My Banishment From The Turtle Mountain Indian Reservation Makes The Grand Forks Herald
Yesterday I gave an interview to Susanne Nadeau of the Grand Forks Herald about my apparent banishment from the Turtle Mountain Indian Reservation, and today she’s got an article out about it (it should be noted that Susanne herself is a member of the Turtle Mountain tribe). You can read it here. She’s also included a copy of the tribal code used by the tribe to banish me (click here) and a copy of the actual order issued by the council banning me (click here).
I’d note that yesterday, when Susanne emailed it to me, is the first time I’ve gotten an opportunity to read the actual banishment order.
I’ve got several reactions to this.
First, and foremost, I’d point out that this banishment doesn’t appear to be legal under the tribe’s own code. According to the tribes Exclusion and Removal code (linked above) people facing banishment are to be afforded some level of due process before that banishment happens. From the link:
39.0110 Administrative Hearing on Exclusion and Removal in Non-Emergency Situations.
(1) In non-emergency cases of exclusion and/or removal, the Exclusion Ordinance Board shall cause to be served upon the offending person a copy of the Petition and Notice of Hearing by personal service, or if such service is not reasonably possible, by registered mail, return receipt requested, to the last known address of such person. Such Notice shall contain the date and time of the administrative pre-exclusion hearing, which hearing shall be not less than three days from the date of service, and shall further inform the person that he or she may appear with counsel at his or her own expense and present evidence in his or her own behalf.
(2) The administrative pre-exclusion hearing on a proposed exclusion and/or removal may be held at a regular session of the Exclusion Ordinance Board.
(3) The Exclusion Ordinance Board shall hear the evidence presented, and if appropriate, recommend the exclusion and/or removal of the person to the Tribal Chairman. If the person is not present at such hearing, or if a decision thereon is not rendered until after the hearing, appropriate notice shall be served on the person in the manner provided above, informing him of the action of the Tribal Chairman. Such notice shall include a copy of any recommendation made by the Exclusion Board to the Tribal Chairman for exclusion and/or removal that affects such person.
I would note that I have never been served notice of a hearing of the Exclusion Board nor was I afforded an opportunity to attend any such hearing. I’d also note that the resolution supposedly banning me from the reservation was not passed by the Exclusion Board but rather the Tribal Council. Finally, I’d note that according to the resolution passed by the Tribal Council the Chairman, David Brien, who is supposed to have final say on banishments did not vote on the resolution.
I, personally, don’t think these banishments are Constitutional, but this one doesn’t even appear to be legal under the tribe’s own laws. I wasn’t afforded due process. I wasn’t notified about the banishment (were it not for my blog readers and/or Susanne Nadeau I still wouldn’t even know about it) and I wasn’t given an opportunity to speak on my own behalf. That’s not right.
Second, I’d like to address this from the article:
Last year, the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa adopted its exclusion code, a tribal ordinance that creates a process to permanently banish or withhold services from tribal members and nonmembers who are involved in serious crimes.
It was put into place because of growing concerns about illicit drugs on reservations and the lack of jurisdiction tribes have over nonmembers who deal with, possess, or use drugs. Only serious felony offenses committed by members or nonmembers of the tribe are federally prosecuted.
The exclusion ordinance has been used once before, when the tribe banned Calvin John Andrist, who is not a member of the tribe but living on the reservation. Andrist was removed after a request to the tribal council from tribal law enforcement officers, who said Andrist was involved in numerous drug-related actions from the summer of 2005 to March 8, 2006.
Tribal members and non-tribal members who are repeat offenders either dealing in drugs or committing sex offenses can be banned from the reservation permanently, according to the ordinance. Tribal members are given warnings before they are banned, according to the ordinance.
Non-tribal members can be banished without warning if the tribe deems immediate removal necessary.
This exclusionary code was developed by the tribe as a way to ban drug dealers, sex offenders and other criminals from the reservation. But now, the second time they’ve used it since creating it, they’ve banned someone for stating political opinions they find inconvenient. And this is happening in America and not some eastern-European country that hasn’t entirely forgotten its communist roots, if you can believe that.
I made a point to Susanne during the interview, though I see it didn’t make it into the article, but the status of political dissent on the reservations. If the tribe is willing and capable of banning me, someone who isn’t even a member of the tribe, from the reservation just imagine the lengths it would go through to make life hell for people who actually speak out while living on the reservation.
Talk about a chilling effect on free speech.
Third, in the resolution banning me it states that there have been comments on this blog about Indian children being “bastards” and Indian women being “welfare queens.” I’d point out that I never made such comments. Other commenters did, unfortunately, but that’s how this whole “free speech” thing works. Sometimes it gets ugly. I’d point out that several tribal members from Turtle Mountain have made obscene and insulting comments to me in the wake of this controversy, and a few have even posted/emailed threats, yet I’m not holding the entire Turtle Mountain tribe responsible for those comments. It’s absurd that I should be held responsible for comments my readers make on this blog.
Fourth, I’d note that in the article Tribal Vice Chairman Ted Henry said that part of the banning was, in effect, for my protection. Doesn’t that speak volumes about the state of affairs on the reservation? And, frankly, lend support to the thesis of my original column?
Finally, I want to thank Herald city beat reporter Tu-Uyen Tran for standing by me in this controversy. It means a lot, even if he does it with a “I don’t always agree with Rob” disclaimer.
C’mon Tu. Embrace your inner conservative.
Update: Chuck Simmins from the North Shore Journal emails along his support, and a link to a post he’s written about the Herald article.
Update: Herald opinion editor (and friend) Tom Dennis responds to the controversy, and while he disagrees with the banishment he does criticize me for being “intemperate” in my column. I’d like to respond to that.
Intemperate is the wrong word, I think. That makes me sound angry, and I didn’t write the column in anger.
I think Tom’s real complaint is that perhaps the column wasn’t as balanced as it should be (i.e. pointing out that not all Indians live the way I observed). I’ll accept that criticism, but would point out that I took for granted that people would know that not all Indians live that way.
My mistake, perhaps. I may have been a bit naive on that point.
Tom’s metaphor about the media coverage of the Iraq war isn’t apt though, I don’t think. I wrote one column. The media’s bias in covering the war in Iraq encompasses hundreds of stories filed daily. One story can be about something negative without needing to mention the positive aspects of the war, but those stories should be leveled out with other stories about positive things.
In my column I chose to cover one single negative issue about the reservations, and I covered it in-depth. I didn’t mention other positive aspects of the reservation as they weren’t really germane to the point I was making.
Finally, comparing our entire American economy to that of Mexico’s isn’t all that apt either. Mexico doesn’t have a free economy like ours. They suffer from rampant burdensome government and corruption.
If Tom wanted to compare Mexico’s economy to something he really should have compared it to the reservation’s economy, where the tribe’s vice-like control (coupled with our government’s unfortunate past decisions to segregate the Indians onto these remote parcels of land) is ruining their economy.