This website presents reviews, excerpts from and comments concerning the book Ongoing Genocide caused by Judicial  Suppression of the “Existing” Aboriginal Rights. These will be posted in the order received.

It is a sad book because the subject is sad, and tragic. But it is also full of hope, and suggestions for ways of reforming the justice system.

The underlying conviction is that the constitutional truth can set the native people free of the injustices dealt to them. But to succeed, that truth must be accepted by the newcomer judges whose psychological way is of “winning” what is “fair” for their own race or nation, one way or another, regardless of truth. And that is not promising.



There are two values that compete for paramountcy in judicial decision-making: to serve truth or, alternatively, fairness. In the aboriginal context, the Canadian judges seem to be trying to be fair to the vast majority of people and the building of their own nation, at the expense of the constitutional truth and the indigenous nations.

This is apparent when you consider the Supreme Court of Canada’s interpretation of section 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982 in the leading 2014 case, Tsilhqot’in. That section says: “The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples in Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.”

The Court interpreted section 35(1) to mean the judges have to balance the national interest against the aboriginal interest. In the result, the judges overrode the “existing” aboriginal rights that section 35(1) placed beyond the jurisdiction of the courts to repeal.

Yet section 35(1) says nothing about such a judicial discretion to repeal the constitutionally saved “existing” aboriginal rights. The judges simply invented, out of thin air, a power of repeal of those aboriginal rights constitutionally placed beyond the jurisdiction of judicial repeal.

That is the struggle behind the struggle. The structural integrity of the rule of law and the status of the constitutional democracy have been impaired by the tension between the law as it is truly written, and the new “law” as the judges more fairly to their minds recently re-invent it.

That is a seemingly unsolvable problem: how to rescue the constitutional truth from judicial feelings of democratic fairness. The solution to that problem is independent and impartial third-party adjudication, which is missing from Native and Newcomer litigation.

It must be brought back into existence lest bias rule instead of the law.



Bruce Clark spent forty-six years defending the rights of Natives across North America. A scholar specializing in the legal history of the evolving relationship between Natives and Newcomers, he holds an MA in constitutional history and a PhD in comparative law jurisprudence and is the author of Native Liberty, Crown Sovereignty: The existing aboriginal right of self-government in Canada and Justice in Paradise (McGill-Queen’s University Press).

The ten essays in Ongoing Genocide caused by Judicial Suppression of the “Existing” Aboriginal Rights deal with aspects of the “genocide”—within the meaning of section 2(b) of the United Nations’ genocide convention—of Indigenous peoples in Canada. That section indicts the imposition of “serious bodily or mental harm” against groups, such as that evidenced by the high rates of suicides of Indians in reaction to the courts’ injustices committed for political reasons contrary to the rule of law.

Much of Clark’s awareness of the “serious bodily or mental harm” meted out by the court system’s injustices comes from the fact he lived for twelve years on Indian reservations in northern Canada. He and his wife Margaret raised their three children there and were witnesses to the loss of lives attributable to the stress to which the young people in particular were vulnerable.

The appendix—entitled “Judicial Culpability for War and Genocide in the Age of American Empire”—deals with the failure of the North American Judiciary to enforce the constitutional provisions prohibiting international war except in self-defense to an attack. The lessons learned and practiced on the Natives of North America are exported to the global village, a surrogate Indian country, and the judges do nothing to prevent this pursuant to the rule of law, which it is their constitutional duty to uphold.

The cause of the genocidal suppression of existing constitutional law is the criminal politicization of the judiciary. Pointing this out to the courts and offering to prove it led to the conviction of Dr Clark for criminal contempt of court and disbarment for “conduct unbecoming” a barrister and solicitor.

Since then the judicial ignoring of existing constitutional law has for political reasons become more deeply entrenched.


Reviews, Excerpts and Comments

The Accusation

The judges, lawyers and police hated Dr Clark’s submission on behalf of his native clients, that those officials’ assumption of territorial jurisdiction over Indians on land “not ceded to or purchased by Us” is criminally unconstitutional and causes genocide.

The Proof

By operation of law alone the unconstitutional crimes are Treason and Fraud or “Misprision” thereof, within the meaning of paragraph 5 of the Indian part of the Royal Proclamation of 1763. And the “genocide” is the intentional or culpably careless imposition against Indians of “serious bodily or mental harm,” within the meaning of article 2(b) of the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 1948.

The Reaction

Angered by the accusation the officials refused to address the proof.


“Kill this Clark, smear the prick and everyone with him.”

– Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Sergeant Dennis Ryan,
Gustafsen Lake Crisis Management Team,
September, 1995.

Clark was described by one of his clients, the Secwepemc traditionalist elder Wolverine, as “the most dangerous lawyer in Canada.” This opinion was shared by the RCMP, the provincial and federal governments, the bench, bar and Chief Justice of Canada and even the National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations.

A concerted and comprehensive “smear and disinformation campaign” across the national media was revealed, at trial, to have been conducted against Clark, Wolverine and the other traditionalists and Sundancers involved in the month-long 1995 armed standoff at Gustafsen Lake. Why? “The very foundations that Canadian society is built upon are threatened here,” is the answer the RCMP spokesperson gave in an interview at the time.

The history of those “very foundations,” and the true nature of what “is threatened here,” is the subject of this new and powerful collection of essays, published over a ten-year period in Dissident Voice and Global Jurist (Frontiers), by a true Canadian dissident. Bruce Clark was officially demonized, disbarred and destroyed because of what he knows and what he can prove. And what he can prove is that Constitutional fraud and usurpation-as-genocide continues to be the modus operandi of the Canadian settler-state…

For anyone who cares about Canada and its persistent, pernicious colonialism, Ongoing Genocide is an eye-opening must-read.

– John Shafer,
Settlers in Support of
Indigenous Sovereignty (SISIS)

Bruce Clark captures the issue with the title of this book. It may shock those who do not understand the connection between the denial of Indigenous Peoples’ rights by the Canadian judiciary and the consequences of that denial, which amount to genocide, but the shock can only turn to shame as the reader follows the historical, legal, and constitutional record that proves his argument: the legal system seeks to erase indigenous national sovereignty. This collection of essays shows how the legal system, which is supposed to provide order and justice to the people is, in fact, in the case of the indigenous nations, used to destroy peoples and their cultures, to create disorder and injustice. Although it relies on legal arguments and references to case law the average lay person who is interested in the subject will be able to follow the arguments and come to their own conclusions. Every student of law and politics, of indigenous rights and history should have a copy of this book; in fact so should any citizen interested in Canada and its true character as an imperial power.

– Christopher Black, international criminal lawyer

Justice is a concept that is higher than the self, thus Clark took on the establishment to seek justice for his Indigenous clients. In the end he was punished. Here, Clark presents the legal case for Indigenous sovereignty so the layperson can readily grasp the arguments.

– Kim Petersen, former editor of the Dissident Voice and Original Peoples section of the Dominion newspaper

Bruce Clark’s rigorous analysis of the genocidal unconstitutionality of Canada’s treatment of the native peoples and appropriation of their land is a great service in the pursuit of truth and justice. The essays in this book document the abandonment by the legal establishment (judges and lawyers) of the principle of the rule of law, in the service of Empire. This provides needed insight about the current state of Canadian institutional integrity to all who seek a society that actually adheres to democratic and humanistic principles.

– Joseph Hickey, M.Sc., Ph.D. candidate, Executive
Director of the Ontario Civil Liberties Association


In the Kingdom of the Wilfully Blind:

The Normalization of Injustice

and Its Repercussions

A review of
Ongoing Genocide caused by Judicial Suppression
of the “Existing” Aboriginal Rights, Bruce Clark, 2018,
Roland D. Chrisjohn, Ph.D., Department of Native Studies,
St. Thomas University, Fredericton, New Brunswick.

“When neither the facts nor the law are on your side, make an ad hominem attack.”     Old Legal Adage

Although I have read Dr. Clark’s work over the years (Indian Title in Canada, 1987; Native Liberty, Crown Sovereignty, 1990; Justice in Paradise, 2004) and frequently encountered people who had worked with him (or claimed to know him), I have never had the honor of meeting him. As a personal policy, some years ago I decided always to discount the “piffle” that occasionally becomes attached to people in “Indian Country” and draw my own conclusions about them; and I have heard such piffle attached to Dr. Clark (which usually was offered by one or other of his legal “colleagues,” who seemed to be trying to make themselves larger by belittling him… more on this, below). So, rather than crediting any gossip, I have always taken him as the person that comes across in his work: a man of principle, passionately and deeply committed to the fight for justice for Native peoples. His latest work, Ongoing Genocide caused by Judicial Suppression of the “Existing” Aboriginal Rights, elaborates and extends the debt all thoughtful and concerned individuals owe to his analytical powers, his determination and his persistence.

This latest book of Dr. Clark is, for the most part, a collection of his most recent articles concerning, first, the history of the connivance of legal professionals in the dispossession of North American indigenous peoples; second, the impacts this dispossession has had on the communal and personal lives of Native peoples; and third, the complicity of those same professionals in covering their own tracks in this disgraceful enterprise. Most chapters previously have been published on the web site, Dissident Voice, over the last few years; but in Dr. Clark’s newest release they are now conveniently arranged in a format that greatly improves their utility as a reference volume and a course textbook. Apart from the Dissident Voice articles is included, as an appendix (“Judicial Culpability for War and Genocide in the Age of American Empire”), an extended and unifying discussion of themes addressed in the book. The book would be suitable both as the text for a single-semester course in Native law and as supplementary reading for any similar course, and is accessible both to specialists in Native law and neophyte students knowing nothing more about Native issues than the twaddle that passes for Canadian history.

The central and unifying theme of the book is the past and ongoing genocide Canada has been conducting against Native peoples, and in pursuing his topic Dr. Clark here has been able to carve out and present a new, unique, and important line of argumentation. For example, in my own work (Chrisjohn & Young, 1994 & 1996), I have had to rely on how Canada evaded formal international conventions against genocide, in place since 1948, as documented by  works like Davis and Zannis (1973). But anyone with any familiarity with authentic Canadian history knows full well that, even though the term wasn’t to be invented until 1944, both “late colonial” and “settler” Canada has been conducting genocide since at least the mid 19th century (as made perfectly clear by such works as that of Lux, 2001, and Daschuk, 2013). What Dr. Clark presents us with is a point-by-point, document-by-document, decision-by-decision account of how colonial-era Canada and modern settler-Canada initially realized the legal difficulties they were in; and then subsequently proceeded to destroy the rule of law, covering its tracks as the transition was made between the era of “Indians are His/Her Majesties’ allies” into “Indians are vermin that must be removed.”

Today we are left with an enduring historic crime, a cold case that substitutes fantasy history for the truth, that institutionalizes the continued destruction of indigenous forms of life, and one where those complicit in this long and shameful history have both been cleansed by the legal erasure and continue to prosper from it. Personally, I have long believed that the evidence for this ongoing crime existed, but despaired that it had been covered with so many layers of obfuscation and inaccessibility that my suspicions would always remain only speculation…so that Canada could continue to attribute its actions to “honest mistakes,” “oversights,” or “personal shortcomings” on the part of incompetent but disconnected individual officials. Dr. Clark’s new work has achieved the near-impossible: he has peeled back the successive impenetrable layers of this cold case — one which no one in power has wanted revealed — and made clear not only what happened and how, but when it happened, and who did precisely what. And what is more, in doing this Dr. Clark has extended the mens rea [guilty mind] of today’s judiciary and body politic, engaged in the ongoing genocide, right back to the very origins of Canada. If we want to know what is in the minds of those creating, running, and then covering up the crime of residential schooling; or of those gutting indigenous communities and then stealing our children; or of those polluting and destroying our lands, and who are now pretending the “solution” to the devastation is to let some of us in on it; it is revealed in the concerns of John Elmsley (Chief Justice of Upper Canada), writing in 1798:

…when the lands purchased from the Indians are distributed among His Majesty’s Subjects at a Fee hardly exceeding the prime cost of them, it cannot possibly remain so when the Indians discover as they unquestionably will that the purchases made from them are to be converted into a source of Revenue to ourselves. [I]t certainly cannot be our interest to promote their improvement…until we can make a purchase sufficiently large to secure for us the means of extending the population [that is, European settlers] and encreasing [sic] the strength of the Provinces so far as to enable us before our stock is exhausted to dictate instead of soliciting the terms on which future acquisitions are to be made [Pages 11, and again, 45 – 46, in Clark, 2018].

We see here the clear articulation of the “logic” of dispossession: the drive to profit, the indifference to doing so at the expense of others, the desire to wield the law as a sword and not a shield, and the enthronement of “might makes right.” If the crime of genocide has only recently been given a name, Dr. Clark has proven that the guilty mind of genocide has a long and unbroken history in Canada.

I do have a concern regarding the confusion of the term genocide with the phrase cultural genocide. Dr. Clark himself does not confuse the two: it appears in an addendum to his chapter, Occupiers’ Justice, in an otherwise excellent letter from a hereditary Mi’gmaq chief to a newly elected Justin Trudeau. This letter quotes Murray Sinclair (lawyer and judge, and head of the Truth & Reconciliation Commission), Beverley McLaughlin (Chief Justice of the Canadian Supreme Court) and Paul Martin (lawyer and former Prime Minister of Canada), all of whom publicly commented around the time of the release of the T & R’s final report, that Canada had committed “cultural genocide” with its Indian residential school program. With all these legal and judicial High Mukety-Muks about, why does it take a lowly psychologist like myself to point out that genocide is a crime (and that covering up a crime is another crime), while “cultural” genocide is, well, nothing, at least legally? Are these high-flying legal hawks — Sinclair, McLaughlin, and Martin unaware of the differences?…or is it more likely that they know the differences perfectly well and were merely continuing a long Canadian tradition of rhetorical legerdemain of downplaying the severity of Canada’s destruction of Native peoples?

True: had Lemkin’s original definition been followed, attacking cultures would have been recognized as genocide; but Canada and the USA made short work of his suggestions in 1948, installing the UN Genocide Convention as we have it today. I’ve frequently been “corrected” in calling Indian residential schooling genocide; always, however, by individuals who have never actually read the UN Convention. Calling genocide “cultural genocide,” or putting the term in “scare quotes” as the Law Society of Upper Canada did in 1996 (as recounted in Dr. Clark’s chapter Contempt of Court and Conduct Unbecoming, p. 99) — implying that it really isn’t “genocide” — is outright denial of Canada’s history. Likewise, the Law Society missive Dr. Clark quotes also contains the following whopper: “The term genocide is defined in the Concise Oxford Dictionary as the ‘extermination of a race (p. 98).'” Wonder of wonders! It is the people who wrote the Concise Oxford Dictionary that know what genocide really is, not those idiot stumblebums who wrote and then passed into international law the UN Convention on Genocide!

Please note not just the Law Society’s reliance on a questionable, non-legal source for a formal legal matter, but how the definition they cite is a criminally bowdlerized version of the real legal definition (much like Canada’s own Criminal Code eviscerates the UN Genocide Convention). This is pure legal rhetoric at its worst: another clumsily executed exercise in thought control. Unfortunately, the mainstream Canadian public has long been conditioned not to notice such things. The “herd” has been taught to equate genocide with killing, so that what Canada and its institutions did (and are doing) to Native people may (and thus, may not) be regrettable (meaning that one might be “able” to regret it, but isn’t required to actually do so), nobody should be so rude as to call it genocide. The repeated attempt at melioration of Canada’s actions by these and similar verbal gymnastics is just another aspect of the cover-up Dr. Clark has now placed squarely in plain view, and we should not be party to Canada’s deception. The clarity of Dr. Clark’s presentation is such that it exposes not just the legal system’s vested self-interests in the destruction of indigenous peoples, almost as a by-product he exposes the vacuity of Canada’s pretended rectifications of its sordid history of genocide. Neither in its hearings nor in its reporting did the much-ballyhooed Truth and Reconciliation Commission ever come to grips with the reality of Native/non-Native relations in Canada (I take some slight issue with whether or not the T & R “overlooked” (p. 71), rather than deliberately ignored such matters, but Dr. Clark takes no cheap shots in his work), and consequently consigned itself to irrelevance: “In consequence of these limitations, the commission can not expose wrongdoings of the government. This is not only an expensive fraud upon the public but a cruel imposition upon the victims, who are encouraged to air their innermost sufferings in the mistaken belief it will lead to closure” (p. 4). These words should be stenciled onto the foreheads of everyone participating in this sham.

Or what does he have to say to those Native people who have convinced themselves, and then dedicated their lives to the belief that they can “change the system by working from within it?” “There is no legal point to be served in troubling to draft declarations and petitions to the government. The government knows and has heard it all before. Its whole policy as against Indian and foreign nations is to lie and to wear down resistance to the lie by the unconstitutional and mortal use of force. There is no possibility of negotiations in good faith relative to treaties regarding territory that the government has already invaded, occupied and governed in bad faith” (Clark, p. 14). This is an observation, based on long experience and a profound grasp of the facts, that future generations of indigenous activists must take to heart. But there is more:

The old-style Indians knew and warned of the threat that the demise of the truth standard constitutes to the continuity of life on earth. Their predictions are coming to pass not only with respect to the environment but with regard to the rampancy of the self-destructive greed and the fraud that feeds it in the economic realm…The current conjunction of global economic and environmental crises will not likely be resolved unless a structural approach that goes to the root of the catastrophe is identified and addressed, by the authors of the problem: the North American legal profession and judiciary…Those Indians who want genuine justice rather than money damages in exchange for continued injustice have no alternative but to keep bringing actions based upon the constitutional truth. Since lawyers will not aid in this, they can only do so pro se (Clark, p. 15).


Finally I am compelled to address the issue I noted at the outset: the ad hominem attacks that are so frequently made upon Dr. Clark that even I became aware of them. The record of Dr. Clark’s treatment by his own profession would shock anyone but the old styled Indians mentioned above, who are well aware of what Canadian law is willing to do to those who challenge it. Because that record informs and even contributes to the history of the judicial/legal machinations that constitute the smarmy legitimated dispossession of Native Peoples in Canada, it quite properly has been brought up in this, his present book, as it has in his previous works. I will not dignify the rumours I have heard repeated of Dr. Clark, made entirely by those who could be considered his “colleagues” and never by those Native individuals and groups with which he has worked. All I can say is that every attempt I heard to impugn his character has always been brought to a complete halt by breaking into these monologues and asking “…but is he right?” His detractors either immediately have something to do elsewhere; or, after much shuffling of feet and clearing of throats, manage to dredge up the pseudo-answer “…well…technically…” When I then ask whether or not something “technically” is in fact entirely the point?, the conversation comes to a close. Empty rhetoric, like a cockroach, disappears in daylight.

The chapter, Contempt of Court and Conduct Unbecoming, could fail to move only those so complicit with the crime itself, so much a part of a system of systematic abuse of the truth, that Dr. Clark’s experiences are no more to them than another day’s work. Reading through the record of judgment (?!) of the Law Society of Upper Canada…which concludes he had it coming…you can only be struck by the fact that Dr. Clark was imprisoned, disbarred, and persecuted by Canada’s legal system simply because the system was capable of doing so. A judge became personally annoyed at his persistent advocacy (on behalf of his Native clients, for goodness’ sake!) and so ordered it. And, even when he speaks like a peevish idiot, when a judge orders something the system stands behind him! I challenge anyone pretending to be an objective, rational person: read through the record of the Law Society’s judgment (!?) and tell me what is it he’s supposed to have done?

It is important to our decision that the use of what would in most other circumstances rightly be regarded as extravagant [that is, saying “genocide” when it is exactly the correct term], disrespectful and discourteous language [that is, pointing out that the issue the judge is avoiding is the one his fellow judges are avoiding, too], in Mr. [sic] Clark’s case emanated directly from the legal argument that he was vigorously advancing on behalf of his clients [that is, he was doing his job]. In attempting to resolve the tension between vigorous advocacy in the face of judicial resistance [i.e., petulant ignorance] and the duty to treat [even a complicit and pig-ignorant] tribunal with courtesy and respect, much will depend on the context [p. 99 – 100; bracketed comments are added].

To put my own “spin” on the whole thing (as, of course, I’ve already done with my bracketed comments), Dr. Clark was found guilty of (1) performing his job well and (2) not doing what the judge has already sentenced him for; but, because the Law Society decides to hold him accountable to a standard that isn’t articulated anywhere, it decided to back Boss Hogg.

In all of this, and apart from the often revolutionary implications of his exposition, I have to stress that Dr. Clark is not making a fire-and-brimstone appeal to “man the barricades.” Rather, throughout it is a patient, persistent, and careful review of the law governing the relations between North American indigenous peoples and European explores and settlers of our territories. His point, to put it simply, is that the applicable law has been violated — indeed, he shows us when, by whom, and how — and needs to be put right in order to sort out the legalities of past injustices done to Native peoples, as well as prevent present and future ones. Above all, he is holding the judiciaries of Canada (and the United States, since that country is composed of former British colonies, and the foundational law with regard to Native peoples is the same for both countries) accountable to its own professed rules! And, like any rational professional who has found his colleagues diverging from their self-proclaimed principles, he has been calling this departure to the attention of his peers in the expectation that they will scrutinize his argument and take the necessary steps toward self-reform!

After all, the hypocrisy involved in calling yourself a nation of laws, even as you perpetuate the violation of fundamental principles, threatens the entire moral and ethical framework of what pleases to call itself “western civilization.” If this is “revolutionary extremism,” it is no more so than when President Kennedy said: “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”

If an artist may “suffer for the sake of art,” the pay-off (so to speak) is that, in the long run, his or her contribution to the aesthetic legacy of humanity will eventually be recognized. Dr. Clark has suffered and continues to suffer for the sake of that law, not just in that his profession, his chosen life-commitment has substituted “might makes right” for “the rule of law;” but in that it is Canada itself, in its mainstream citizenry and institutional structure, that has debased itself by turning a blind eye to these excesses.

It is, after all, his Canada, too, that looks the other way as it accepts the role of “receiver of stolen goods.” But, in the Kingdom of the Wilfully Blind, the one-eyed man is universally despised. So I seriously doubt that “egomania” or a supposed quest for personal recognition could possibly be his motivating factor; not when all that is really necessary is a grasp of the relevant facts and the full possession of a common humanity. If it ever were “common,” such a disposition is rapidly eroding today and is as disposable as morals, ethics, and the inconvenient rule of law. Thus, by now it is only those for whom he was willing to go to the wall that will truly appreciate how he has suffered for his art. I extend to him my full personal thanks for his efforts, whatever my appreciation may be worth.

Dr. Clark’s latest book is a troubling, penetrating look at the legal gymnastics which constitute Canada’s treatment of indigenous nations and peoples. It is more than an important text for the education of future generations; if “courts” won’t hear him, that doesn’t mean that the rest of us can’t or shouldn’t. In fact, our sanity may depend upon it. Ongoing Genocide deserves a prominent place, not only on the bookshelves but in the consciences of all thoughtful peoples. It will stand as a powerful indictment of the base ideologies that forget that “weakness should find a powerful protection in justice” (Mann, 2011, p. 252).

Prof. Chrisjohn is the author of Dying to Please You: Indigenous Suicide in Contemporary Canada, Chrisjohn, R. & McKay, S. (2017) Penticton: Theytus; and The Circle Game: Shadows and Substance in the Indian Residential School Experience in Canada, Chrisjohn, R. & Young, S. (1994/1996) Penticton: Theytus.


Chrisjohn, R. & Young S. (1994/1996). The Circle Game: Shadows and Substance in the Indian Residential School Experience in Canada. Penticton: Theytus.

Clark, B. (1987). Indian Title in Canada. Toronto: Carswell Legal Publishing.

Clark, B. (1990). Native Liberty, Crown Sovereignty: The Existing Aboriginal Right of Self-Government in Canada. Montreal: McGill-Queens University Press.

Clark, B. (2004). Justice in Paradise. Montreal: McGill-Queens University Press.

Daschuk, J. (2013). Clearing the Plains: Disease, Politics of Starvation, and the Loss of Aboriginal Life. Regina: University of Regina Press.

Davis, R. & Zannis, M. (1973). The Genocide Machine in Canada: The Pacification of the North. Montreal: Black Rose Books.

Lux, M. (2001). Medicine That Walks: Disease, Medicine, and Canadian Plains Native People, 1880 – 1940. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Mann, B. (2011). Iroquois Women: The Gantowisas. New York: Peter Lang.



What one needs to know if one is interested in the pipeline controversy is the significance of the title of the book Ongoing Genocide caused by Judicial Suppression of the “Existing” Aboriginal Rights. The adjective existing acquired prominence on April 17, 1982, when Queen Elizabeth II signed Canada’s new constitution into law. That constitution concerns aboriginal rights because of its section 35(1) which enacts, “The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal people in Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed. “Existing” signifies the paramountcy of the Indian law in force as at the day the Queen signed. What the book establishes is two things. First that the courts have behaved fraudulently toward Indians since the mid-19th century. Secondly the case law that came into force after April 17, 1982, tried to change the law as it existed on that watershed day. This newer law is inferior to the older law because of the paramountcy given to the old law by section 35(1). This brings us to the critical point from the pipeline’s perspective. The newer law says that all the Indians have is a “right to be consulted” before development can occur on their land. The older law says that no development can occur until the Indians have signed a treaty. No treaty has been signed. But the Indians were consulted. Under the older law the Indians enjoy the power of veto. Under the newer law the Indians enjoy nothing. Which is why they have an injunction against them, because the assumption is that the newer law rules. The assumption is in error. That is why it is fair to say Ongoing Genocide [is] caused by Judicial Suppression of the “Existing” Aboriginal Rights. But you have to read the book really to understand first that fraud is normal for the courts in Indian affairs, and secondly that another fraud is happening in the pipeline situation.


Radio Interview

Paul W. Dyer PhD sent the following message at 5:18 AM Oct. 2, 2018  from New York, New York Radio: Your input last night was absolutely incredible people text and email about what you spoke about I said get the book learn then do

Bruce Clark, PhD sent the following return message at 6:15 AM:

What a wonderful and encouraging message for me to receive from you, Paul, It was a gratifying experience being interviewed by you, especially after learning of your own previous exposure to Indians and Indian culture out west, which made it possible for you immediately to get the points I was making about Indians. Thank you for passing on the simple message to get the book and learn for themselves, which is all I could ask for. Thanks again for giving me air time and I am so glad it worked for you and your audience as well, thanks to your interviewing skill. Sincerely, Bruce

Paul W. Dyer PhD

It was a blessing. My passion is to get understanding so people can wake up and do action of living. Thank thank you.