

A bright example of this is Tru-deau’s 2015 launch of a state-sponsoredpropaganda event called “ChristmasLights Across Canada,” which has beenheld every year since 1984. In a few words,Trudeau conflated family and communityvalues with Christianity and Canada’s mili-tary. All this came under the warm andfuzzy comfy blanket of Canada’s supposednational values:

As we launch the Christmas LightsAcross Canada program, we should alltake a moment to reflect on how fortu-nate we are to call this great countryhome. During the cold winter daysahead, let us find time to reach out tofamily, friends, and our communities tocelebrate all the blessings we enjoy.

The lights illuminated in ournation[al] ... provincial and territorialcapitals... — link us together and serveas a powerful symbol of our Canadianvalues of peace, unity, and hope for thefuture....

We also send our warmest wishesto those friends and family members,including those serving with our Cana-dian Armed Forces .... While far away,you are with us in our thoughts.55

In 2013, the National Capital Com-mission had produced a $69,000 analysisof the event. It said that this governmentlight show on Parliament Hill — co-fundedby insurance giant Manulife Financial —is “mired in mediocrity” and “is not rep-resentative of a multicultural Canada.” The

Discovering the Mythof “Canadian Values”

When it comes to the enduring legacy ofCanada’s grand unifying mythology ofexceptionalism, nothing has changed un-der the latest Liberal government.

The official myth of “Canadianvalues” is as warm, fuzzy and poly-annaishunder the Liberals as it was with the Con-servatives. Soon after taking office, Tru-deau pushed the idea of Canada’s moralrectitude, while denying such generalisa-tions. In one breath he said “There is nocore identity, no mainstream in Canada,’’while in another he pushed the myth of Ca-nadian altruism. “There are shared values,”said our newly anointed leader, “openness,respect, compassion, willingness to workhard, to be there for each other, to searchfor equality and justice.”52

CBC columnist and senior corre-spondent Neil Macdonald has commentedon Trudeau’s prolific use of the Canadian-values card. Macdonald has for instancenoted that Trudeau:

seems to have an endless list of whathe likes to call ‘core Canadian values’.... Most are mushy and ill-defined. Mu-tual respect is one of his favourites. Tol-erance is another. He once named free-dom as the supreme Canadian value....And of course the value Trudeau most

colla

ge: r

ichard

sand

ers

Press for Conversion! (Issue # 69) Fall 201726

colla

ge: r

ichar

d san

ders

150

report also said that“Christmas” should be re-moved from the event’sname.56 However, neither theConservative nor Liberal gov-ernment agreed with the ideaof deChristianising this event.

During Trudeau’s firstChristmas as prime minister, Herit-age Canada kicked in $350,000 for theevent. A year later, in 2016, using the sameold Christmassy name, Trudeau, the Gov-ernment of Canada and Manulife were atit again. To officially launch this Christ-ian festival Trudeau’s statement lit on allthe points of the previous year. “Christ-mas Lights,” he noted, “represent the val-ues that bring us together — those ofpeace, unity, and confidence in the future.”(Emphasis added.)

Trudeau again highlighted onlyone group that we should hold in ourhearts to celebrate Canada’s unifyingChristmas spirit. Those special citizens —the human symbols who best illuminate thetrue meaning of Canada and its Christianreligiosity — are, he said, “the bravewomen and men of the Canadian ArmedForces, and their families, who make in-credible sacrifices for our country each andevery day.”57

Challenging theDiscovery Doctrine

and terra nulliusTrudeau has disappointed many Canadi-ans who expected him to meet his sugarypromises to First Nations. For example,little has been done to fulfil Trudeau’spledge to implement all of the initiativescalled for by the 2015 Truth and Recon-ciliation Commission (TRC).

The TRC’s final report called onCanada to reject the Discovery Doctrineand the legal fiction of terra nullius. Todo so would undermine Canada’s claim tobe a sovereign country, and weaken its po-sition in land claims negotiations with FirstNations.

The TRC also asked Canada towork with Aboriginal peoples to developa “Royal Proclamation of Reconciliation.”Envisioning that this would build on theRoyal Proclamation (1763) and the Trea-ty of Niagara (1764), the TRC said the newproclamation should

Repudiate concepts used to justify Eu-ropean sovereignty over Indigenouslands and peoples such as the Doctrineof Discovery and terra nullius.58

The TRC also called on all levels

of government (federal, pro-vincial, territorial and municipal),to not only “repudiate concepts ... such asthe Doctrine of Discovery and terra nul-lius,” but “to reform those laws, govern-ment policies, and litigation strategies thatcontinue to rely on such concepts.”59

While Trudeau’s Liberal govern-ment has failed its commitment to meetthese and many other TRC requests, it hasasked others to follow through on the com-mission’s calls to action. For example, thecommission said the pope should visit Ca-nada and apologise for the Vatican’s role

in the spiritual, cultural, emotional,physical, and sexual abuse of First Na-tions, Inuit, and Métis children inCatholic-run residential schools.60

While all the other Canadian churches thatoperated these schools have apologised,the Catholic Church has not. Similarly,while other churches have repudiated theDoctrine of Discovery and terra nullius,Canada’s Catholic Church has not. Addedto this is the fact that just days after takingoffice, the Trudeau Liberals dropped thegovernment’s legal challenge which hadbeen trying to force the Catholic Churchto fulfil its financial obligations to the sur-vivors of residential schools.

Being a Catholic himself, Tru-deau’s political thinking on these mattersmay be influenced by his religious ties.“My own personal faith,” he told the Ca-nadian Press, “is an extremely importantpart of who I am and the values that I tryto lead with.”61

On May 29, 2017, after attendinga summit of the NATO military pact, Tru-

deau went to Rome for a half-hour audi-ence with “His Holiness.” Canada’s primeminister was thrilled by this once-in-a-life-time meeting, which he described as “adeeply personal and wide-ranging,thoughtful conversation with the leader ofmy own faith.”62

Although the TRC’s final report in2015 said the pope should visit Canadawithin one year to apologise, Trudeau usedhis 2017 Vatican visit to ask “the pope tovisit Canada in the coming years.”63 Be-sides praising the pope for leadership onglobal issues, Trudeau requested an apol-ogy for the Vatican’s role in Canada’s res-idential schools.

Media stories said Trudeau gavethe pontiff a set of valuable, 17th-centurychronicles called The Jesuit Relations.

This “rare edition,” said Trudeau, pro-vides “stories of Jesuit mission-aries documenting the origins ofCanada.”64 He did not mention

that these overly optimistic annualreports (1632-1672) were used by mission-aries to raise money to convert Indige-nous people.65 (Throughout these texts theJesuits, who saw Indians as inferior, ani-malistic and demonic, referred to them as“heathens” and “savages.”66) For his part,the pope gave Trudeau “a gold medalmarking the fourth year of his pontificate,an autographed copy of his message forWorld Peace Day” and a few printouts of“papal letters” on “family, the environmentand evangelism.”67

Over the centuries, other papal let-ters were handed out to Catholic politi-cians who used them to justify the enslave-ment and genocide of native peoples. Tru-deau does not seem to have raised this factat this “cordial” meeting with his religiousleader. The media did not mention papalbulls or the TRC’s call to churches to re-pudiate the Doctrine of Discovery, terranullius and the current laws, state strate-gies and policies that still rely on these bo-gus concepts.68

Demands for papal repudiation ofthe Discovery Doctrine have been grow-ing for decades, and culminated with the“Long March to Rome” in 2016. This cam-paign led to an encounter between Indige-nous activists and the pope in May 2016.But besides having a few face-to-face mo-ments with the pope, participants had atwo-hour meeting with the Vatican’s Pon-tifical Council for Justice and Peace(PCJP). One activist, Kahnawake MohawkKenneth Deer, noted that the pontiff’s rep-

Fall 2017 (Issue # 69) Press for Conversion! 27

limis Deus to remove Spain’s claim of sov-ereignty” or “its claimed right of domina-tion.” The most they “could hope for,” hesaid, “was to be ‘free’ under or beneaththe Spanish crown’s domination.”74

So, while Sublimus Deus opposedIndian enslavement, the pope removed allecclesiastic penalties on those who bought,sold or owned slaves. While the bull didmention in passing that “Indians and allother people who may later be discoveredby Christians” should “by no means ... bedeprived of their liberty or the possessionof their property, ... [or] in any way en-slaved,” its key purpose was to promotethe conversion of Indians to Catholicism.75

Sublimus Deus declared that be-cause Indians were finally considered hu-mans and not beasts, Catholics had to befar more active in evangelising them. The“Indians ... should be converted to the faithof Jesus Christ,” the pope declared, be-cause God created humans to “enjoy eter-nal life ... which none may obtain savethrough faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.”76

While saying that Indians were not“dumb brutes created for our service,” thebull actually used metaphoric language todescribe Indians as animals that Catholics— being religiously superior — shouldtake control of:

We, who ... exercise on earth the power

of our Lord ... seek with all our mightto bring those sheep of His flock whoare outside into the fold committed toour charge.77

Quoting from the gospel of Mat-thew, “Go ye and teach all nations,”Sublimus Deus clearly demonstratesthat the Vatican maintained its age-oldtradition of self-righteous, religioussupremacy.

This presumption of superiorityand dominion over others typified theCatholic and Protestant churches alike.Equipped with such profound religiousnarcissism, Christians justified theiruse of “residential schools,” eventhough these institutions inflicted gen-ocide through such gave crimes as ab-duction, captivity and forced labour.

The Discovery DoctrineLives on in a Legacy of DenialWhile overthrowing papal decreesfrom 500 years ago would be a goodfirst step, much more is obviously re-quired to overcome the legacy of thesebulls. As the UN Permanent Forum onIndigenous Issues stated in 2014:

in regard to land dispossessions,forced conversions of non-Christians,the deprivation of liberty and the en-slavement of indigenous peoples, theHoly See reported that an ‘abrogationprocess took place over the centuries’to invalidate such nefarious actions.Such papal renunciations do not go farenough.78 (Emphasis added.)

The author of this report, Edward John —Hereditary Chief of the Tl’azt’en Nationin northern B.C., who has been a lawyerfor 30 years — described the

pressing need to decolonize from thedebilitating impacts and the ongoinglegacy of denial by States of indigenouspeoples’ inherent sovereignty, laws, andtitle to their lands, territories and re-sources.79

The Assembly of First Nations(AFN) expressed this in 2016 when de-manding revocation of the Papal Bulls ofDiscovery. Endorsing the Long March toRome, it said that “for healing and under-standing between First Nations and Cana-da to truly begin,” Romanus Pontifex(1455) and Inter Caetera (1493) must berescinded. Calling these bulls “the ‘blue-print’ for conquest of the New World,” theAFN said they “provided moral justifica-tion for the enslavement and conquest ofIndigenous peoples worldwide.”80

The AFN concluded that these pa-pal bulls “are an ongoing violation of con-

resentativesstarted giving the usual spielthat the papal bulls are nolonger in effect, that they’vebeen superseded by other pa-pal bulls and there was noneed for us to do anything.69

A few months later, this“spiel” was repeated in a letterfrom PCJP delegate, Silvano To-masi. “The statement SublimisDeus (1537), condemning racisttheses,” he said, “nullified anyprevious decrees that would denythe right of Indigenous Peoplesin America of their freedom andtheir property.”70

What Archbishop Toma-si failed to say is that in 1538,one year after Paul III issued Sub-limis Deus, he issued a retractionthat “removed all ecclesiasticalpenalties (interdict and excom-munication) for any violation ofthe terms of the Sublimis Deus.”71

This was pointed out by StevenNewcomb, an honorary delegateat the meeting, who has opposedpapal bulls for 30 years.

The Vatican’s claims about Sub-limis Deus were critiqued eight decadesago by Lewis Hanke, a preeminent Har-vard historian. Hanke wrote in 1937 thatPaul III “reverse[d] his original policy ofprotecting the American Indians” and hadbeen “wrongly acclaimed” in “ecclesias-tical and secular histories alike ... as a greatfriend and protector of the American In-dian.” Hanke’s research showed that “PaulIII’s reversal on this important matter hasnot yet been fully perceived by historians.”By revoking his 1537 letters “which pro-vided for the enforcement of the doctrinein America by threat of severe ecclesiasti-cal penalties,” and declaring them “nulland void,” Paul III “withdrew ... a power-ful weapon which ... might have been used... to protect the Indians from the rapacityof the conquistadores.”72

Charles V, the King of Spain andEmperor of the Holy Roman Empire, in-terpreted Paul III’s 1538 retraction as arevocation of Sublimis Deus in its entire-ty, not just its penalties. Charles then is-sued a royal order that all of “the originalbulls and briefs ... be seized.”73

By 1538 “millions of Indians hadbeen deprived of their lives, their liberty,and their property,” said Newcomb, “be-cause of the papal bulls of 1493.” And, henoted, the pope “never intended” for “Sub-

colla

ge: r

icha

rd s

ande

rs

Press for Conversion! (Issue # 69) Fall 201728

temporary international human rights law,”and need to be clearly and publicly re-voked in order to assist Indigenous com-munities that are now struggling to pro-tect their lands:

Other communities currently strugglingto save their lands are threatened bymodern-day ideologies of inequalityanchored in the Papal Bulls of Discov-ery.81

These Vatican bulls not only legit-imised the royal contracts used by Span-ish conquistadores to pillage the NewWorld, they also provided legal and reli-gious cover stories that authorised the of-ficial pirates of England and France toplunder and enslave the peoples of whatcame to be called Canada.

Indigenous activists, organisations,communities and nations continue to cam-paign for the final, unequivocal abroga-tion of the Vatican’s blood-stained 500-year-old papal bulls. “By means of his cer-emonial revocation of those terrible doc-uments, and others proceeding them, suchas Dum Diversas and Romanus Pontifex,”said Newcomb, Pope Francis could “un-dercut the very basis of the arguments ofdomination now being used against us.”82

References1. “First letters patent granted by Henry VII

to John Cabot and his sons,” March 5, 1496.In H.P.Biggar (trans. and ed.), The Precur-sors of Jacques Cartier, 1497-1534, 1911,p.9.tinyurl.com/ychgavmj

2. The Bull Inter Caetera, May 4, 1493.tinyurl.com/kmsnj3

3. Ibid.4. Dum Diversas, June 18, 1452.

tinyurl.com/ybqm9zkl5. Bull Romanus Pontifex, Jan. 8, 1455.

tinyurl.com/3k54sl46. Requerimiento

tinyurl.com/y7bhwueg7. Dum Diversas, op. cit.8. Report of Aboriginal Justice Inquiry of

Manitoba, November 1999.www.ajic.mb.ca/volumel/chapter5.html

9. Tonya Gonnella Frichner, Impact on Indi-genous Peoples of the International Legalconstruct known as the Doctrine of Discov-ery, which has served as the Foundation ofthe Violation of their Human Rights, Feb-ruary 3, 2010.tinyurl.com/y8lxjvvh

10. Steven Newcomb, “A Legacy of Domina-tion in Catholic Church Decrees,” IndianCountry, April 12, 2016.tinyurl.com/juwehjq

11. Steven Newcomb, “Pretension as the ruleof U.S. Indian Law,” Indian Country, June13, 2003.www.indiancountry.com/article/1055516688

12. Ibid.

13. Newcomb 2003, op. cit.14. Thirteen Catholic Groups in Solidarity with

Indigenous People Join their request to askPope Francis to rescind papal bulls from15th century, November 25, 2013.tinyurl.com/yd7fohor

15. ‘Doctrine of Discovery’ and Terra Nullius:A Catholic Response, Mar. 19, 2016.tinyurl.com/z6y9kpe

16. Ibid.17. Newcomb 2016, op. cit.18. The ‘Doctrine of Discovery’..., op. cit.19. “First letters patent ...” 1496.20. The ‘Doctrine of Discovery’..., op. cit.21. Ibid.22. Gloria Galloway and Sean Fine, “Federal

government killed appeal of residential-school settlement ruling,” Globe and Mail,April 20, 2016.tinyurl.com/yc8nwd9u

23. Ibid.24. In 1918, Justice Lennox defined a legal fic-

tion as “an assumption of a possible thingas a fact, which is not literally true, for theadvancement of justice ... which the law willnot allow to be disproved.” Stoner v Skene,44 Ontario Law Reports, page 609, 1918.Cited by Wenee Yap, “The myth of TerraNullius; the absence of indigenous law inlegal education,” April 2, 2009.tinyurl.com/ybwgr3mg

25. Report of Aboriginal Justice .., op. cit.26. Frichner., op. cit.27. Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues –

Joint Statement Re: Doctrine of Discovery,May 7-18, 2012.www.chiefs-of-ontario.org/node/246

28. Ibid.29. William v. British Columbia, 2012 BCCA

285, June 27, 2012.tinyurl.com/yc6oz76m

30. AFN Report to the UN Special Rapporteuron the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Oc-tober 14, 2013.tinyurl.com/y8kwwobx

In 2014, Canada’s Supreme Court unani-mously ruled that the Tsilhqot’in Nation didhave title to their land.

31. Joint Submission to UN Human RightsCouncil: Universal Periodic Review Con-cerning Canada, October 2012.tinyurl.com/yd9j5xqn

32. Bernard Valcourt, “Creating Canada: Fromthe Royal Proclamation of 1763 to Mod-ern Treaties,” October 7, 2013.tinyurl.com/ydhm5rfs

33. AFN Report .., op. cit.34. Ibid.35. J. Dodsley, The Annual Register, Or, A

View of the History, Politics, and Litera-ture for the Year 1763. 1764, p.192.tinyurl.com/yb4jysjd

36. Ibid.37. Seizing Canada’s Moment, Speech from

the Throne, October 16, 2013.tinyurl.com/y7yscxey

38. “In throne speech response Atleo saysCanada ‘was not an empty land,’” Aborigi-nal Peoples TV Network (APTN), October

16, 2013.tinyurl.com/y7rxkafg

39. Doug Cuthand, “Lack of concern forFirst Nations clear in speech,” TheStarphoenix, October 18, 2013.tinyurl.com/ybhdj6vu

40. Jorge Barrera, “throne speech: Canadafounded by “pioneers” who forgedcountry “where none would have oth-erwise existed,”APTN, Oct. 16, 2013.tinyurl.com/y8hg5d3y

41. Amy German, “Interview: RomeoSaganash cans Tory throne speech,” theNation, November 11, 2013.tinyurl.com/y9tltq94

42. Address by Paul Martin, May 10, 2004.tinyurl.com/y74zmx93

43. Seizing Canada’s Moment... op. cit.44. Ibid.45. Ibid.46. How to spot a con artist

tinyurl.com/gqkhlhw47. Seizing Canada’s Moment... op. cit.48. Ibid.49. Ibid.50. Ibid.51. Ibid.52. The Bull Inter Caetera, op. cit.53. Guy Lawson, “Trudeau’s Canada,

Again,” New York Times, Dec. 8, 2015.tinyurl.com/p8u3xy2

54. Neil Macdonald, “A very short list ofCanadian values,” Analysis, CBC News,September 13, 2016.tinyurl.com/y88sfc3l

55. Statement by the Prime Minister at thelaunch of Christmas Lights AcrossCanada, December 2, 2015.tinyurl.com/yc8ktkgm

56. Don Butler, “Revamped Christmaslights spectacle to feature music, projec-tion show,” Ottawa Citizen, Dec. 1, 2015.tinyurl.com/y9hr3co3

Kelly McParland, “Bad Christmas ideascome early in Ottawa,” National Post,August 6, 2013.tinyurl.com/y82n3cpm

57. Statement by Prime Minister of Canadaon the launch of Christmas LightsAcross Canada, December 7, 2016.tinyurl.com/y9m2mnju

58. Calls to Action 45 and 47. Final Re-port, Truth and Reconciliation Commis-sion of Canada, Vol.1: Summary, 2015.tinyurl.com/ybz4fcx3

59. Ibid.60. Ibid.61. Jennifer Ditchburn, “Justin Trudeau

fumes at Tory MP’s ‘bad Catholic’taunt,” Canadian Press, Nov. 3, 2011.tinyurl.com/ycplbp3u

62. Joanna Smith, “Pope appeared open toidea of a residential schools apology,”Canadian Press, May 29, 2017.tinyurl.com/yall6xra

63. Ibid.64. Ibid.65. Daniel K. Richter, “Iroquois versus

Iroquois: Jesuit Missions and Christi-anity in Village Politics, 1642-1686,”

Fall 2017 (Issue # 69) Press for Conversion! 29

First Peoples, First Slaves, First Cover UpBy Richard Sanders

The first mention of slav-ery in the written recordof what became “Cana-

da” occurred in 1500. Threeyears after John Cabot stakedEngland’s claim to North Amer-ica, Portugal’s King Emanuel Iused his “royal and absolutepower” to give Letters Patent toGaspar Corte-Real. Calling hima “nobleman of our court,” theking granted “governorship ofany islands or mainland he maythus discover” including “civiland criminal jurisdiction … withfull power and authority.”1

Corte-Real was excitedby the wealth to be plundered inNewfoundland: (1) the “greatplenty” of fish, (2) the “abun-dance” of pine for shipbuilding,and (3) the wealth to be made inhuman trafficking. Corte-Realenslaved 57 “men, women, andchildren” for sale in Europe. Asa 1501 account noted:

His Serene Majesty [Emman-uel I] anticipates the greatestadvantage from this country,both in furnishing timber forhis shipping … and also fromthe men who inhabit it, whoappear admirably fitted to en-dure labour, and will prob-ably turn out the best slavesthat have been discovered up to this time.2

The letter’s author noted that getting timber for Portugal’sroyal navy and taking “plenty of men-slaves, fit for every kind oflabour …. so pleased his majesty” that he wanted to send extraships to “conquer more quickly … because it seems to him thatGod is with his majesty and brings every plan of his to fulfilment.”3

In 1965, a monument to Corte-Real was placed in front ofthe provincial legislature of Newfoundland and Labrador. Thestatue’s plaque, which refers to Corte-Real as a “navigator” who“reached Terra Nova” at “the beginning of the Era of the GreatDiscoveries,” neglected to mention his role as a slave trader. In-stead, the statue’s plaque expressed “gratitude for the friendlyhospitality always extended to [Portuguese fishermen] by the peo-

ple of Terra Nova.”4

This statue was in theSt. John’s news recentlywhen local journalist JamesMcLeod was surprised todiscover that the 50-year-oldstatue commemorated New-foundland and Labrador’sfirst known European slavetrader. McLeod interviewedIndigenous leaders whocalled the monument an in-sulting relic. For instance,Todd Russell, president ofthe southern Inuit associa-tion, NunatuKavut, said:

My people were here longbefore Corte-Real gothere.... It is a bit of an of-fence to say we were dis-covered, like a Voisey’sBay mineral.... It’s insult-ing. It’s not accurate. Andthose parts of the histori-cal narrative give us anopportunity to have a con-versation about reconcili-ation.5

While some Canadi-ans may slough off the slave-trading forays of this Portu-guese “navigator,” it may beharder to explain away thecenturies of slavery that tookroot here with the spread of“civilisation” by both Frenchand British settlers.

References1. Letters patent to Gaspar Corte Real, May 12, 1500, in H.P. Biggar

(editor), The Precursors of Jacques Cartier, 1497-1534: A Collec-tion of Documents Relating to the Early History of the Dominion ofCanada, 1911, p.35.tinyurl.com/ychgavmj

2. Pietro Pasqualigo, letter, 1501. In James Howley, The Beothucks orRed Indians: Aboriginal Inhabitants of Newfoundland, 1915, p.5.tinyurl.com/y7v6td27

3. Pietro Pasqualigo, letter, Oct.18, 1501. Cited in Biggar, op. cit., p.67.4. Unveiling the Portuguese statue of Gaspar Corte-Real (1965)

tinyurl.com/y76s5edm5. James McLeod, “N.L. indigenous leaders say Corte-Real statue is

an insulting relic,” Telegram, August 25, 2017.tinyurl.com/ydalw6sy

Ethnohistory, Winter, 1985, p.1.www.jstor.org/stable/482090

66. The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents1610 to 1791tinyurl.com/y7lc224f

67. Smith 2017, op. cit..68. Call to Action #46, Final Report, Op.cit.69. Paul Barnsley, “Church considering re-

quest to rescind doctrine of discovery,”APTN, June 1, 2016.tinyurl.com/ycah7mha

70. “The Vatican responds to the Long Marchto Rome,” Letter from Silvano Tomasi, Au-

gust 1, 2016.tinyurl.com/y827kpcl

71. Steven Newcomb, “On the Papal Bull,‘Sublimis Deus,’” Indian Country Today,May 23, 2016.tinyurl.com/y9hf5fs6

72. Lewis Hanke, “Pope Paul III and theAmerican Indians,” Harvard TheologicalReview, April 1937, pp.88-92.www.jstor.org/stable/1508245

73. Ibid., p.89.74. Newcomb 2016, op. cit.75. Sublimus Dei

tinyurl.com/yc9v3cg76. Ibid.77. Ibid.78. Edward John, A Study on the impacts of

the Doctrine of Discovery on indigenouspeoples, including mechanisms, processesand instruments of redress, May 2014, p.7.caid.ca/UNESRPFII.C19.2014.pdf

79. Ibid., pp.7-8.80. AFN Res.no.4612014, Dec. 11, 2014.

tinyurl.com/yana7re481. Ibid.82. Newcomb 2016, op. cit.

Statue of Gaspar Corte-Real at the ProvincialLegislature, St. John's, Newfoundland

(with minor cherubic embellishments)

colla

ge: r

icha

rd s

ande

rs