itskan Dancers, 1974 | Stephens (Tsimsian) than lost it. through wedding non- Natives. In this way the act taxes reserves: both financially and cultur- ally. £ Jeannette Lavell took the issue to the supreme court in 1974 and based her case on the right to equality before the law as entrenched in the then Canadian Bill of Rights. Her case lost in a split 5-4 decision. Justice Ritchie, who wrote the majority opinion for the case, explained that in the view of the court ‘equality before the law’ meant equal application of the law.to men and women and had no power over laws ’ that perpetuated inequality. wr For a while it was thought the anti-discrimination clause of the new Constitution (the Canada Act) would override the Indian Act. But another } clause in the Canada Act specifically states it cannot alter existing legisla- tion designed to help ‘disadvantaged groups.” The Indian Act is such 4 legislation. Native women have until April 1985, when the Canada Act comes into effect, to change the Indian Act. An aborted attempt to change the Indian Act was made this summer ; when then Indian affairs minister John Munro introduced legislation — to change 12(1)b just two weeks before Parliament recessed. Munro promised money would be set aside to help bands cover the costs of women returning to their reserves to claim . November 30th, 1984 their status. The proposed changes would allow the children of returning women to be re-instated but not their grandchildren. ‘“As bad as the bill was, we wanted it to pass because then we would have a voice to fight with,’’ says Two-Axe Early. Many. western bands __ protested there would not be enough money to take care of all the women who returned, but women involved in the struggle deny many would return to the reserves. The Quebec Native Women’s Association released a paper two years ago which said women would not return in droves to the reserves. Since reserves offer so little em- ployment (on some reserves unem- ployment is close to 80 per cent) and white communities have more social services and conveniences, it is prob- able that only those with strong cultural ties will return.’’ Anita Pratt, now the director for the Montreal branch of the QNWA agrees. “It’s ridiculous, these women don’t want money, they want respect and a birth-right.’’ Two-Axe Early also agrees. ‘‘It won’t cost extra taxes. If an Indian girl lives in the city on welfare, she could go back to the reserve and live good.’ These arguments were not heard however and the Bill, which. had passed through Parliament on the last day of the session, did not go through the Senate. Its passage was blocked by Senator Charlie Watt, a Quebec Inuit. “‘l wept,’’ says Two-Axe Early. She says the Bill would have: passed N STATUS BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE — easily had more attention been paid to it. ‘’Trudeau was never in favour of Native Indian rights and neither was Munro,’’ says Two-Axe Early. ‘“(Munro) was too busy campaigning (for last spring’s Liberal leadership race).’’ Meanwhile more and more bands are using the existing act to suit their own purposes. At Kahnawake a group of women lobbied for and were given a: complete moratorium on all mixed marriages. Now anyone on Kahnawake who marries a non-Native loses his or her status. At least six young men have lost their status through this band ruling. “1 wish one of them would jump up page 11 and say something,’’ says Two-Axe Early. She does not understand why they should try to remove more rights instead of restoring old ones. ‘‘I don’t want this to happen to any Indian man.’” “Women like Two-Axe Early realize that they have little time to act before the Canada Act entrenches the Indian Act for good. She urges all women to flood prime minister Brian Mulroney and the department of Indian Affairs with letters. ; “| must cry out in the darkness of despair,’’ she says. ‘The only hope is that the women of this society reared in justice will rise up to our cause.’