Bruce Allan Clark (born 22 June 1944) is a Canadian native rights lawyer, writer and activist. He rose to attention as part of the Gustafsen Lake Standoff and its aftermath.
Life and education
Clark graduated LLB from the University of Western Ontario in 1969, being called to the bar in 1971. He returned to higher education with an MA in North American constitutional history also from the UWO in 1987, followed in 1990 by a PhD in comparative law from the Department of Jurisprudence in the Faculty of Law in the University of Aberdeen School of Law, Scotland. For his dissertation, Clark investigated support of the proposition that the Privy Council recognized Indian sovereignty in the Privy Council decision in the 1704 Mohegan Indians v. Connecticut case. From this case, Clark concluded that Indian land claims in all of British North America would require an independent, third party adjudication.
Clark's theories of sovereignty and genocide
Clark's 1990 book Native Liberty, Crown Sovereignty published by McGill–Queen's University Press was described as "widely researched, up-to-date, and persuasively argued" by the Canadian Book Review Annual. Native Liberty described how "native liberty and crown sovereignty complement each other in Canada" where the imperial British North America claimed overall sovereignty and delegated powers to colonial governments who in turn would accommodate the liberty of the natives. "The jurisdiction of federal and provincial governments to govern ceded territory is constitutionally counter-balanced by the jurisdiction of the aboriginal peoples to govern themselves upon territory they have not voluntarily ceded. Hansen describes Clark as a "controversial writer, and activist." He further noted that, "[d]espite his academic qualifications, Clark's behaviour in trials and hearings was characterized as 'unconventional' and 'unprofessional' resulting in numerous sanctions by the courts."
In his May 1991 article in Canadian Forum, Philip Raphals described Clark as "on a one-man crusade to get these arguments [as set out in Native Liberty, Crown Sovereignty] before the Supreme Court of Canada." Raphals cited a Queen's Law Journal review by Queen's University law professor, Noel Lyon, describing Native Liberty, as "[perhaps] the most important single piece of writing on the subject of Aboriginal rights in Canada" since the Supreme Court's 1973 decision in Calder v British Columbia (AG). In Native Liberty, Clark says that the "British Crown recognized the right to self-government for Indians on unceded lands" in the Royal Proclamation of 1763. This right has been "entrenched" in the Constitution Act, 1982 and therefore provides a "legal basis for native claims to self-government before the Supreme Court of Canada." In his article Raphals also cited Vice-Chief of the Grand Council of the Cree of Quebec, Diom Saganash, regarding Clark's approach. Saganash said, "I think he's right but there's no judge in the country who would agree to it." Assembly of First Nations (AFN) Vice Chief Lawrence Courtoreille asked, "Even supposing you got a piece of paper from the Supreme Court saying you had a right to self-government, then what? Who is going to enforce it?" While Clark's arguments may be valid, many regard "his quest as quixotic".
In Justice in Paradise, Clark described his journey in Europe in which he was essentially accusing North American judges of complicity in genocide. The Clark family were accompanied by Harold (Tsenhu'qw) Pascal representing the Lil'Wat nation. Tsenhu'qw had signed a petition asserting that Canada was "breaching existing international law relative to the liberty and possession of themselves and the indigenous nations for whom they spoke, and that the consequence was genocide contrary" to the 1948 international Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
While The Law Society of Upper Canada had dismissed attempts by the B.C. legal establishment to have Dr. Clark disbarred, ruling that "the genocide of which Mr. Clark speaks is real... we are sympathetic moreover to his assertion that the Courts have been unwilling to hear his argument."