In thrall to the beauteous Valley of Memory: My heart is in Kashmir
Click on the headline to read the full article at CapitolBeatOK
Editor’s Note of introduction: Dr. Nyla Ali Khan writes with grace and precision. In a few hundred words, she can help us understand a complex matter concerning a land far away (but close to her heart) – or, in works of the heart, bring to the mind snapshots from a time and place foreign to us here in Oklahoma, yet familiar to the heart. Helpful hints for this sweet memoir:
“Chinars” are also know as Old World Sycamores.
And: Khushwant Singh was a renowed author, lawyer, diplomat, politician and, to be sure, an editor and a journalist of some note. His life spanned the years from British India to the independent nations of today’s sub-continent. He was a man of wit and deft sarcasm. The essay of our respected jewel of Kashmir follows:
I pride myself on not letting my emotions get the better of me -- and on being in control. But the one entity that has me in its firm grip is KASHMIR.
The thought of seeing the majestic mountain peaks, the stately chinars, the lush and blossoming lawns, and trellised fruit trees has always kept me going.
I left Kashmir in 1990 to pursue my Bachelors and Masters in New Delhi.
The thought of the mountains and snow-covered peaks in the blistering heat of Delhi would make me bawl. I felt like a fish out of water away from the beauteous Valley.
My college friends would tease me that my skin was losing its glow and my hair was losing its sheen in the torpid climate. I would eagerly look forward to the exams getting over in April, so I could fly home the very next day. The cool climes of the Valley, and the riot of colors in the gardens would rejuvenate me. That was my utopia.
One year, my father sent a beautiful bouquet of gladioli for me from Kashmir, which was delivered to the college dorms. Every one in the dorms was mesmerized by the flowers from Kashmir, and we were soothed by the aroma of the Valley in the sweltering heat of Delhi.
Kashmir would breathe new life into me and make me feel invincible!
If anyone asks me what the elixir of life is, even today my answer would be "Kashmir."
In memory, it embodies the innocence of childhood; the growing pains of adolescence; the follies of youth; and the serenity of adulthood.
Although I am older now, have traveled much and to many lovely places – and Kashmir has been mangled by several forces -- it is still evocative of heaven for me.
I remember when acclaimed writer Khushwant Singh (1915-2014) reviewed my book, "Islam, Women, and Violence in Kashmir," he called me and said, "You can live wherever you like, but your heart is in Kashmir."
The great writer had great perception from afar: That is so true. My heart is in Kashmir.
Even today, the only entity that has the power to make my heart melt is "Kashmir."
Like my father, dear Abba, I too am in its thrall.
Note: Nyla Ali Khan is a university professor as well as an author and journalist. Her reflections are often shared in The City Sentinel newspaper in Oklahoma City, and on CapitolBeatOK, an online news service focused primary but not exclusively on the state of Oklahoma.
In thrall to the beauteous Valley of Memory: My heart is in Kashmir Click on the headline to read the full article at CapitolBeatOK
0 Comments
Oklahoma City -- In a letter posted on facebook in late afternoon today (Friday, July 17), the Muscogee (Creek) Nation announced it is not in agreement with an accord Attorney General Mike Hunter announced on Thursday.
In a letter to “my fellow Muscogee (Creek) Nation citizens,” Principal Chief David W. Hill announced the tribe is “not in agreement with the proposed agreement-in-principal announced yesterday by the State of Oklahoma.”
Hill wrote, “I very much believe that collaboration between federal, state, and tribal governments is critical and necessary following the Supreme Court’s decision in McGirt. That collaboration, however, does not require congressional legislation.”
Chief Hill continued, “The Nation will continue to pursue all appropriate intergovernmental agreements to ensure public safety within its borders, as intergovernmental agreements are the hallmark of respect among sovereigns. In fact, many such agreements already exist and we will continue to build upon them, but the Muscogee (Creek) Nation will oppose any proposed legislation that diminishes the Nation’s sovereignty.”
Hill’s open letter came several hours after Seminole Chief Greg P. Chilcoat said his tribe “has not been involved” in the agreement announced on Thursday. (https://ift.tt/30liErt) Attorney General Hunter’s press release said the five major tribes (Creek, Chickasaw, Creek, Choctaw and Seminole) were part of the agreement-in-principle.
Oklahoma Attorney General Mike Hunter has not responded to several questions from this reporter concerning the development of the agreement-in-principal. (https://ift.tt/2Ba1uo5)
In a statement received by The City Sentinel and other news organizations late Friday afternoon, Hunter said:
“Since the Murphy case went before the U.S. Supreme Court over two years ago, we have been meeting regularly with the Muscogee (Creek), Seminole, Cherokee, Chickasaw and Choctaw Nations to discuss potential legislation, so Chief Hill's statements today come as a stunning and regrettable reversal of commitments and assurances to me. This is neither in the best interest of the state of Oklahoma nor its tribal citizens.
“Legislation is necessary to clarify the criminal and civil uncertainty created by the McGirt decision. I am deeply disappointed in Chief Hill for withdrawing from this process. It is my hope that both the Muscogee (Creek) Nation and the Seminole Nation will recommit to our agreement on legislation that preserves public safety and promotes continued economic growth.”
For more, see: https://capitolbeatok.worldsecuresystems.com/reports/analysis-musings-on-mcgirt-the-most-significant-federal-court-decision-in-oklahoma-s-history
Editor's Note: The letter from Chief Hill is not visible on the CapitolBeatOK website page yet. However, it an be viewed and read simply by clicking on the gray-looking box (left and below his photograph).
Today, Creek Chief David W. Hill rejected ‘agreement-in-principle’ Attorney General Mike Hunter announced yesterday Click on the headline to read the full article at CapitolBeatOK
Oklahoma City – In a shocking turn of events, Seminole Nation Chief Greg P. Chilcoat has issued a statement saying the tribal nation he leads was not involved in discussions for a widely touted “agreement-in-principle” about tribal and state legal jurisdictions in the wake of ‘McGirt v. Oklahoma.’
Attorney General Mike Hunter’s office, in a press release Thursday (July 16) said the five major Oklahoma tribes were involved in asserted negotiations with “the state of Oklahoma.”
Chief Chilcoat’s statement, sent to CapitolBeatOK and other news organizations, asserted: “[T]he Seminole Nation has not formally approved the agreement-in-principle announced by the other four tribes. To be clear, the Seminole Nation has not been involved with discussions regarding proposed legislation between the other four tribes and the State of Oklahoma. Furthermore, the Seminole Nation has not engaged in any such discussions with the State of Oklahoma, including with the Attorney General, to develop a framework for clarifying respective jurisdictions and to ensure collaboration among tribal, state and federal authorities regarding the administration of justice across Seminole Nation lands.
“Before the Seminole Nation will consider any such framework, the Nation requires respectful and meaningful government-to-government discussions directly with the state. Until such government-to-government discussions occur, and the Nation has an opportunity to fully conduct its own due diligence to any such proposed legislation, the Seminole Nation does not consent to being obligated to an agreement between the other four tribes and the state. As always, the Seminole Nation is proud to be one of the Five Tribes and is eager to have a constructive discussion during this monumental time in our history.”
This reporter has previously asked the attorney general’s office for details about recent statements that office has made concerning discussions between Hunter’s office and the tribes.
Today, a new question was sent to the Attorney General’s office with earlier questions re-asked. This reporter wrote to a member of Hunter’s communications staff:
“Please provide a timely explanation for how the Chief’s statement can be reconciled with the press release the attorney general’s office circulated yesterday.
“I have several previous unanswered questions relating to the McGirt
case and its aftermath. Although I am sure you have those, to be helpful I am submitting them again below.
“The unanswered questions are (in italics below):
“Was the governor of Oklahoma consulted or informed beforehand concerning yesterday’s press release?
“Was the governor of Oklahoma consulted or informed beforehand concerning the ‘agreement in principle’ referenced in the July 16 press release?
“Were any of the smaller tribal nations consulted or informed before issuance of the press release of July 16 or the referenced 'agreement in principle'?
“My previous questions from July 9, reworded to reflect the passage of time, remain:
I am curious as to whether or not any of the smaller tribal nations were consulted before issuance of this morning's press release [or the first release on July 9]?
In the July 9 press release, did the reference to 'The State of Oklahoma' include the governor of the state of Oklahoma?
“Thank you for prompt attention to my new question about the Seminole’s chief’s statement, the questions posed yesterday, and the questions posed one week ago.”
Readers, for background see: https://capitolbeatok.worldsecuresystems.com/reports/hunter-and-five-tribal-leaders-release-agreement-in-principle-on-state-tribal-jurisdiction
Seminole Nation ‘has not been involved’ in discussions about ‘agreement-in-principle,’ Chief Chilcoat says in press statement Click on the headline to read the full article at CapitolBeatOK
On July 9, in ‘McGirt vs. Oklahoma’, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that as pertaining to the Major Crimes Act, much of the eastern part of Oklahoma remains Native American reservations of the Five Civilized Tribes.
They ruled the reservations were never disestablished by Congress as part of the Oklahoma Enabling Act of 1906. The Enabling Act was the law passed by Congress paving the way for Oklahoma to join the union. The Enabling Act gave the tribes ‘suzerainty’ governing rights to handle internal matters for tribal members within the boundaries, but allowed the state to retain jurisdiction for law enforcement and prosecution.
This new SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) ruling means Native Americans who commit a major crime in the area formerly known as Indian Territory must now be tried by the federal courts, not the state courts when they commit a major crime.
The plaintiff in the case, Jimcy McGirt, an enrolled member of the Seminole tribe, was originally convicted in Wagoner County in 1996 of first degree rape, lewd molestation and forcible sodomy. McGirt, 71, was sentenced to 1,000 years plus life without parole. He argued because the crimes took place on the former Creek reservation, the feds should have had jurisdiction, not the state.
In the majority opinion, Justice Neil Gorsuch, the newest appointee to the court, said the U.S. government had promised the Five Civilized Tribes land forever and that Congress did not disestablish the reservations with the Enabling Act.
Gorsuch wrote: “Today we are asked whether the land these treaties promised remains an Indian reservation for purposes of federal criminal law. Because Congress has not said otherwise, we hold the government to its word.”
In the dissenting opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote: “None of this is warranted. What has gone unquestioned for a century remains true today: A huge portion of Oklahoma is not a Creek Indian reservation. Congress disestablished any reservation in a series of statutes leading up to Oklahoma statehood at the turn of the 19th century.”
Three observations:
First, the implications of the ruling will dramatically impact the Oklahoma criminal justice system. Native Americans who have been convicted on major crimes in state court in the eastern half of the state will have to be reprosecuted in federal court. If the statute of limitation is run out, that could be a problem. If witnesses can’t be located or have died, that could be an issue. There will likely be criminals who get out of prison because of this ruling.
Second, while this ruling focused on criminal law, it opens up a can of worms in tax collection, water rights, land ownership and a myriad of other areas. If the reservations are in fact intact, then what can the state enforce? Can they legally collect state taxes from citizens of another sovereign nation if they can’t prosecute them for a crime? Expect future litigation to cite this landmark ruling to justify not submitting to state laws and rules.
Third, the tribes and state government better work together to protect all Oklahoma citizens. The tribes and the feds don’t have the law enforcement and criminal justice personnel to handle the amount of crime in half the state. Law enforcement is primarily done at the local level in the state. If local law enforcement believes they could be liable for arresting and prosecuting Native Americans in half the state, they could back off and crime will increase. The feds and the tribes better quickly figure out a plan to cooperate with local law enforcement to keep Oklahomans safe.
Prior to statehood, Oklahoma was two territories -- Oklahoma territory (western half) and Indian Territory (eastern half). Since 1907, Oklahoma has been one state. If Congress didn’t dot every i and cross every t, when they passed the Enabling Act disestablishing the reservations, then they should fix it.
This ruling divides Oklahoma and rolls us back to pre-statehood/territorial days.
NOTE: Steve Fair if a longtime conservative writer and activist. His commentaries appear regularly in newspapers and on websites throughout the state, including CapitolBeatOK.com, an online news service, and in The City Sentinel newspoper. Steve is also chairman of the Fourth Congressional District Republican party. He can be reached by email at [email protected]. His blog is stevefair.blogspot.com.
Ruling in ‘McGirt v. Oklahoma’ divides the state: A Commentary Click on the headline to read the full article at CapitolBeatOK Hunter and five tribal leaders release agreement in principle on state/tribal jurisdiction7/16/2020
Attorney General Mike Hunter and tribal leaders “collaborating after the ‘McGirt v. Oklahoma’ decision today” [Thursday, July 16] “released an agreement in principle for proposed federal legislation that will clarify respective state and tribal jurisdiction in both criminal and civil matters.”
The attorney general’s office had not, as of noon, answered questions from this reporter, including questions first raised last week after the U.S. Supreme Court issued what many consider the most significant and impactful High Court ruling in Oklahoma history (https://capitolbeatok.worldsecuresystems.com/reports/analysis-musings-on-mcgirt-the-most-significant-federal-court-decision-in-oklahoma-s-history).
On Thursday, July 16, concerning “the progress being made,” Hunter’s office said:
“ ‘Although there are many more details to be ironed out in the near future, we believe this agreement regarding civil and criminal jurisdiction is the best path forward for protecting the public and promoting continued economic growth in Oklahoma. ... My commitment to our tribal partners is to work together to forge common ground on the issues brought to light by this case. Oklahoma’s tribal nations are a fundamental part of Oklahoma’s culture, economy, politics and governance. The relationship between the tribes and my office is based on trust and mutual respect. And that synergism has been essential to the successful formation of this important agreement.”
“ ‘In addition to today’s announcement, the state and the tribes are continuing to collaborate on the immediate provision of public safety on-the-ground, including law enforcement and child welfare matters.’”
After Thursday’s press release was received, and after receipt of the July 9 press release announcing the attorney general was working with the five major tribes concerning the ‘McGirt v. Oklahoma’ decision, this reporter submitted questions to the attorney general’s staff. Reworded to reflect the passage of a week without answers to the original questions, these are questions posed or re-posed on Thursday (italicized):
Thank you the press release and the 'agreement in principle' received via email shortly after 11 a.m. this morning.
I have two new questions, and a couple of previous questions that remain unanswered (unless the message went astray).
The previous questions are reworded to reflect the passage of one week on the calendar:
Was the governor of Oklahoma consulted or informed beforehand concerning today’s press release?
Was the governor of Oklahoma consulted or informed beforehand concerning the ‘agreement in principle’ referenced in the press release?
Were any of the smaller tribal nations consulted or informed before issuance of this morning's press release or the referenced 'agreement in principle'?
My two previous questions from July 9, reworded:
I am curious as to whether or not any of the smaller tribal nations were consulted before issuance of this morning's press release [or the first release on July 9]?
In the July 9 press release, did the reference to "The State of Oklahoma" include the governor of the state of Oklahoma?
Thank you for prompt attention to my new questions, and the questions posed one week ago.
The agreement in principle can be viewed here:
https://oag.publishpath.com/Websites/oag/images/doc%20-%202020-07-15%20-%20murphy%20(final%20-%20agreement-in-principle).pdf
Hunter and five tribal leaders release ‘agreement in principle’ on state/tribal jurisdiction Click on the headline to read the full article at CapitolBeatOK
An introductory note from Ellyn Novak Hefner:
Planning for your child’s future who has a disability has many different parts…guardianship, Special Needs Trusts and OKSTABLE accounts to name a few. Another part of planning are waivered services. For these waivered services there is a waiting list. Not many people have heard of the waiting list that we have in Oklahoma. As of of the first week of June there are 5596 Oklahomans on the waiting list. I asked a friend to write about the waiting list this month. The following article started as a short article highlighting the challenges for families during the COVID 19 crisis. After looking at the whole issue it was realized that it is greater than the current pandemic.
It has been a decades long attitude of acting as though people with intellectual disabilities and their families do not exist. My child is on the waiting list and has been waiting for more than 10 years to receive services. I asked Wanda Felty, a parent advocate to write about this group of Oklahomans who are left waiting. Wanda is a strong advocate for her child and others, like mine. She is also a fellow ambassador for the OKSTABLE account and continues to do outreach for the state treasurer, Randy McDaniel, in telling families the importance of this account to a citizen who has a disability.
Left behind, left waiting and left alone! A Commentary
Wanda P. Felty, Family Advocate
The City Sentinel’s continuing series on OKSTABLE and related issues
An introductory note from Ellyn Novak Hefner:
Planning for your child’s future who has a disability has many different parts…guardianship, Special Needs Trusts and OKSTABLE accounts to name a few. Another part of planning are waivered services. For these waivered services there is a waiting list. Not many people have heard of the waiting list that we have in Oklahoma. As of of the first week of June there are 5596 Oklahomans on the waiting list. I asked a friend to write about the waiting list this month. The following article started as a short article highlighting the challenges for families during the COVID 19 crisis. After looking at the whole issue it was realized that it is greater than the current pandemic.
It has been a decades long attitude of acting as though people with intellectual disabilities and their families do not exist. My child is on the waiting list and has been waiting for more than 10 years to receive services. I asked Wanda Felty, a parent advocate to write about this group of Oklahomans who are left waiting. Wanda is a strong advocate for her child and others, like mine. She is also a fellow ambassador for the OKSTABLE account and continues to do outreach for the state treasurer, Randy McDaniel, in telling families the importance of this account to a citizen who has a disability.
Oklahomans with intellectual disabilities are left behind on the Covid-19 stimulus checks, left alone with only family members, usually aging parents to support them, and left waiting because there is a wait of more than 13 years before they can receive Medicaid services.
Oklahomans with intellectual disabilities (ID) represent about 1-3 percent of the population. What we know about people with ID is they have a spectrum of abilities and disabilities. Many people with ID live independently in their own home, some are married with children. They work with minimal if any support, but like anyone else they may need assistance with some part of daily living.
Then there are some people with ID who need more intensive support like assistance with not only preparing meals but with eating as well. They may need help with personal care and toileting, or personal hygiene needs. And then there are people with ID anywhere between these two spectrums of support needs.
The most important thing to know about people with or without disabilities, including ID, is we are more alike than different, and disabilities are a natural part of the human experience.
Left Behind
Left Behind… In mid-March everyone’s life changed. The COVID-19 virus started threatening what we all knew as “normal life.”
Things started changing with the President’s Executive Order prioritizing access to medical resources and supplies due to COVID-19. Shortly after, Oklahoma’s Governor declared a “Safer at Home” order. Within a few short weeks, unemployment skyrocketed to levels that have not been seen since the Great Depression.
Families worried how they would pay rent, buy food, and stay safe during this national pandemic. Fear and anxiety affected many families in Oklahoma, especially families who care for an adult with intellectual disabilities.
In a typical, pre-COVID day, parent-caregivers of adults with ID would head off to work and their adult child would head to their supported employment, workshop, or adult activity center. Before Gov. Stitt issued his order, many of the day activities were shutting down, trying to protect those they served.
Adult activities centers closed, workshops closed and eventually the support employment programs closed, too.
It was in some ways similar for children in school or daycare. But adult children who are 25, 30 or even 40 years old, are not typically the primary responsibility of parents, by this age they are usually navigating life alone, if not looking after their parents in situations like this.
During this nationwide pandemic crisis, the Federal Government started looking for ways to relieve some pressure for unemployed families, small businesses and communities who were suffering greatly. The first relief came in the form of the Family First Coronavirus Response Act, which assured access to the COVID-19 testing, unemployment for anyone who lost a job or income due to the COVID-19 crisis and offered increased funding to those on food assistance through the SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program).
This was great for those who qualified, but people with ID who worked in workshops or most supported employment programs did not qualify for unemployment assistance. A second round of assistance came in late March, the CARES Act (Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act). This was a huge help. It that provided stimulus checks to all Americans – well, almost all Americans.
This Act excluded any American over the age of 16 and who is listed as a “dependent” on an IRS tax return. This meant all adult Oklahomans who lived with their parent or family member, who needed assistance with daily living tasks, regardless of their age, did not receive any kind of assistance during the crisis. It was as if these people, these Oklahomans with disabilities, were invisible to the U. S. Government.
This was insulting and disheartening for not only the families but for the people themselves. What is even more insulting, and trivializing to the care and support families provide adult children with ID, is that those who live in private institutions -- Intermediate Care Facilities for Individual with Intellectual Disabilities (ICF/IID) instead of living with their families -- received the full stimulus check.
People who live in ICF/IID have 24 hour paid caregiving. Their cost of living is covered by Medicaid. This is not meant to imply Oklahoman’s living in ICF/IID’s do not need or deserve the stimulus check, it just shows how it demoralizes families who are doing the “work” of the Medicaid system, leaving them left out and left behind. Recently, a U.S/ legislator mentioned that his college kids were left behind as well. The difference is, college students have the oppor t u n it y to earn wages and file their own income tax return but choose to not do so.
C h i l d r e n who are college students deserve to be recognized by the government as humans too, but do not confuse the difference between a college student and their need for parental support with the support needs of adults with ID. Most college students will say it is just the financial support they need, while the needs of many adults with ID include intense daily support with simple life tasks like bathing, eating and general well-being. These two populations even though both were left behind by the CARES Act, are not the same when it comes to the support they need from their parents.
Left Waiting …
It is one thing to have the federal government leave someone behind but when your own state does the same thing or worse, it is devastating. Currently when Oklahoma people with ID apply for assistance for long term help through the Developmental Disability Services (DDS) Medicaid home- and community-based wavier, they are told to wait. They are not made to wait a week, a month, or even a year. They are forced to wait more than 13 years for this assistance.
The DDS Waiver is long term assistance that provides direct support to people with ID in their home or community. This support or assistance can be direct care to help the person gain or improve their independent skills, it can be job training or coaching, it can also be respite for their parent caregiver.
Families ask for help but are told to wait. So, what happens while they wait? The family is left to navigate life on their own. They may find an adult day activity center for daytime assistance, but many times the cost can be out of reach for these already financially strapped families.
In truth, most adults on the waiting list find no help, no assistance. Many times, after high school ends, one parent is required to stop working, causing a two-income family to go to a one income family.
Left alone…
Parents who have children with intellectual disabilities have the same desires and dreams when a child is born. Through life, those dreams tend to fade regardless of how hard the parent works to stay positive and focus on their child’s abilities instead of disabilities. But as a child ages, the differences from their peers or siblings becomes more and more apparent.
When their child enters public school, the parent meets with the school to identify what the student needs to work on in the coming year. It is not usually intentional but what generally happens in these meetings is disabilities are highlighted as the skills to work on through the year. Imagine this happening once a year and sometimes more in each school year. As this happens year after year, the dreams and the vision parents once had when their child started school gradually fade away. Once graduation comes, the parent is faced with caring for and supporting their child for the rest of their life.
Parents do this not because a society and government tell them, but because this is their child, their family, their loved one. As parents age, the once strong and determined two-parent home often becomes a oneparent home, usually leaving the wife or mom to care for an adult child in their aging years.
It is this group of families that are too often left behind. The COVID-19 pandemic has created a perfect showcase for this example.
There is a mother/caregiver who is in her 70s providing care to her 50-year-old adult child. Her adult child needs help with all daily living tasks most everyone takes for granted like toileting independently, preparing and eating meals, dressing, and bathing.
Typically, this mom would have some outside help come in to care for her child while she did community errands like shopping and picking up prescriptions. Once the pandemic hit, this mom was stuck and alone.
She could no longer make simple trips to the grocery story, or to pick up personal care items or medications. She needed these items, but no one was around. It was too risky to have a person come in and sit with her child for fear of bringing the virus into her home.
This is happening all over Oklahoma, with families left alone to figure out how to protect their adult child while still p r o v i d i n g food or needed medical care. These families are your neighbors, rarely seen in public. They are not hermits or shy, they are alone. Alone is how these family feel. They often wonder does anyone know if they exist or does anyone even care?
People with intellectual disabilities are not much different than you and I. We all need help at some point in life, we all need training, and care, but most of all we all need to be respected. The Oklahoma standard says we leave no one behind, we turn our back on no one and no one stands alone.
It is time Oklahomans with intellectual disabilities and their families are honored and respected with that same standard.
For more information on the waiting list go to http://waitinginoklahoma.org.
For questions about the waiting list and planning for a child with a disability [email protected] or [email protected].
Left behind, left waiting and left alone! A Commentary Click on the headline to read the full article at CapitolBeatOK
Responding to Thursday’s U.S. Supreme Court decision in 'McGirt v. Oklahoma,' Jonathan Small, president of the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs, issued the following statement:
“This week’s Court ruling reminds us that, in times like we’re living in today, it’s more important than ever that we all remain united for Oklahoma.
“The Court’s actual ruling was narrow: members of the Creek tribe, on territory once set aside for the Creek tribe, can only be prosecuted by federal, not state, authorities for serious crimes. The case began with the appeal of a man convicted in Oklahoma state court in 1997 for the rape of a four-year-old girl. The Supreme Court found that land reserved for the Creek Nation since the nineteenth century remains what the Court’s majority opinion referred to as ‘Indian country’ for the purposes of the federal Major Crimes Act.
“The decision leaves many Oklahomans, including members and non-members of various Native American tribes, wondering what happens next. After the opinion was released, our state’s Attorney General released a joint statement with five of Oklahoma’s largest Native American tribes announcing that together they have already made ‘substantial progress toward an agreement to present to Congress and the U.S. Department of Justice’ they hope will resolve issues that might be raised by the McGirt decision.
“Politicians should proceed with caution. No one should manipulate the Court’s decision ― or media coverage of it ― for their own benefit. Despite numerous rumors that half of Oklahoma is now what some have referred to as an ‘Indian reservation,’ this decision is limited. The Court ruled only on the facts before it. The McGirt decision is limited to the Creek Nation and the Major Crimes Act. Other courts and decisions could either extend or limit the reach of this decision.
“What the Court made clear is this is a job for Congress. The Court’s majority was unwilling to step in and do the work previous Congresses dating back to the 1800s had failed to do. OCPA is happy to see our nation’s highest Court unwilling to act as ‘judicial legislators.’ Now Congress should do its job and resolve potential jurisdictional and other issues.
"Within our state, Governor [Kevin] Stitt should assume the lead role as primary negotiator on behalf of the state, as Oklahoma governors have commonly done in the past on similar matters. He should act with the help of the Attorney General ― not the other way around. The Governor ran on a promise to represent all Oklahomans, including those who are members of our state’s proud Native American tribes. Now more than ever, Oklahomans should unite to seek solutions and policies in the best interests of all Oklahomans."
Note: This story is reposted from the website of the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs. (https://ift.tt/3001uiQ) The statement first appeared on Saturday, January 11. The photographs, historic map, and Muscogee (Creek) tribal logal/shield accompanying this posting were selected by Patrick B. McGuigan, editor of CapitolBeatOK.com, an online news service based in Oklahoma City.
Jonathan Small statement on ‘McGirt v. Oklahoma’ court decision Click on the headline to read the full article at Site Articles
Editor’s Note: Hagia Sophia is among the world’s most historic structures. Built in A.D. 537 during the reign of [Eastern] Roman Emperor Justinian I, at the time of its completion it had the world’s largest interior space. The structure arose on a promontory in the ancient city of Byzantium, which had been renamed Constanople. Hagia Sophia (“Holy Wisdom”) has been at various times a Byzantine Christian Cathedral, a Greek Orthodox Cathedral, a Roman Catholic Cathedral, an Orthodox Cathedral again, and a holy Mosque. For several decades beginning in 1935, it was a secular museum, in keeping with the secular emphasis of the modern government of Turkey. This past week, in the midst of pleas from around the world to retain it as a religiously-neutral place, the government of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, president of Turkey, designated the building again as a mosque.
President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s decree that declares the iconic Hagia Sophia a mosque is another attempt to impose a lop-sided History on the landscape of Turkey and propound a regressive discourse.
When we visited Turkey in 2015, I was mesmerized by monuments and cultural icons that paid tribute to its syncretic culture.
Istanbul, to me, was a rare example of a city that imbibed the excellence of two global civilizations: Christian and Islamic.
In my work, my constant attempt is to move beyond the contours of militarization to nation-building and to the recuperation of a “pluralistic” culture in terms of religious and cultural identities.
Istanbul gave me a chance to engage with a political and nationalist consciousness that transcended divides.
It epitomized the pluralism that we were losing in the subcontinent.
In the wake of polarization, virulence, fragmented communities, and vehement disregard of the other, Turkey's secularism was a beacon of hope.
It showed the world that it was possible to honor one's Islamic heritage, faithfully observing religious practices, while maintaining conviction in a pluralistic polity.
It is sad to see a regressive discourse being propounded and legitimized in Turkey.
Note: Dr. Nyla Ali Khan is a South Asian Muslim who was born in the Kashmir region, which stretches across the borders of India, Pakistan and China. A widely published author, she regularly writes for The City Sentinel newspaper and CapitolBeatOK.com, an online news service in Oklahoma City.
A loss of Secular Wisdom at a Holy Place: Regretting Erdoğan’s decree Click on the headline to read the full article at Site Articles Analysis: Musings on McGirt the most significant federal court decision in Oklahomas history7/10/2020
Note: This essay is adapted and considerably expanded from a quartet of posts on Facebook yesterday.
On Thursday (July 9) the U.S. Supreme Court issued the most significant legal decision in Oklahoma’s history.
Justice Neil Gorsuch worte, in the majority opinion: “On the far end of the Trail of Tears was a promise. Forced to leave their ancestral lands in Georgia and Alabama, the Creek Nation received assurances that their new lands in the West would be secure forever.”
He cited the 1832 treaty between the U.S. and the Creek Nation, that “In exchange for ceding ‘all their land, East of the Mississippi river,’ the U. S. government agreed by treaty that ‘[t]he Creek country west of the Mississippi shall be solemnly guarantied to the Creek Indians.’ … The government further promised that ‘[no] State or Territory [shall] ever have a right to pass laws for the government of such Indians, but they shall be allowed to govern themselves.’ … Today we are asked whether the land these treaties promised remains an Indian reservation for purposes of federal criminal law. Because Congress has not said otherwise, we hold the government to its word.”
Outlining the bare essentials of three sex crimes committed by a Seminole Indian, Gorsuch noted that Jimsy McGirt, “has argued in postconviction proceedings that the State lacked jurisdiction to prosecute him because he is an enrolled member of the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma and his crimes took place on the Creek Reservation. A new trial for his conduct, he has contended, must take place in federal court. The Oklahoma state courts hearing Mr. McGirt’s arguments rejected them, so he now brings them here.”
Gorsuch posed the question: “The key question Mr. McGirt faces concerns that last qualification: Did he commit his crimes in Indian country?”
When using the term “Indian Country” and putting it in quotation marks, I do not sneer but honor reality.
Indian Country is not a fiction, it is a fact. To be clear, in the course of reading the majority opinion and the two dissenting opinions, any interested reader can learn at least quite a bit (but not everything) about the confusing shades of gray that can cloud understanding of the words “Indian County.”
At the risk of some oversimplification – always a challenge in dealing with consequential matters of law – in many places deemed “Indian Country,” tribes exercise a lot of jurisdiction and day-to-day governance over major aspects of daily life.
These parts of America are called reservations, in a time-honored sense of the word. There are other places deemed “Indian Country” which are not, however, reservations – but land help in trust by the ultimate sovereign, the government of the United States.
On these lands, a tribal nation or nations can exercise meaningful but not ultimate control.
States are allowed to exercise considerable power in non-reservation “Indian Country.”
The history of Oklahoma has been governed by an understanding (or belief or customary practice_ that the state had no reservations (except perhaps – another challenging matter – Osage County).
The state of Oklahoma’s laws and policies generally have prevailed in non-reservation Indian Country, subject, however, to evolving compacts between tribes and the state.
In the modern era, renewed sensitivity to tribal sovereignty over many decades has resulted in a methodical slow motion transformation. The ‘McGirt’ decision, however is likely to yield rapid not slow motion transformation).
President Richard Nixon triggered a new sensitivity to tribal powers, something many do not note when considering his presidency. He signed more new laws and funding mechanisms benefiting tribes than any predecessor.
Gorsuch gives his view on the last two centuries of history touching tribal lands in eastern Oklahoma. He puts the burden on Congress to go back and change the practical consequences of innumerable changes in daily life for tribal members and their non-Indian neighbors from 1907 to today.
In a way, that seems fair, but in another way it is folly.
After nearly two centuries of evolution in land ownership, many pe-statehood tribal lands developed into privately held lands.
Regardless of my opinion or that of the four dissenting justices, Justice Gorsuch’s view is now the interpretation of American law. Therefore his majority opinion became must-reading at the moment of its issuance. Joining Gorsuch's opinion were Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor. He concluded his majority opinion, writing:
“The federal government promised the Creek a reservation in perpetuity. Over time, Congress has diminished that reservation. It has sometimes restricted and other times expanded the Tribe’s authority. But Congress has never withdrawn the promised reservation. As a result, many of the arguments before us today follow a sadly familiar pattern. Yes, promises were made, but the price of keeping them has become too great, so now we should just cast a blind eye. We reject that thinking. If Congress wishes to withdraw its promises, it must say so. Unlawful acts, performed long enough and with sufficient vigor, are never enough to amend the law. To hold otherwise would be to elevate the most brazen and longstanding injustices over the law, both rewarding wrong and failing those in the right.”
With those words of summation, the 5-4 majority reversed an Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals ruling.
Oklahomans are about to learn – probably in slow motion, but perhaps quickly -- how “wrong” gets defined in Congress, in the state and, ultimately, again, in the courts.
Lying ahead are difficult and contentious matters, likely to involve not only criminal law but almost certainly property rights.
Attorney General Mike Hunter’s office has literally argued both sides of important aspects of the issues raised in the McGirt case (and the separate but intertwined ‘Murphy’ case). Forgive me for harboring doubts that he and leaders of Oklahoma’s five major tribes can retain the comity and hopefulness reflected in a release they promulgated jointly yesterday.
I will be delighted to be proven wrong concerning the deep concerns I have 24 hours after Gorsuch issued his opinion.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote a lenthy dissenting opinion. It was fine, as far as it went.
Joining him were Justices Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanagh and (except for one reference) Clarence Thomas (see below).
The Roberts dissent is lengthy and, like the majority opinion, should be studied carefully.
Roberts distilled his reasoning with these final words, as is the custom in judicial opinions:
“As the Creek, the State of Oklahoma, the United States, and our judicial predecessors have long agreed, Congress disestablished any Creek reservation more than 100 years ago. Oklahoma therefore had jurisdiction to prosecute McGirt. I respectfully dissent.”
The chief justice began the four-member dissent with this summation, outlining the impact of the majority decision:
“In 1997, the State of Oklahoma convicted petitioner Jimcy McGirt of molesting, raping, and forcibly sodomizing a four-year-old girl, his wife’s granddaughter. McGirt was sentenced to 1,000 years plus life in prison. Today, the Court holds that Oklahoma lacked jurisdiction to prosecute McGirt — on the improbable ground that, unbeknownst to anyone for the past century, a huge swathe of Oklahoma is actually a Creek Indian reservation, on which the State may not prosecute serious crimes committed by Indians like McGirt. Not only does the Court discover a Creek reservation that spans three million acres and includes most of the city of Tulsa, but the Court’s reasoning portends that there are four more such reservations in Oklahoma. The rediscovered reservations encompass the entire eastern half of the State — 19 million acres that are home to 1.8 million people, only 10%–15% of whom are Indians.”
Both Gorsuch and Roberts are intelligent human beings, as are each and every one of the justices.
To understand the anxiety many intelligent people now feel read the above paragraph a second or third time.
The Roberts dissent in ‘McGirt’ – more attentive to text and legal history than some other of his pronouncements -- continued:
“Across this vast area, the State’s ability to prosecute serious crimes will be hobbled and decades of past convictions could well be thrown out. On top of that, the Court has profoundly destabilized the governance of eastern Oklahoma. The decision today creates significant uncertainty for the State’s continuing authority over any area that touches Indian affairs, ranging from zoning and taxation to family and environmental law. None of this is warranted. What has gone unquestioned for a century remains true today: A huge portion of Oklahoma is not a Creek Indian reservation. Congress disestablished any reservation in a series of statutes leading up to Oklahoma statehood at the turn of the 19th century. The Court reaches the opposite conclusion only by disregarding the ‘well settled’ approach required by our precedents.”
The U.S. Supreme Court decision in ‘McGirt v. Oklahoma’ is, for the state of Oklahoma, existential. The 5-4 majority opinion throws the legal jurisdiction of much of the state into question.
I agree with the four dissenters.
However, only Justice Clarence Thomas reasoned correctly through the facts and the briefs presented in this consequential and sadly historic case. (Before drawing on certain aspects of the Thomas dissent in the present case, I should mention that he wrote an important decision in favor a small tribal nation elsewhere in the United States.)
In his ‘McGirt’ dissent, Justice Thomas captures the jurisprudence I honor – the tradition of the late Judge Robert Bork, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, and Thomas himself. There are shades of difference among the trio, but most of time, I agree with their reasoning about important matters of law.
Justice Thomas wrote in his McGirt dissent:
“I agree with the chief justice that the former Creek Nation Reservation was disestablished at statehood and Oklahoma therefore has jurisdiction to prosecute petitioner for sexually assaulting his wife’s granddaughter. ...
“I write separately to note an additional defect in the Court’s decision: It reverses a state court judgment that it has no jurisdiction to review. ‘[W]e have long recognized that “where the judgment of a state court rests upon two grounds, one of which is federal and the other non-federal in character, our jurisdiction fails if the non-federal ground is independent of the federal ground and adequate to support the judgment.”’”
Thomas reasoned that “Under this well-settled rule, we lack jurisdiction to review the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals’ decision, because it rests on an adequate and independent state ground. … The Court might think that, in the grand scheme of things, this jurisdictional defect is fairly insignificant. After all, we were bound to resolve this federal question sooner or later. See Royal v. Murphy, 584 U. S. ___ (2018). But our desire to decisively ‘settle [important disputes] for the sake of convenience and efficiency’ must yield to the ‘overriding and time-honored concern about keeping the Judiciary’s power within its proper constitutional sphere.’ Hollingsworth v. Perry, 570 U. S. 693, 704–705 (2013) … Because the Oklahoma court’s ‘judgment does not depend upon the decision of any federal question[,] we have no power to disturb it.’ Enterprise Irrigation Dist. v. Farmers Mut. Canal Co., 243 U. S. 157, 164 (1917). …
“I agree with the chief justice that the Court misapplies our precedents in granting petitioner relief. ... But in doing so, the Court also overrides Oklahoma’s statutory procedural bar, upsetting a violent sex offender’s conviction without the power to do so. The State of Oklahoma deserves more respect under our Constitution’s federal system. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.”
U.S. Rep. Tom Cole, R-Oklahoma, has long sought to lock into place certain advantages that have, over time, been granted through case law and administrative fiat to the major tribes, most important to the Chickasaw Nation, the most powerful of the tribal entities based in Oklahoma.
These advantages have, methodically over decades, locked in unfair advantages for the Big Tribes vis a vis the smaller tribal nations.
Litigation over a clash between the Chickasaw and Comanche is still active in the federal judiciary.
A new version of what analysts call the “land fix” is pending in the present Congress.
Here, in a little less than 1889 words, I have provided a broad outline of the McGirt case, not hiding my convictions.
The best way for any reader to decide how she or he feels is not to linger in anger or joy, but to study the Supreme Court’s historic ruling. Just remember, it was 5-4. And there have been times that passionate dissents become the basis for new majorities.
The majority and dissenting opinions for ‘McGirt v. Oklahoma’ can be viewed here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-9526_9okb.pdf
Note: Publisher of The City Sentinel newspaper and founder of CapitolBeatOK.com, an online news service, Pat McGuigan is the author of three books and editor of seven, including ‘Crime and Punishment in Modern America (1985). His stories and commentaries on Oklahoma’s Indian Country including reporting on the efforts of the late Archie Hoffman. McGuigan won first place in Diversity news from the Society of Professional Journalists, Oklahoma Pro Chapter, for his 2012 report Hoffman’s effort to restore the land around Fort Reno, in western Oklahoma, to the Cheyenne & Arapaho Tribes.
Analysis: Musings on ‘McGirt’, the most significant federal court decision in Oklahoma’s history Click on the headline to read the full article at Site Articles
Red Rock, Oklahoma -- Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt visited Red Rock today, where he met with members of the Otoe-Missouria Tribe and local legislators to discuss the tribe’s new gaming compact. Earlier this month, the U.S. Department of the Interior published the compact in the Federal Register, meaning the various aspects of the agreement immediately went into effect.
“It is critical we all work together - state, local and tribal leaders - to build a brighter future for Oklahoma. These new tribal compacts, both the ones approved by the U.S. Department of Interior and the ones to come, will mean economic development for all of Oklahoma,” said Gov. Kevin Stitt.
“Our state is well positioned to work hand-in-hand with tribal leaders to grow and diversify our economy to benefit education, jobs, health care, roads, bridges and other important state priorities. To really become a top 10 state, we have to all work together and level the business playing field to ensure equity for all tribes of Oklahoma.”
(https://ift.tt/2AzdgIl)
The tribe’s new gaming compact with the state gives the Otoe-Missouria Tribe the opportunity to build new, state-of-the-art entertainment centers and expand its geographic footprint into three additional Oklahoma counties. Furthermore, the agreement removes restrictions on house-banked table and card games and brings the possibility of event wagering and sports betting to Oklahoma.
“I want to thank the governor for coming to Red Rock today and our local and state elected officials for their support,” said Otoe-Missouria Tribe Chairman John R. Shotton. “We look forward to partnering with them as we seek to modernize gaming in Oklahoma. We are one of the largest employers in both Kay County and Noble County because our Tribal Council has turned our gaming revenue into long-term investments in sustainable industries, including agriculture, hospitality and financial services. We look forward to expanding our operations in Noble County and expanding into Logan and Payne counties with the next phase of development, which will help diversify local economies and bring much-needed development to rural Oklahoma.”
In addition to Chairman Shotton and Gov. Stitt, attendees included: Secretary of State Michael Rogers, state Senators Bill Coleman R-Ponca City, and Chuck Hall R-Perry, and state Representatives John Pfeiffer R-Orlando and Ken Luttrell, R-Ponca City, as well as Perry City Manager Larry Pannell and members of the Otoe Missouria Tribal Council.
About The Otoe-Missouria Tribe: The Otoe-Missouria Tribe is located in North Central Oklahoma in Red Rock. There are currently 3,288 members enrolled in the tribe with 2,242 living in Oklahoma. The tribe was relocated to Oklahoma in 1881 from its first reservation on the border of Nebraska and Kansas. For more information about the Otoe-Missouria Tribe, visit https://www.omtribe.org/.
Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt visits Red Rock, discusses gaming compact and other issues with Otoe-Missouria tribal members, local legislators Click on the headline to read the full article at Site Articles |
Pat McGuiganThe dean of all Oklahoma Journalism, Mr Patrick McGuigan; has a rich history of service in many aspects of both covering the news and producing the information that the public needs to know. Archives
September 2021
Categories |