‘Race Rights Added To Citizenship Oath’

We stand strongly opposed to any ‘rights’ based on race or ethnicity:

I swear (or affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada, including the Constitution, which recognizes and affirms the Aboriginal and treaty rights of ‘First Nations’, Inuit and Métis Peoples, and fulfill my duties as a Canadian citizen.”

New Canadians are now swearing a revised oath of citizenship that recognizes ‘Indigenous’ {sic, Canadian Aboriginals are ‘Indigenous’ to Mongolia and Siberia} ‘rights’…

“‘Bill C-8’, which amended the wording of the oath in the Citizenship Act, received royal assent and became law on June 21, 2021.


The next day, 31 new Canadians swore the new oath at a citizenship ceremony presided over by Suzanne Carrière, the first Métis {mixed Race} citizenship judge in Canada…

According to the federal government, the wording was changed after consulting with ‘First Nations’ {Aboriginal communities}, Inuit and Métis organizations and leaders to better reflect the ‘diverseness’ of ‘Indigenous’ people in Canada.

The {Partial} Truth and Reconciliation’s 93rd call to action recommended the government update the citizenship study guide to reflect a more ‘inclusive’ history, including information about treaties and residential schools…”

–‘Citizenship oath sworn by new Canadians now recognizes Indigenous rights’,

Rhiannon Johnson, CBC News, June 29, 2021

{Rhiannon Johnson is an Anishinaabe journalist from Hiawatha ‘First Nation’ {a ‘nation’ of 968 people}}




New Canadians will soon promise to honour {dishonest interpretations of} treaties with ‘indigenous’ {sic} peoples as part of their oath of citizenship.

The mandate letter for new Immigration Minister {Somalian-born ‘refugee’, came to Canada in 1993. See below…} Ahmed Hussen lists making the change to the swearing-in ceremony as one of his key priorities, along with enhancing refugee resettlement services and cutting wait times for application processing.

According to the mandate letter, the proposed change is to reflect the {Partial} Truth and {One-way} Reconciliation Commission’s calls to action.

That reads:

We call upon the government of Canada to replace the Oath of Citizenship with the following:

I swear (or affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, her heirs and successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada, including treaties with ‘indigenous’ peoples, and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen.”

The current oath does not include the words

including treaties with ‘indigenous’ peoples“.

The call for action was among 94 recommendations from the TRC in December, 2015.

{One-sided to the point of being racist, the document can be found here:

http://www.trc.ca/websites/trcinstitution/File/2015/Findings/Calls_to_Action_English2.pdf }

Another recommendation called on the federal government, in collaboration with national ‘indigenous’ organizations, to revise the information kit for newcomers to Canada and the citizenship test to

reflect a more inclusive history of the diverse Aboriginal peoples of Canada“.

{4% of the Canadian population, and not involved in the founding of Canada…}

That would include {incorrect} information about the treaties and the {one-sided} history of residential schools, according to the document.

Immigration and ‘Indigenous’ affairs officials are consulting with members of the ‘indigenous’ community {There isn’t an “indigenous community”…} to ‎develop wording for the oath that meets the TRC recommendations.

{Without the participation of the other 96% of Canadians…}

I think that we have an ‘obligation’ to always look at things through the lens of recognizing and honouring the ‘indigenous’ community in Canada“, {Why?}

Hussen said Thursday.

And our citizenship process, our citizenship programming, will definitely aim to do that.”

{Aboriginal Race activist} ‘Independent’ Senator Murray Sinclair, who served as TRC chairman, said the final wording will likely require some adjustment, but welcomed the move to include ‘Aboriginal {Race} rights’ in the citizenship oath as a way to educate immigrants about the history of ‘indigenous’ people in the country.

He said it is critical for newcomers to be taught about the legacy of the past.

{Like how Aboriginals were taught to read and write? Or the legacy of the Iroquois genocide of other tribes??}

It’s not just about the wording of an oath. It’s about ensuring that those who are coming to live in this country permanently in the future are also ‘well-informed’ {in a one-sided, racist fashion}, so when they do take the oath, it has more meaning for them“,

he told ‘CBC News’.


“‘NDP’ ‘indigenous’ affairs critic {and Aboriginal Race activist} Romeo Saganash agrees there must be ‘proper training’ {in the Aboriginal narrative} and tools to help newcomers understand the weight of their words.

It’s highly symbolic but highly important“,

he said.

Saganash said it’s equally important for new MPs to make a similar oath to ‘indigenous’ peoples when they are sworn in to office. {?!?!?}

Tom McMahon, who served as general legal counsel to the TRC, said the government should take the opportunity to reword the entire oath. He said one that honours ‘indigenous’ people but retains a mandatory allegiance to the Queen is incongruent with the “colonialist” past and today’s Charter rights.

I think it’s out of step with the TRC’s own call to action to renounce the ‘Doctrine of Discovery’,”

he said in reference to a group of 15th century decrees that were the basis of European explorers’ claims to Aboriginal land.

{See below… Naked power was the basis “of European explorers’ claims to Aboriginal land”. This is just another attempt by the Canadian legal profession to further expand the earnings from the Segregationist gravy train – at Canada’s expense, and future…}

The TRC report calls for a repudiation of the concept of European sovereignty over ‘indigenous’ lands {Turning Canada and land ownership over to aboriginal control, with the other 96% of Canadians having secondary citizenship, after the ‘First Nations’…} and a reaffirmation of a ‘Nation-to-nation’ relationship between the Crown and ‘indigenous’ peoples.

This past December, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau {the ‘Fool on the Hill’} announced the creation of an independent national council to help implement the recommendations.

At the time, Trudeau said his government had already taken action on most of the recommendations that fall under federal jurisdiction, including improved funding for child welfare and for education, and protection for language and culture.

The government has also launched the inquiry into missing and murdered ‘indigenous’ women and girls, one of the commission’s key recommendations.”

–‘New Canadians to pledge honour for Indigenous treaties in revised citizenship oath’,

Kathleen Harris, CBC News, Feb. 02, 2017


Feature IMAGE: http://shop.flagshop.com/index.php/canada-flags/other-canadian-flags/canadian-indian-flag.html

Ahmed Hussen {Left}

Ahmed Hussen (Somali: Axmed Xuseen; born 1975-1976) is a Somali-Canadian lawyer and politician. He is the National President of the ‘Canadian Somali Congress’…

Hussen was raised in Somalia. He first resided in Hamilton and later moved to Toronto in 1993 as a 16-year-old refugee…

Hussen began his career in public service and politics…as an assistant to Dalton McGuinty, the leader of the province’s official opposition. Hussen worked in this capacity until November 2003, when he was promoted to Special Assistant, concurrently with the ‘Liberal’ Party’s election victory. He held this new post for two years, during which he was in charge of issues management, policy and communications…

Hussen later received a law degree from the University of Ottawa, and passed the bar exam in September, 2012.

Before his entry into politics, Hussen practised Criminal Law, Immigration and Refugee Law, and Human Rights Law at his office in Toronto…”




“Community KnewZ, Volume 1, Issue 1, 1 April 2013”. RPNI.

Retrieved 11 September 2013.


TRC’s own report contradicts claim of ‘an act of genocide’

…The ‘Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada’ (TRC) was clearly moved and deeply troubled by the testimony of thousands of {hand-picked} former Indian residential school students…

However, as communities across Canada mark the first anniversary of the release of the TRC’s report, it’s worth noting the TRC got some things wrong.

Empathy for former students does not justify how the TRC ignored a considerable body of information in its own report. or its unbalanced account of why the schools were established.

For example, the TRC’s allegation the residential schools were

an ‘act of genocide’ under Article 2(e) of the ‘United Nations ‘Convention on Genocide’,”

cannot be substantiated.

The schools — even at their worst — were not comparable to what the United Nations General Assembly had in mind in adopting ‘Article 2(e)’ in 1948 in response to the Nazis abducting an estimated 400,000 children in occupied Europe.

Equating the conduct of the churches and Canadian government to that of Adolf Hitler and the ‘Gestapo’ is totally unwarranted. The TRC should familiarize itself with why Article 2(e) was adopted and, with the benefit of a fuller understanding, withdraw its allegation the Government of Canada committed an act of genocide“.

The TRC claims the Canadian government engaged in

forcibly transferring children of the group to another group

as described in Article 2(e). However, that claim is contradicted by a substantial body of evidence in its own report.

It wasn’t until 1920 that school attendance became mandatory. Even then, the TRC’s report notes:

In most years, there were more ‘First Nations’ children attending Indian Affairs day schools than residential schools.”

According to the TRC, there were 28,429 school-age aboriginal children in the 1944-45 school year. Only 16,438 (57.8%) attended school. Of those, 8,865 (53.9%) attended residential schools and 7,573 (46%) attended day schools. The report says:

This meant that 31.1% of the school-age aboriginal children were in residential school“.

That also means that 68.9% were not {!}.

As the day-school students were still living in their own homes, they would have been speaking their native language with their parents, siblings and relatives and would not have lost the ability to speak Cree, Ojibwa or any other native language.

The parents of those in the boarding schools on the reserves were most likely away hunting for months at a time — just as so many were before the treaties of 1871-1921.

The TRC records many instances of parents refusing to send their children to the schools, withdrawing their children from the schools and insisting certain changes be made before they would return their children to the schools.

The parents of the estimated 400,000 children abducted by the Nazis had no say whatsoever.

As so many parents refused to enrol their children, the residential schools — which depended on per capita funding from the federal government — were severely underfunded. Many were closed because of lack of students and funds.

It’s worth noting church-run schools for aboriginal children were established decades before the Dominion of Canada came into being and before the out-of-context quotes from Prime Minister Sir John A. Macdonald, Duncan Campbell Scott and others the TRC relied upon to bolster its unsubstantiated {and racist} allegation of ‘genocide’.

The first Anglican church in Ontario was built on the ‘Six Nations’ of the Grand River Reserve south of Brantford in 1785 — 82 years before Confederation — by the British Crown in gratitude for the important role the Mohawks played in support of the British during the American Revolutionary War.

By 1830, the Methodists were operating 11 schools for aboriginal children in southern Ontario attended by about 400 students, 150 of whom could read. Ojibwas who had converted to Christianity promoted the church-run schools as a means of rescuing children from the deplorable conditions so many were living in because of widespread drunkenness in Ojibwa communities.

Many aboriginal people covered by the treaties the newly-formed Dominion of Canada entered into had converted to Christianity, and their children were attending boarding schools established and maintained by the different churches.

A significant number asked for missionaries and education for their children. Those who were Roman Catholic or Protestant demanded teachers from their own denomination.

Given the significant number of aboriginal people who had converted to Christianity and voluntarily placed their children in church-run schools decades before Confederation, the TRC’s claim the schools were established by the Canadian government as a means of

destroying the race and culture” of the children’s parents and breaking “the chain of memory that connected the hearts, minds, and spirits of aboriginal children to their families, communities and nations

cannot be substantiated and should be reconsidered and withdrawn.”

–‘TRC’s own report contradicts claim of ‘an act of genocide’,

Robert MacBain, Winnipeg Free Press, 06/13/2016

(Robert MacBain’s recently released “Their Home and Native Land” is based on interviews conducted with Ojibwa, Mohawk and Cree people.)


COMMENT: “An excellent article. After carefully reading all 2,600+ pages of the TRC, I was also struck by similar conclusions: fewer than one-third of aboriginal children actually attended those hateful places and many aboriginals enthusiastically embraced European culture and technology. I can’t parse the definition of ‘genocide’ as well as many people, but I know that in my mind and conscience, what Canada did was NOT genocide.

Abolish the ‘Indian Act’, eliminate the temptation for chiefs to exploit their people, abolish the reserves and welcome ALL ‘indigenous’ people into the full benefits — and responsibilities and obligations — of being citizens of one nation: Canada.


Not sure how one would argue that. Some just use the word genocide too loosely for attention.”


An important article that everyone should read. Many do not realize that the TRC was a political body whose membership had an agenda to push. The media acts as if it is a scientific document.

The idea that these schools equate to ‘genocide’ makes a mockery of the term. This in no way excuses them, but we need to be realistic about the analysis when billions of dollars have now been given out as compensation and many more billions are being demanded.”


I would argue it is progress if we all agree that we should be assisting aboriginal Canadians because they are fellow citizens in need, rather than because of demands for “reconciliation” when the living population has nothing to reconcile. The manufactured guilt only serves to put people’s backs up and hurts more than it helps.”

Inter caetera: The Doctrine of Discovery’

Inter caetera (“Among other [works]“) was a papal bull issued by Pope Alexander VI {the ‘Borgia Pope’} on 4 May 1493, which granted to Spain (the Crowns of Castile and Aragon) all lands to the “west and south” of a pole-to-pole line 100 leagues west and south of any of the islands of the Azores or the Cape Verde islands.”


Note that it only included Spain. Even if one was to attempt to apply it to all European colonization, it STILL doesn’t apply here {despite ridiculous legal claims to the contrary}, as ALL of the English colonization occurred well after England had rejected the authority of the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church (1533).

It was an American Supreme Court decision in the early 1800s that grounded it in law, but as we pointed out, it’s historical fiction. The reality is that North America was conquered, the same way that tribes were conquered by the Iroquois before the arrival of Europeans (see below).

Attempts to incorporate it in modern Canadian law are utterly foolish and are yet another reason why we must end Rights based on Race


“The relationship between law and land in Canada can be traced to a set of fifteenth century theological assumptions that have found their way into both common law and the Canadian Constitution. These assumptions, collectively referred to as the ‘Doctrine of Discovery’, were initially formulated to mediate rivalries among European states vying for sovereignty rights in the New World. Although there were antecedents to the doctrine, it was Pope Alexander VI who applied them to the Atlantic World of the fifteenth century, in a two-part papal bull known as ‘Inter caetera’. The ‘Doctrine of Discovery’ was the legal means by which {some} Europeans claimed rights of sovereignty, property, and trade in regions they allegedly discovered during the age of expansion.”




The doctrine was introduced in the law of the United States and was referenced in the United States Supreme Court case of Johnson v. M’Intosh, 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 543 in 1823,


which in turn has been cited by courts in Australia, Canada and New Zealand.”


See also:

Still Changing Canada’s Citizenship Oath{Feb.22, 2021}:

More than five years after the {Partial} ‘Truth and Reconciliation Commission’ called on the federal government to revise the Canadian citizenship oath and exam guide…the ‘Liberal’ {Party} government introduced a new law to adopt a revised oath of citizenship that will have new Canadians swear to faithfully observe the country’s treaties with ‘Indigenous’ peoples…”


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s