
'Someone's starting to listen,' says Abenaki chief, applauding defeat of New Hampshire bill
The chief of the Abenaki of Odanak is celebrating a victory in his nation's campaign against state-recognized tribes in New England, many of which he says are illegitimate.
In a news release, Rick O'Bomsawin says a New Hampshire bill — which lawmakers killed last month — would have given too much power to what he calls "self-proclaimed" Abenaki groups in Vermont.
"I think someone's starting to listen," he said.
The Abenaki of Odanak and W8linak say four Abenaki tribes recognized in Vermont are among those that are not really Abenaki, yet state law permits them to sell artwork, access funding for social programs and receive free hunting and fishing licences.
Leaders in Quebec took identity fraud concerns to the United Nations last year.
But more recently, Bill 161, titled "Changing the membership of the New Hampshire commission on Native American affairs," would have extended the groups' influence in New Hampshire, says O'Bomsawin.
"I think New Hampshire was watching what's going on and saying, 'oh, before we get into this mess, let's stop this right in the beginning,'" he said.
Odanak and W8linak, located near Trois-Rivières, Que., have historically clashed with groups in the U.S. regarding legitimacy. O'Bomsawin and some researchers contend that many of the Vermont-recognized Abenaki groups aren't Indigenous at all.
Attempt to put in place state-recognized process
Darryl Leroux says these New England groups have refused to do verification "that they're well able to do."
An associate professor in the school of political studies at the University of Ottawa who has studied transformations in white identities and settler colonialism, Leroux found that the majority of members of the tribes had no Abenaki ancestry, but rather are descendants from French-Canadian immigrants.
He published his findings in a peer-reviewed article "State Recognition and the Dangers of Race Shifting" in the American Indian Culture and Research Journal in 2023. The genealogy has not been independently verified by CBC News.
"They've chosen to believe the family lore," said Leroux. "One's responsibility when it makes these types of claims is [at] the very least to verify the claims."
He says states can establish their own process to recognize tribes, often for "political reasons." Currently, New Hampshire has no state recognition process.
"This bill was trying to put [one] in place," said Leroux.
To get U.S. federal status, groups, also known as tribes, must demonstrate compliance with seven mandatory criteria, including a continuous history as an American Indian entity since 1900. In 2005, one of the four Vermont-recognized groups, the Abenaki Nation of Missisquoi, failed to meet some criteria.
Donald Stevens, chief of the Nulhegan Band of the Coosuk Abenaki Nation in Vermont, says his tribe hasn't felt the need to seek federal recognition.
"It's not because we can't or don't want to," said Stevens, whose tribe is recognized in Vermont. "It costs a lot of money and a lot of time."
Stevens supported Bill 161 in New Hampshire because he saw it as a means to help "consolidate," better represent interests and help set up ways to establish recognition processes in New Hampshire, if desired.
He says every tribe has the right to determine their own citizenship and contests Leroux's findings. He says his family is "well documented as being Indian and being gypsies who travelled from place to place."
"It's sad when people are trying to put out false narratives," he said.
But many of these state-recognized groups would never qualify for federal recognition, says Kim TallBear, professor in the faculty of Native studies at the University of Alberta.
"It is a very rigorous process," said TallBear, who is also the Canada Research Chair in Indigenous Peoples, Technoscience, and Society.
'A real serious form of theft'
A citizen of the Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate in present day South Dakota, TallBear says state-recognition standards are "pretty appalling." She's among those saying something needs to change.
"We're really advocating that states get out of the business of doing this," she says.
"Leave this to nation-to-nation conversations, which are between tribal governments and the federal government."
While TallBear says "pretendianism" can sometimes be put on the back burner, there's been recognition that it's a growing problem — as some groups misrepresent and overshadow history.
"Those groups now are vying with recognized tribal groups for resources and recognition," she said.
"I'm seeing the tide turning … we are making progress in terms of getting people to understand that this is a real serious form of theft."
Chief in Odanak denounces exclusion
Due to colonization and war, Abenaki were forced north of their homelands and settled in what is now Odanak and W8linak.
Right now, O'Bomsawin says self-identified groups in the U.S. outnumber his community and live on the ancestral territory which stretches from southern Quebec to northern Massachusetts, spanning Vermont and New Hampshire.
Despite its ties to the region, O'Bomsawin's community does not have a say over membership regulations or requirements of groups that bear its name and live in areas it considers traditional territory.
"They never even contacted us on anything," said O'Bomsawin.
"If you are truly, truly Abenaki, would you not want to fight to make sure no one is stealing your culture and your language? Would you not want to know who your family members are? That's all I'm trying to do," he said.
What particularly hurts is not having recognition in the States, despite being federally recognized in Canada, he says.
"Not only do you want to steal my identity … but you also want to steal my pain," said O'Bomsawin. "And that's really sad."
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Montreal Gazette
32 minutes ago
- Montreal Gazette
UN should be next stop if Supreme Court won't rein in Quebec's use of notwithstanding: lawyer
Quebec Politics By A prominent human-rights lawyer says the anglophone community should take its case to the United Nations if the Supreme Court of Canada does not step in and curtail Quebec's use of the notwithstanding clause in Bill 96 and other laws. Pearl Eliadis said a complaint could be filed with the United Nations Human Rights Committee, which oversees compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Canada ratified the ICCPR in 1976 and is bound by its provisions. 'Governments in Canada, on the whole, have paid attention to decisions and views from the Human Rights Committee because we are part of an international order,' Eliadis said Wednesday at a public forum about the Constitution's notwithstanding clause. The step should be taken if Canada's top court decides that the province's use of the clause cannot be overturned because the court's hands are tied, said Eliadis, who teaches at McGill University's faculty of law. By triggering the clause, governments can override some fundamental rights enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. After five years, the override expires unless the government renews the use of the clause. Premier François Legault's Coalition Avenir Québec government preemptively invoked the clause to shield Bill 21, a law that bans the wearing of hijabs and other religious symbols by government workers, and Bill 96, which toughened the Charter of the French Language, commonly known as Bill 101. Eliadis is a vocal critic of both laws. 'The international framework for human rights is very clear,' Eliadis said. 'Even in the event of a public emergency, the only thing you cannot derogate from are the equality and non-discrimination rights — and those are precisely the ones that are being violated by laws like Bill 96, Bill 21 and others.' She added: 'I think we need to be paying attention to the international context, understanding that Canada holds itself out as a leader internationally, as a country that cares about international law.' The public forum was organized by the Task Force on Linguistic Policy. The group says it has raised $200,000 from the public to finance its constitutional challenge to Bill 96, which had a wide-ranging impact, including on CEGEP enrolment, business operations, the court system, and access to government services in English. When the Constitution was patriated in 1982, the notwithstanding clause was included at the insistence of provincial premiers concerned the charter would put too much power in the hands of judges. 'This was a political deal that expressly was intended to tie the hands of the courts,' Eliadis said. The Supreme Court has previously ruled that it is not its role to require legislators to justify their invocation of the clause. Eliadis said the top court has essentially held that the clause is a 'magical incantation, you wave this around, you hit Ctrl-Alt-Delete and sections of the Charter — freedom of expression, the right to freedom of religion, the right to peaceful assembly, the right to freedom of association (and other freedoms) — all disappear.' In January, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a challenge to Bill 21. That followed a 2024 Quebec Court of Appeal ruling upholding the law. The court rejected challenges from several groups, including the English Montreal School Board, the Fédération autonome de l'enseignement teachers' union and the National Council of Canadian Muslims. During a panel discussion following Eliadis's address, Eric Maldoff, a lawyer and former president of the anglophone rights group Alliance Quebec, said the notwithstanding clause was supposed to be used in exceptional circumstances. Instead, provinces, including Quebec, have tried to 'normalize' its use, he said. 'We've got a rule of law problem here, and the notwithstanding clause in itself is an affront to the rule of law,' Maldoff said. 'It's the government being able to say with the stroke of a pen: your rights don't exist, we can do whatever we want.' Maldoff said those challenging the clause must persuade 'a courageous court that the clause's preemptive use is inappropriate.' Failing that, courts should be urged to declare that they will consider cases where the clause has been invoked, 'with a view to making a declaration on what rights have been abrogated and in what way.' This would ensure that 'when it comes up for renewal, we're not going to have a debate about whether it affects rights. That will already be established.' Joe Ortona, a lawyer who is chair of the EMSB, said the board has a duty to fight Bill 21. The law is 'contrary to all of our values of tolerance, of acceptance, of multiculturalism, and just basic decency, of treating people with dignity and respect, and was not at all the kind of example that we wanted to set for our children,' he said. 'It's a law that we fundamentally oppose, not only on moral grounds, but on constitutional grounds.' The EMSB is fighting the law based on two sections of the charter that cannot be overridden by the notwithstanding clause. One pertains to minority language educational rights, the other to gender equality.


Toronto Star
2 hours ago
- Toronto Star
Sir John A. Macdonald statue back in view at Queen's Park after five years boarded up
TORONTO - The Sir John A. Macdonald statue outside the Ontario legislature is back in full view after spending the past five years in a box. The statue of Canada's first prime minister has been under hoarding since 2020, when it was vandalized with pink paint. The monument was one of many that were targeted across the country amid anti-racism protests and as Canadians grappled with the history of residential schools. ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW Macdonald is considered an architect of the country's notorious residential school system, which took Indigenous children from their families in an effort to assimilate them. Progressive Conservative and Liberal members of a non-partisan board of the legislative assembly agreed earlier this month on a motion to remove the hoarding after the statue is cleaned. Speaker Donna Skelly says she recognizes the sensitivities surrounding Macdonald and welcomes Ontarians to come and share their views peacefully. This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 11, 2025. Politics Headlines Newsletter Get the latest news and unmatched insights in your inbox every evening Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. Please enter a valid email address. Sign Up Yes, I'd also like to receive customized content suggestions and promotional messages from the Star. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Politics Headlines Newsletter You're signed up! You'll start getting Politics Headlines in your inbox soon. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page.


Ottawa Citizen
3 hours ago
- Ottawa Citizen
Adam: Protests are supposed to make us uncomfortable. We don't need more rules restricting them
As city staff proceed with plans to draft an anti-protest bylaw — euphemistically called a 'vulnerable infrastructure bylaw' — then report back to council, it is important to examine how, lately, the City of Ottawa has been finding different ways to row back bedrock democratic principles of public engagement, free speech and the right to protest that are guaranteed to all citizens. Article content Article content The gradual, but steady erosion of basic rights under the guise of security or good governance should trouble all residents. Article content Article content Remember the Ottawa Police Services Board, which includes three city councillors? In violation of citizens' right to free speech, the board has given itself the power to censure what residents say. Those who wish to speak before the board, must first submit their remarks in writing ahead of time — all in the name of good governance, we are told. The policy is designed to silence critics and if the board doesn't like what's on your mind, you won't be heard. Article content Then you have the new security measures that turn city hall, the seat of local government, into something of a prohibited zone where visitors have to go through airport-like security checks, including metal detectors. Article content Ban protests while upholding them? Article content But the biggest anti-democratic hurdle council wants to impose on the city is the 'vulnerable social infrastructure bylaw,' or if you like, the bubble bylaw. The idea is to ban protests within 80 metres of 'social infrastructure' such as schools, places of worship, hospitals and long-term care facilities, because some people find them rather uncomfortable. City staff have nine months to craft this seemingly oxymoronic bylaw that, in the same breath, bans protests and upholds the right to protest. Article content Article content What is lost on our city council is that protests are indeed supposed to make people uncomfortable. If a society is comfortable in what it does, what policies governments adopt, what values underpin laws no matter how bad, nothing changes. Injustice, discrimination and marginalization become entrenched because the majority does not feel the agony of those on the margins. But when society is forced to look at itself, engage in self-reflection and be forced out of its comfort zone, that's when change occurs. Article content Article content The fight for civil rights everywhere was uncomfortable for many, who saw it as an affront. So was the fight for self-determination by countries around the world. Think of gay rights, Indigenous rights, and many others which could never have been won without unrelenting, uncomfortable and sometimes contentious protest. When labour unions go on protest, sometimes blocking streets or forcing road closures and delaying traffic, it is destructive to people's lives, but we live with it because we see the higher purpose. When people are denied their rights, whatever they may be, their only option is the fundamental right to protest. And it doesn't matter if others find it uncomfortable.