Eddie Greenspan's Scary Crime Blunder

Appearing in the National Post today was something that could be considered Eddie Greenspan's last public words. In the article he condemns Prime Minister Stephen Harper's approach to crime.

He calls Harper's approach to crime "scary."

"We know of no person knowledgeable about criminal justice in any democratic society who has ever proposed imprisonment for all convicted offenders. But earlier this month, Canada’s Public Safety Minister, Steven Blaney, who oversees our penitentiaries, bluntly told Parliament that 'Our Conservative government believes that convicted criminals belong behind bars.' No qualifications, no exceptions.

An opposition MP understandably replied, 'Mr Speaker, that is scary to hear.' Scary? It’s more than scary. It is hard to imagine such a statement being made by someone who supposedly has knowledge about crime and the criminal justice system."

Of course, Minister Blaney's comments in Question Period should not be confused as a comprehensive position on crime, as Greenspan seems to have done. But as a general principle -- criminals belong behind bars -- one could do far worse. Greenspan himself manages.

"Imprisonment is certainly appropriate for some offenders. But it is worth examining two arguments that are often made for imprisoning offenders who could be punished in the community. Some believe that crime will be deterred if punishment severity were increased. Scores of studies demonstrate this to be false. This is inconvenient for Mr. Harper since many of his 86 so-called 'crime' bills (33 of which have become law) are based on the theory that harsh sentences deter. Canada’s first prime minister, John A Macdonald, understood deterrence better than does Mr Harper. Macdonald noted that 'Certainty of punishment …  is of more consequence in the prevention of crime than the severity of the sentence.' Mr Harper, who could benefit from empirical evidence, chooses instead to ignore it.

Some believe that offenders learn from imprisonment that 'crime does not pay.' This, too, is wrong. Published research — some of it Canadian and produced by the federal government — demonstrates that imprisonment, if anything, increases the likelihood of reoffending. For example, a recent study of 10,000 Florida inmates released from prison demonstrated that they were more likely subsequently to reoffend (47% reoffended in 3 years) than an almost perfectly equivalent group of offenders who were lucky enough to be sentenced to probation (37% reoffended)."

Why are these two paragraphs so terrifying? Because Greenspan was considered an elite criminal defense lawyer, and so represents the legal thinking of Canada's legal establishment. And because it's perhaps the most shortsighted and limited view on criminal justice imaginable.

For one thing, the study Greenspan cites is perhaps one of the best examples of unisolated variables on record -- Florida is not exactly a jurisdiction known for its historic dedication to rehabilitation. As one of the key pillars of any criminal justice system, rehabilitation is key to preventing inmates from reoffending. Florida has pursued this route with renewed diligence only since 2011.

Prior to this renewed focus Florida's inmate population had grown by 40% in 11 years. It doesn't require a criminal defense lawyer to recognize this as undesirable. But Florida's growing prison population was not due strictly to imprisoning criminals, but rather what the state was not doing for them on the inside.

So there's the first point on which Mr Greenspan's final words are disturbingly lacking.

Mr Greenspan treats imprisonment of a criminal strictly as punishment. And while it is punishment, it serves a goal key of any criminal justice system: protecting victims from their victimizers by keeping them locked away.

So Mr Greenspan seems to prefer punishing criminals "in the community." Which often entails releasing criminals into the same communities in which those whom they victimized live. And Greenspan, as a criminal defense lawyer, was very successful in helping push this agenda into policy.

What did this bring us?

Well, the RCMP report on missing and murdered indigenous women is very illustrative. Hauntingly illustrative, in fact.

Indigenous women were disproportionately likely to be murdered. More than this, they were disproportionately likely to be murdered by a family member. More still, they were disproportionately likely to be murdered by someone with a prior history of violent crime. Even more yet: they were disproportionately likely to have been a prior victim of a violent crime at their killer's hands.

And via the Gladue ruling, a worrying number of aboriginal are effectively turned loose in their communities under a preference for so-called "restorative justice techniques." And while the Gladue ruling is often treated as inapplicable for more serious and violent offenders, and repeat offenders, this has often come far too late for missing and murdered indigenous women. Far too often the recidivist crime to which Gladue was considered inapplicable was their murder.

That's a tad too late for "restorative justice" and "punishment in the community," as Mr Greenspan clearly preferred.

I've previously written that there in fact should be a national inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous women, but not on the terms that the activists, lawyers and social workers who created this problem would prefer. Instead, this should be treated as an opportunity to call the legal establishment that created this problem on the carpet, and put them and their policies on trial once and for all.

Were he alive today Eddie Greenspan would almost certainly be among them: called to answer for the problem that his ideas, his agenda and his shortsightedness created.

Fortunately for him he did not live to see such an inquiry. Which is by no means a reason why he should be excluded from such scrutiny now that he's passed on.

Hey Grievance Mongers... This is Your Time to Shine!

The Public Service Alliance of Canada (or PSAC for short) is a cancer at the heart of Canada's vast government bureaucracy. Now, to their list of offenses against the Canadian public -- which previously included endorsing separatist parties during federal elections -- we can add this:

They apparently want paid time off -- up to 10 days at a time -- to mourn "Aboriginal spirit friends."

What is an "aboriginal spirit friend," you may ask? Apparently it's "it refers to the loss of a spiritual leader in the community, such as an elder. We have negotiated bereavement leave in other agreements for such losses,” according to a PSAC spokesperson.

10 days seems a little much. Other than that, it's not entirely unreasonable... so long as the bereavement time for "aboriginal spirit friends" is only available to those who are actually aboriginal.

Otherwise, PSAC has just run afoul of something that far-left grievance mongers refer to as "cultural appropriation." It's what they accuse white people of whenever they observe a custom or even wear clothing from a culture deemed by such grievance-mongers go be "non-white." The very idea of it seems calculated to keep people of difference races or cultures separate, and is as such inherently racist, but they seem to cherish this "idea."

PSAC is entirely familiar with this "idea." It's been pushed one people at some of the events they've hosted.

I think this all begs a question: is PSAC members taking time off to mourn "aboriginal spirit friends" a form of cultural appropriation? If you take the new-age racist grievance-mongers who push this "idea" at their word, it is so long as those taking the time off are not aboriginal. But can non-aboriginal PSAC members be trusted not to attempt such an act?

Well, speaking purely anecdotally I've witnessed PSAC members on Twitter boasting about taking sick days when they are not sick. So obviously not all of them are nearly so unscrupulous as to not abuse any options available to get paid time off.

So far, I've yet to hear so much as even a single critical race theorist call out PSAC over the potential for this kind of abuse, or even demand that PSAC amend their proposal to prevent it. Odd, that, considering that this is their time to "shine."

MMIW: Take Note, Liberals, This One's On You

As Canadians were getting ready for the annual May long weekend -- treated by many Canadians as their first big adventure of the summer -- the RCMP were getting ready for something altogether different.

They were releasing an eagerly-awaited report on murdered and missing indigenous women in Canada. And they were preparing for the shrill expressions of outrage from the Canadian left in this country... who actually seem quite oblivious to the reality that they, themselves, are to blame for the sad revelations in the RCMP's report.

It's not all bad news. But it's mostly bad news. So, first, the bad news;

Aboriginal women in Canada are disproportionately represented among the country's murder victims. They are most likely to be murdered by a member of their own family. Their murderers are most likely to be not only a repeat offender, but a repeat violent offender. Their murderers are most often intoxicated when they commit these murders, and frequently do it after having had an argument with their victim.

That's the bad news. It's very bad news.

There is some good news: notably, that the rate at which these cases are solved is statistically identical to the rate at which the murderds of non-aboriginal women are solved. This is very much contrary to claims made by the Native Women's Association of Canada, who have spent years outraged that these cases have been placed under the care of professionals, as opposed to their own amateur investigators.

Now for the worst news of all. It's the worst it could possibly be: the Canadian justice system is failing indigenous women.

That failure is very much the design of the usual suspects the left would happily march before the inquiry they are currently demanding: the lawyers, social workers, criminologists, sociologists and assorted race-hustlers who oversaw the softening of the Canadian justice system. The so-called "experts" who we're continually told know better for us than we know for ourselves. The same ones who oversaw the continual shortening of sentences for criminals -- including violent criminals -- that has turned the killers of indigenous women loose. The same ones who have insisted that race should be deemed a mitigating factor in sentencing.

They're the ones who set aside two key principles of criminal justice -- punishment of the offender and protection of both victims and society -- and effectively left indigenous women at the mercy of their abusers; abusers who far too often became their murderers.

And now these are the same experts who, in the face of a government that has set out to turn back the clock on the softening of criminal justice in Canada, run before the courts and say "you can't do that." Not only have they softened Canada's criminal justice system, they demand that it remain that way. And activist judges schooled in the same far-left ideologies have proven stunningly eager to go along with it.

The Liberal Party bears special blame for the mess. They're the ones who amended the criminal code to facilitate this softening, and they're the ones who appointed the judges who seek to set it in stone.

These same people are now demanding a public inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous women. And I say: let's have an inquiry. But not the inquiry they want. Let's put them on the stand and force them to account for their role in this ongoing tragedy.

Let's put  the lawyers, social workers, criminologists, sociologists and assorted race-hustlers responsible for this before a Parliamentary inquiry and make them account for the social experiments and bad ideas that have led to this unacceptable state of affairs. And as soon as we're done shaming these so-called "experts" for their failures, let's tear what they've built down to its foundation and build it again, properly.

Attawapiskat: Everything the Left Feared Harper Would Be

So, imagine this: a people living in poverty, while a fortunate elite grows richer and richer. Police powers are used to suppress dissent, the media is strictly controlled, and elections are rigged.

This is what Canada's left has spent years insisting Canada would become under the leadership of Stephen Harper. Harper has been Prime Minister for seven years. It hasn't happened yet, no matter how hard various individuals have worked to make it seem as if it is.

But as it turns out, there is a place within Canada that fits this description perfectly. It just happens to be the First Nations reserve of Attawapiskat. And the left has had nary a word to say about it.

There's some irony in this. Not so much as a year ago, Attawapiskat's Chief, Theresa Spence, became a cause celibre for the Canadian left. She moved into a teepee on an island within sight of Parliament Hill and told anyone and everyone who would listen that she was on a hunger strike until Harper met with her. Among the dignitaries that met with her were then-Liberal leader Bob Rae, and now-Liberal leader Justin Trudeau.

So far as the Canadian left was concerned, what's not to love? Spence was going to bring Harper to heel.

Of course, it became public knowledge in very short order that Spence wasn't on a hunger strike at all. She was eating fish broth at a prolific enough rate to somehow manage to not lose any weight while on hunger strike.

Then funny things began to happen. When media showed up in Attawapiskat to interview residents there about a scathing audit that found that the band couldn't account for how it was spending millions of dollars in taxpayer funds, they were escorted off-reserve by band police. The orders came from Spence, who also ordered Attawapiskat residents not to speak to the media.

Flash forward to a couple of days ago: Spence was narrowly reelected as Chief in an election in which  percent of band members -- those living off-reserve -- were denied the opportunity to cast a ballot.

Under Spence, Attawapiskat is everything the left says Canada is becoming under Harper (even though we can see it is not). Yet most of those who so vociferously applauded Theresa Spence when she was faking a hunger strike now have so little to say when she fakes an election.

Hacktastic! David Climenhaga Accuses Colin Craig Of Throwing A "Tantrum"

There's something about the idea of transparency that seems to shake David Climenhaga very, very deeply. Transparency for labour unions: he opposes it. Transparency for First Nations bands: he opposes that, too.

But when Pam Palmater and some Idle No More protesters barged into a press conference by Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs Bernard Valcourt and disrupted it, Climenhaga waited until Colin Craig of the Canadian Taxpayers' Federation turned the tables on Palmater to lose his mind. "Craig's intervention bordered on the bizarre, and wasn't typical of the pronouncements of the usually slick CTF. But you likely didn't think much more about it when the media rapidly moved on to other stories," he droned.

This, presumably after watching the video. On that note, let's roll that beautiful bean footage:
So let's talk about bizarre, shall we? Colin Craig calls out Palmater on sticking up for self-indulgent chiefs who pay themselves more than the Prime Minister of Canada is paid. In response to that, Palmater turns to Craig and bellows about what corporate CEOs are paid. She then says that is the issue.

Ooooookay. So then shouldn't she and the zombified remnants of Idle No More have burst into a corporate board room somewhere? What does the publicly-disclosed salaries of corporate CEOs have to do with the non-disclosed and secretive salaries of First Nations chiefs, many of whom pay themselves handsomely to ineffectually govern crushingly-impoverished reserves?

If you answered "absolutely nothing" you were entirely correct. If you added "it's a distraction tactic," give yourself bonus points. If you added "it's actually kind of pathetic" give yourself some bonus points. Hopefully you got them all.

Yet David Climenhaga thinks it's Colin Craig's confrontation of Pam Palmater that's bizarre? Sorry, but that's just plain bizarre.

My Personal Response to Nina Waste

Nina Waste isn't exactly a household name in Canada. She's one of the co-founders of the Idle No More "movement."

In the realization that the "movement" she started is dying, she recently issued this plea via Facebook:

"I know it has been a long hard four months...but we need you...we need the messengers...the ones who love this land and water, and want it safe and clean and pure....the farmers, the unions, the educators, the poets, the writers, the singers, the artists, environmentalists, the settlers, and all allies....we need you....i know it is so very hard to understand our differences, our divides, the hurtful and shameful legacies....we have both been fooled and we have been used....as weapons against one another....at this time we need you, as we have never needed you before....to speak up....to tell the world, that we are in deep crisis...that the Indigenous people are real ppl, with real lives, real loves for our generations coming, ...we are not our statistics, we are not our violence, our poverty, we are not invisible....your silence...is your consent....to the demise of a people...."

 Unlike far too many Idle No More activists I can't pretend to speak for anyone other than myself, so I won't even pretend to. The following response is from my self and myself alone, and it is as follows:

"Hello, Nina. Guess what? Idle No More is over. It's dead. And if you really want to know what killed it, it's this:

You insisted on trying to build Idle No More as an Occupy-esque movement, effectively with no leadership. As a movement, Idle No More failed to put down any foundations. It allowed any and every douchebag with an axe to grind to come along and speak as a member of the movement, and speak on its behalf. And in doing so it allowed a lot of people to hijack it.

Which doesn't actually undermine what the movement could stand for if those hijacking it were willing to allow it to. Aboriginal peoples in Canada face a lot of problems, and it would probably stun a lot of those associating themselves with Idle No More to learn that we want to see those problems solved. We want to see a better life for aboriginal people in Canada.

Here's the problem: Idle No More has gone out of its way to ensure that there can be absolutely no dialogue regarding how these problems can be solved. They seem to insist on a monologue: on solutions dictated by them. Which would be one thing entirely, if we all didn't have to live side-by-side as neighbours. But we do.

No one wants to see the demise of Canada's First Nations. But there are plenty of people who want to see the suffering continue, not out of malice per se, but simply because the suffering of your people gives them a soapbox they can stand on which they otherwise would not have. They pretend to be your allies, but the only power they have is in ensuring that the suffering of your people continues indefinitely. And they are the loudest voices opposing the necessary dialogue. Like any good villain, they simply want to monologue.

To conclude, what I'm saying is this: talk to us. Don't talk at us. Have a conversation with us. so we can find these solutions together. Until you can find it in yourselves to do that there can be no solutions."

Tom Flanagan Shows Why Idle No More Will Be the Death of Anything It Touches

Is Idle No More really still a thing? Really?

For the moment, let's take their word for it and pretend that it is -- even though this so-called "movement" is obviously dead as a door nail. Anyone who encounters an Idle No More activist in nearly any context ought to tread very, very carefully. Idle No More has been out to be the death of anything or anyone it touches. If you need any proof of this, look no further than Tom Flanagan.

In an understandably-combative interview with Macleans magazine, Flanagan manages to do something quite remarkable. It doesn't seem like he really means to, but he actually manages to pinpoint just why the Idle No More movement is so utterly toxic, not only to race relations in Canada, but to anything and anyone it reaches out and touches.

To whit:

"I was posing a question. And that was the wrong way to go about it in that forum. But in the classroom, I would pose the question the same way again. I’d say, 'What’s the harm?' And the student would say, 'You’re building a market for it.' And I’d say, 'Yeah, that’s a harm,' and dialectically, we’d go somewhere together."

Therein lies the rub. From actually watching the video of the interaction, one thing becomes crystal clear: this particular individual was unequivocally not trying to go anywhere with Flanagan, dialectically or otherwise. Regardless of whether or not Flanagan's detractors are willing to admit to it -- and it's clear that the sheer bombast of their malicious triumphalism has backed them into a corner where can't afford to admit to it -- it very much was a trap. The individual in question was trying to draw Flanagan into saying something that could be used to destroy him. Then they attempted precisely that feat. Whether or not they actually succeeded remains to be seen.

Later in the interview, Flanagan notes that the response to his comments has already worried many academics across the country. Suddenly, the prospect of an angry student attempting to tear them down by similarly trapping them may well become a more enticing idea, now that it's already been done. The chill, as it were, is in.

This is where it becomes necessary to consider the petty triumphalism of certain Idle No More-linked "academics." Suddenly, the apparent disgrace of Flanagan has spared them the hard work of having to lock horns with him over ideas. Ever eager to take such shortcuts -- and desperately in need of them because they aren't capable of it -- such individuals have apparently not spared a single thought for what such an academic chill might mean for them.

There are certainly various reasons for it. They've seemingly managed to convince themselves that their fringe ideas are in vogue in academia, and so no statement they could make, regardless of how outrageous -- and frequently racially-charged -- could be seen as so.

But really that's neither the long nor short of it. In reality, these individuals are not real academics at all. They're bullies who have donned the guise of the professional egghead. They see academia as nothing more than another schoolyard, and even if Idle No More were able to destroy academia as a whole, as opposed to merely diminishing it, they'd just find themselves another playground to rampage in.

When Demagoguery Backfires, We Call It Karma

If you, as I, follow #CdnPoli, you may have noticed something missing recently: it seems that Tobold Rollo (aka Blinky McFlopsweat, aka Troll-bold, aka @SettlerColonial) has folded his social media tent. At least for now.

The #CdnPoli Twitterverse, as well as the #IdleNoMore and #INM Twitterverses, have been wrought with messages lamenting the departure of Blinky from Twitter. Apparently, it's all a great shame.

Unless, of course, you consider why he's apparently chosen to make this decision:

"Last night my observations about land defence were ridiculed or countered with accusations of unchecked privileged [sic], arrogance, and malicious intent. This suggests to me that social media itself is insulating a serious problem. If calling for protection of the land is now cause for derision and accusation, I’m skeptical about the the possibility of affecting lasting change through social media. That said, I apologize if anyone was offended by these observations."

Judging from how Troll-bold chose to conduct himself on Twitter in particular, who could have ever imagined that anyone could accuse him of arrogance or malicious intent? Particularly after he pathetically stooped to the level of digging up a seven-year-old unflattering photograph of myself for the purpose of malicious ridicule, the latter complaint particularly inspired me to chuckle at his butt-hurt.

But then there's the grand irony of it all. See, Troll-bold is an adherent of post-colonial theory. Post-colonial theory is a critical theory, deeply rooted in the Marxist Frankfurt school. As one of its defensive tactics, post-colonial theory appropriated the notion of "white privilege theory." (White privilege theory was developed as a racial conspiracy theory by communists, and was later effectively disproven by communists.) Post-colonial theorists now use the notion of "privilege" to discredit those with whom they disagree on the basis of race, class, and even gender.

This has been one of Troll-bold's favourite tactics. And whereas once he gleefully used the accusation of privilege against opponents of #IdleNoMore, he is now apparently entirely stunned when it was, in turn, used against him. Apparently so stunned that it's prompted him to entirely abandon social media as his favoured medium of trolliing -- er, I mean "satire."

The remarkable thing about it is that it's nothing more and nothing less than his own tactics being used against him, apparently by the very same people he meant to use it in support of. He set the standard, apparently never bothering to stop and consider that he, as a white male PhD student -- who has apparently been able to afford a permanent career as a full-time student while raising a young family -- precisely fits the bill of someone he himself would describe as "privileged."

He was setting himself up for it the entire time. Then, someone perfectly positioned for it -- someone who did not fit the bill of someone Troll-bold would consider "privileged" -- saw fit to come along and knock him down.

Couldn't have happened to a more suitable candidate.

Now, in the wake of this, Troll-bold is off somewhere licking his wounds. And you may wonder: will he take it upon himself to reconsider the toxic ideas he's promoted, realizing just how easily they can be used against him as against those who disagree with him?

Well, Troll-bold's not as nearly bright as billed (mostly by himself). So I fully suspect that the answer to this question will be "no." Nor is this the end of him. Someone with an ego as large and unjustifiable as Troll-bold can never bring themselves to deprive themselves of attention for very long. He'll be back, and it'll be just as big a trainwreck as it was before.

And it couldn't happen to a more suitable candidate.

Settling the Score With Madeline Smith

Sometimes life throws you remarkable little curve balls. Things that show you that you're either more or less important than you thought you were.

The one thrown my way yesterday by one Madeline Smith, Managing Editor of the University of Alberta Gateway -- the publication with which I plied by journalistic trade for four years -- was certainly one of the former.

In the midst of a pitiful meltdown by Tolbold Rollo (aka Blinky McFlopsweat, aka Troll-bold, aka @SettlerColonial), Ms Smith made the decision to interject herself. Unfortunately, she couldn't resist the urge to say something that was trumped-up at most, and made-up at least. Via her Twitter account:

What Smith says is entirely false. I can't pretend to have never had any disagreements with a Gateway opinion editor, but I can describe the most significant of them -- the ones which, to my eye, Smith seems to be referring -- as such:

In one case an editor informed me that my work wouldn't be printed unless I burned a day of my summer work schedule to travel all the way from Lloydminster, SK to Edmonton, AB to have a new headshot taken by Gateway photographers. When my offer to have a new headshot taken by a local photographer -- saving me the time and expense, including in foregone wages, of traveling to Edmonton -- was rebuffed, I told him to go pound sand.

I've never considered this to have been a legitimate issue, merely an excuse for that particular editor -- who will go unnamed -- to push out a writer that he didn't like. In light of my rebuked efforts to compromise with him, I feel this conclusion to be entirely justified.

In the latter case an editor -- who had described "perogies, not prorogue" signs as comic genius and wanted to print more articles about, of all things, bacon -- informed me that debate would not be tolerated in Gateway opinion meetings, as the younglings didn't appreciate their opinions being challenged. This was something of a new policy at Gateway opinion, and as I consider the combination of a bully pulpit with a shrinking violet to be specifically toxic, I also told her to go pound sand.

Banned twice? That's certainly not an even-handed description of the events in question. But I suppose that must be the fun thing about having a dispute with someone when you hold all the power -- afterward, you can tell it however you want it, regardless of however it really was.

In my subjective opinion, this kind of behaviour is the hallmark of a shitty person. I doubt that very many people would disagree. But Smith isn't just a shitty person. It turns out that she is, in my opinion, also a shitty journalist.

I'm not usually in the business of dredging up the past work of people who I don't know or have never even heard of. But as Smith decided to blindside me by blatantly making things up about my history, I felt it entirely fair to take a look at some of her past work. See what ostensibly got her elevated to the lofty office of the Gateway's Managing Editor.

 The results were not particularly impressive. To whit, consider this opinion article from the November 2, 2009 issue of the Gateway in which she recounts an incidence of what she considers to be "pub racism" but really just makes it clear that she has a hate-on for pub bouncers:

"Recently, I made a trip downtown to a certain retro dance club with a few friends for a night of drinking and good old-fashioned debauchery. Like any university students after a long midterm week of sleepless nights, we were all ready to order a round (or three) of tequila shots and altogether forget about the pressures of the world of academia as we retire to a place you can stand for one night only.

Unfortunately for us, we were about to encounter one of the most notoriously loathed demons of city nightlife: the dance club bouncer. These lecherous beasts aren’t found at every bar, but meeting one usually leaves you feeling violated in one way or another. In this case, a member of our group was held up and harassed by one of these creatures, who refused to let her into the bar because he claimed her ID wasn’t legitimate. Despite the fact that she held perfectly valid Alberta government identification (bearing her photo, signature, and proof that she was indeed over the age of 18), he continued to insist that she couldn’t be allowed into the club. The problem? My friend’s ID is an Aboriginal status card.

The bouncer informed us that status cards weren’t accepted based on some mysterious bar policy, having experienced 'problems' with them in the past. He claimed the government office that issues the cards is full of corruption, and as a result, the IDs are usually counterfeit. Having provided this ID at various bars, restaurants, and liquor stores numerous times without any mention of this so-called policy before, she was at a bit of a loss, and frankly, so were we. What was this guy talking about?"

Indeed. What was this guy talking about? It turns out that a little something called "research" could have told her all about it.

As it turns out, the concern over counterfeit Aboriginal status cards was far from anything simply invented by the bouncer in question. At the time that Smith was producing this tripe, the federal government was already undertaking a pilot program to create new, more secure, Aboriginal status cards because the old ones were prone to being faked. Had Smith bothered to do any research whatsoever, she would have learned that this had been considered an issue all the way back in 2000.

Certainly, nine years had passed between 2000 and 2009. The problem could have been solved in the interim, right? Hold your horses. It turns out that as recent to Smith's tirade as March 2009 Metis ID cards were also being eyeballed as easy to counterfeit.

Certainly, this could be an easy mistake to make -- if the opinion article you're writing is completely unresearched. As this one clearly was. No matter what anyone may choose to say about my work with the Gateway, "unresearched" is not one of them. (Although I did once have that accusation lobbed at me, by an individual ironically complaining about an article researched via the very same source that obnoxious individual recommended. Hilarity frequently abounds.)

And that pilot project the federal government was undertaking? It's about to roll out newer, more secure aboriginal ID cards. As per the Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada website:

To be exceedingly fair to Smith -- far more fair than she chose to be to me -- this particular website page was published on February 7, 2013. That being said, it's a mere reiteration of information that was already available when she wrote that article. Here's a little more reiteration of that publicly-available information:

So the bouncer was right -- and Smith was wrong. A little bit of the requisite research necessary to be a journalist would have told her as much. Of course, the information derived from doing that research might have denied her that golden opportunity to get her butthurt on, so perhaps it's entirely unsurprising that she seemingly chose not to do any.

Will Smith find it in herself to go track down that bouncer and apologize to him? I severely doubt it. See, Smith still hasn't apologized to me. Gateway editor-in-chief Ryan Bromsgrove -- whose work I hold in high esteem -- was put in the unenviable position of having to do it for her. Smith herself, apparently after a discussion with the Gateway board of directors, did see fit to delete the slanderous tweets that precipitated this investigation of her clearly-lacking journalistic rigour.

That being said. I've heard nothing about any disciplinary action being taken against Smith. Unquestionably there should be some, and in any organization worthy of describing itself as "professional" -- as the Gateway Student Journalism Society does -- there certainly would be. Knowing the steady decline of the Gateway organization as I do, I fully expect that none was taken. Which is why I've had to take on the task of disciplining Madeline Smith myself.

I sincerely hope that the Gateway does take this as an opportunity to educate their paid staff on standards of professionalism. Then again, considering that this is a publication that was forced to pare back its publishing schedule from twice-a-week to once-a-week, seeming without so much as a moment of introspection into how the publication's declining quality has impacted its declining popularity, I'm not exactly holding my breath.

Idle No More: No Peace, No Justice

Around the world, the rallying cry of radicals -- genuinely righteous and merely self-righteous alike -- has often been thus: "no justice, no peace." Meaning that until they right an injustice -- actual, perceived, or even invented -- they will not stop fighting.

But what happens when their fighting disrupts efforts to right ongoing injustices, and solve ongoing problems? Then we clearly have the opposite: without peace, we cannot attain justice. It has come to pass that this is what it has come to with Idle No More.

Yesterday, Idle No More protesters attempted to barge into a meeting in Saskatoon between the federal government and local First Nations Chiefs. The bizarre insistence of the protesters was that the Chiefs weren't actually being consulted on  The bill includes a plan to create regional aboriginal school boards, and gathering individual band schools into those boards. The bill would give First Nations bands the same control over their schools as non-aboriginal communities already have. The bill has already proven controversial, but the government and First Nations are working on it. Or at least they're attempting to.

Apparently Idle No More won't allow that to happen.

This isn't the first time Idle No More has set out to disrupt meetings between First Nations Chiefs and the federal government. When AFN National Chief Shawn Atleo met with the Prime Minister, Idle No More darling and fake hunger striker Chief Theresa Spence -- under whom the proverbial home ice was already thinning at the time -- texted a demoralizing message to his Blackberry. The punchline was that Chief Spence herself had demanded such a meeting as a condition of ending her fake hunger strike. She did not end her hunger strike, which was fair enough I suppose as she never really began a hunger strike in the first place. Of course she didn't stop telling people she was hunger-striking when she really wasn't, so perhaps it wasn't fair enough after all.

Moving on.

It's at times like this that it's worth remembering that Idle No More is as much a conflict between aboriginal radicals and the federal government as it is a conflict between aboriginal protesters and their elected leaders. Remember that even in the wake of a crushing defeat at the hands of Atleo, Idle No More "braintrust" Pam Palmater declared that her movement -- a movement that has very much harnessed Idle No More as a means of advancing their agenda -- wouldn't rest until it has had its way.

It's become increasingly clear that Idle No More is now doing Palmater's heavy lifting, working very, very hard to undermine the elected leaders of First Nations bands in Canada. Working very, very hard to ensure there can be no peace between First Nations and the federal government. And without that peace, the problems that must be solved for there to be lasting justice cannot be solved.

Which, it seems, is precisely how Idle No More prefers it.

When You Peel Back the Layers of Junk, They Show You What They're All About

Ah, Tobold Rollo. Always on the run.

Oh, he puts on a brave face for his followers. But as it turns out, a recent blogpost I wrote dissecting a blogpost that he wrote -- and using the language of his chosen field, no less -- stung him far more than he would like to let on. He did try to make it seem as if this wasn't so. He actually dismissed the post as "researched on Wikipedia..." a patently false claim, as the sources for the post were linked with in it. For the record, it was the Standford University Online Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Which is hardly Wikipedia. (Nice try, Blinky.)

But it turns out that he was rather disturbed by the meticulous dismantling of his bad faith arguments that he actually went so far as to update his blogpost. It seems he may have had some additional points that he thought may have made up for the errors in his blogpost, errors that not even the greenest poli sci 100 student would ever make. (It's nearly day one stuff, after all.)

How much more did he have to say? Well, let me put it to you this way: not much more than he had to say in the first place. Which, as you may recall, wasn't very much at all. But I'd like to draw your attention, in particular, to his new concluding line::

"(My apologies if you were hoping for an academic critique, but the Calgary School’s errors aren’t a matter of scholarship – they are ideological.)"

 So there you have it. There, in one sentence, everything that Tobold Rollo's "scholarship" seems to be about: ideology. And ideology alone.

Apparently Rollo admits that he takes no issue whatsoever in the facts that Tom Flanagan and Barry Cooper cite. He has no problem with their analytical rigour. Rollo's single and sole objection is that Flanagan and Cooper do not share his ideology.

Suddenly, it all makes sense: the conceptual shakiness of his online offerings. The scant references to anything even remotely resembling a source or even a fact. And the spectacularly wanton resorting to logical fallacies of every sort imaginable to sweep any criticism -- that blasted criticism! -- away.

Because to Tobold Rollo it seems that this isn't about conceptual soundness. It isn't about facts or sources. It certainly isn't about good-faith debating tactics. It's all about ideology, and ideology alone. There's nothing else. Rollo has drawn a line in the sand of academia: on one side, he and those who share his ideology, or at least ideologies that he is willing to give some sort of approval, however, begrudging. On the other side is everyone else.

From a scholastic standpoint, that's a serious problem. For one thing, it actually precludes defending a position with facts or logic. Ideas promoted by those adhering to one particular ideology are automatically granted merit, regardless of whether or not they withstand academic muster. Ideas promoted by those adhering to another particular ideology are immediately discarded, regardless of whether or not they withstand scrutiny. That makes for an extremely toxic scholarly environment, but as it turns out that isn't even the most striking thing about this stance.

There are various theories about what ideologies are, how they are formed, and whether or not those who hold such ideologies are aware that they hold them. I won't go into them at length here because quite frankly it can get quite boring. But I will mention this important concept: many theorists have held that virtually everything about the way people are socialized within any particular society is ideological. The argument holds that one way or another, everyone adheres to some sort of ideology regardless of whether they recognize it or not. In one way or another, that ideology guides virtually every decision that a person makes.

Now clearly, awareness of his personal ideology is not an issue for Rollo. He's fully aware of it, and it seems he allows it to guide how he judges and responds to work by other scholars. Considering this, it's not hard to draw the conclusion that, for Tobold Rollo, the conclusion is always foregone. The result of a study or research project always decided in advance. And that no conflicting piece of evidence will be allowed to change his mind so long as it leads him in the "wrong" ideological direction.

Suddenly it all makes sense. How Rollo could entirely skim over the most obvious shortcomings in Barry Cooper's original column -- and make no mistake about it, I feel there are logical and conceptual shortcomings in Professor Cooper's article -- and instead resort to the bad-faith tactics of which he appears to be so fond.

I peeled back the layers, revealed his offerings to be utterly hollow, and in response Tobold Rollo simply came out and revealed what he's all about. And in Tobold Rollo's case, there's nothing there but ideology.

I won't pretend to be more Catholic than the Pope here. I'm no less ideological than most people. But I do take the time to challenge my ideological assumptions on a regular basis, and in doing so I at least strive to give you more than mere ideology. Troll-bold doesn't, and he makes that perfectly clear.

Indigenous Nationhood and Political pseudo-Science

Tobold Rollo is a man with a problem.

He aspires to be an "ally" to the Idle No More movement. Unfortunately for him according to the standards of "alliance" he himself espouses this reduces him to little more than one of the movement's white mascots. He longs to be taken seriously, but when he finally lands himself an appearance on TVO's The Agenda (with the excellent Steve Paikin), they're only barely interested in what he has to say.

But neither of these problems are the problem Rollo chooses to address. Instead, he decides he has a problem with a recent op-ed written by University of Calgary Political Science professor Barry Cooper, and attempts to solve that problem with a blogpost rebuttal that seems to aspire to pithiness but never really advances beyond baleful whining.

In Rollo's favour, I will say that I consider Cooper's column to be flawed in a number of respects. More on that very shortly. But Rollo's erstwhile rebuttal is nothing short of a trainwreck. This particular disaster begins by Rollo very much being himself. To whit, Rollo's whining:

"To evidence this grand deception for the lay public, Cooper cites an immense body of scholarly literature that has withstood the most demanding levels of interdisciplinary academic scrutiny. Just kidding, he cites 'a classic study [sic] published in 2000 by my longtime colleague and even longer-time friend, Tom Flanagan, called First Nations? Second Thoughts.'"

With an objection like that you'd almost expect that Rollo would himself cite an "immense body of scholarly literature that has withstood the most demanding levels of interdisciplinary scrutiny." His own standard, after all. But predictably, he doesn't. His counter-argument never rises above the level of the genetic fallacy, which is and should be unsurprising from someone who once responded to Andrew Coyne by calling him "a confused white guy."

Now to be entirely forthcoming, there are many things within Cooper's column that I disagree with. For example, the idea that First Nations, not having emerged from the European diplomatic regime that produced the idea of Westphalian sovereignty -- which remains the gold standard of sovereignty, even if it doesn't itself encompass the entirety of the concept -- cannot expect to benefit from consideration under that concept.

Ideas such as sovereignty are not, and never have been, the exclusive preserve of their progenitors. Absolutely nothing prevents First Nations from invoking the notion of sovereignty. To treat the legal concept of sovereignty as a "legal advantage" enjoyed by European civilizations is, in my opinion, a severe mischaracterization of the concept. Understanding of this concept can be a tremendous advantage, particularly where there is such a marked imbalance of power as between First Nations and the Europeans who first arrived to settle North America, but not the concept itself.

To be entirely charitable to Professor Cooper, sovereignty was certainly conceptualized around existing European states.But even with that being said, this does not strictly reserve sovereign rights for states. It just so happens that the traditional state is the entity best equipped to have its sovereignty recognized, and -- more importantly -- to exercise sovereignty.

Had Rollo followed this very simple and very fundamental track, few individuals with any training in political science would have any grounds on which to disagree with him. But as it turns out, Rollo seems unprepared to be forthcoming about precisely how he strives to define sovereignty. He notes that "when Indigenous peoples speak about nations and sovereignty they are not referring to First Nations bands or their reserve lands under the Indian Act. Nor are also not talking about Westphalian state sovereignty."

For the moment let us say that this is fair enough and take him at his word. First Nations are not laying claim to Westphalian state sovereignty. Very well. You may then ask: what other kinds are there?

Well, I'm glad you asked. There are essentially four separate measures of sovereignty. I'll take this opportunity to explain them, as Rollo himself declines to.

The first we'll examine is "domestic sovereignty." This amounts to control over a geographic area -- usually referred to as a state, but my contention remains that sovereignty is not necessarily reserved for states -- by an internal authority. One of the most basic manifestations of this control is a presumed monopoly over the use of force.

The second we'll examine is "interdependence sovereignty." This presumes that known borders exist, and that the sovereign entity can protect those borders and control movement across them.

The third we'll examine is "international legal sovereignty." It's embodied the answer to a very simple question: do other sovereign entities recognize the authority of the alleged sovereign entity?

The fourth we'll examine is the measure of sovereignty that Professor Cooper remains preoccupied with: "Westphalian sovereignty." Established by the 1648 Peace of Westphalia that effectively ended religious warfare within Europe, Westphalian sovereignty refuted any authority over a particular geographic area other than the recognized sovereign authority.

So given these four measures of sovereignty, can First Nations in Canada really lay claim to sovereignty? The answer seems to be maybe, maybe, no, and no.

Can they lay claim to domestic sovereignty? Certainly, First Nations do have governments of their own: band councils on individual reserves and various national assemblies. They're recognized as having control over reserve lands, and effectively self-governing over those lands. Sadly, even in Rollo's analysis it isn't nearly so simple as this. It's bad enough that we're already classifying this as a solid "maybe."

Can they lay claim to interdependence sovereignty? Well, the boundaries of reservations certainly could be treated as borders of a sort. They don't appear on your standard roadmap but nonetheless they do exist. (Israel doesn't appear on many roadmaps produced in Arab countries, so this is by no stretch of the imagination a measure of sovereignty.) They don't actively defend or patrol those borders, but on-reservation legal authorities do have the power to remove non-aboriginals and non-residents from them. We'll call this another solid maybe.

Can they lay claim to international legal sovereignty? The short answer is no. A slightly longer answer is no, but there is a United Nations Declaration on Indigenous Rights... to which Canada is not a signatory. Which doesn't amount to a full recognition of international legal sovereignty.

Can they lay claim to Westphalian sovereignty? Unfortunately, no. Under the Indian Act the federal government of Canada has been granted specific areas of authority. Band Councils have to receive approval from the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development for specific expenditures. This leads us to one of two conclusions: first, either the band council is not the recognized sovereign authority -- which would slide the question of domestic sovereignty from the "maybe" into the "no" column -- or, there is another authority over the territory in question other than the alleged domestic sovereign entity. Both of these answers preclude Westphalian sovereignty.

As we ponder these issues, we must remember all the while that Rollo contends that aboriginal sovereignty is not embodied in their band councils or reservations. So what precisely are they embodied in? Well, he declines to say. This is a classic bad-faith argument, and Rollo's analysis may well be the first time I've ever seen someone who purports himself to be a self-respecting academic attempt to raise bad faith argumentation to the level of serious academics.

Overriding our questions regarding the four measures of sovereignty is one great, big commanding "no." The treaties signed by Canada's first nations -- at least those that actually signed such treaties -- specifically surrender any claims to sovereignty. While there do remain some First Nations that have yet to sign any such treaty -- Alberta's Lubicon Cree come to mind -- none of those who have retain any claim to sovereignty. As such, it is precisely as Cooper says it is -- the treaties extinguish, not affirm, claims to aboriginal sovereignty. RCAP's vivid imagination notwithstanding, the only way to imagine that the treaties affirm aboriginal sovereignty is to strip the concept of virtually any meaning whatsoever.

"Sovereignty" would not be the first time Rollo has done something of the like. During his ill-fated appearance on The Agenda, Rollo droned on about "paternalism," only to note that the single most paternalistic element of the Indian Act -- the federal government's fiduciary duty to First Nations, which leaves it holding enormous power over the fiscal affairs of First Nations -- must remain entrenched in any future legislation. Accordingly, "paternalism" is a word that, in Rollo's mouth, begins to lose any and all meaning. In the wake of his "critique" of Cooper we can now say the same thing for the concept of "sovereignty."

Tobold Rollo will, of course, try to write all of this off as the ramblings of an "unqualified" individual. He, after all, is a PhD candidate. I'm an individual who, for reasons largely out of my own power, was forced to suspend his studies, however temporarily.

Of course, therein lies the rub. Tobold Rollo may be a PhD candidate but Tom Flanagan already has one. Accordingly, by his own logic, Rollo is unqualified to dismiss the conclusions of First Nations, Second Thoughts.

That, of course, is presuming that Rollo's logic is actually logic. To consider it so risks stripping that word of all meaning.

"Steve" Could Be Anybody

You may have seen this: as Idle No More protesters illegally blockaded the Queen Elizabeth II highway south of Edmonton, the RCMP folded their cards. In the face of a mere 23 protesters, they instead began to divert traffic around the blockade -- through Nisku and probably through Beaumont. I've taken that detour myself before, and it's not a pleasant experience.

And while the RCMP simply allowed self-righteous criminality to paralyze one of Canada's busiest highways, one man stood up to them, largely alone. His name was Steve:


Now there are a lot of things that could be said about "Steve." (Just "Steve.") You could say that he's not necessarily an eloquent man. You could say that he's angry. You could say that, when pushed to his limit, he just wasn't going to take it any more.

You could say he's like a lot of us.

Why anybody could be "Steve." He could be any old "Steve." It reminded me of this scene from The Dark Knight Rises:


"The idea was to be a symbol," Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) tells Blake (Joseph Gordon-Levitt). "Batman could be anybody."

That, naturally, is the genius of "Steve." And even as a lot of people must certainly be hoping that he comes forward again to identify himself, it's my personal hope that he doesn't. And my belief that he won't. Because "Steve" isn't the fake hunger striker Theresa Spence or vapid human bobble head Brigette DePape. He isn't doing this to get attention for himself. He didn't do what he did to become famous. He did it to make a point.

And if "Steve" could be anybody, then anybody could be "Steve." Everybody could be "Steve."

I don't want to indulge my inner John Ackers here and suggest that absolutely everybody should emulate "Steve." Merely that those of us concerned about the rise of such self-righteous and entitled lawlessness as the Idle No More blockades should look within ourselves and decide if we have it in us to take a stand like "Steve" did, do it as peacefully as "Steve," and muster the humility to do it as anonymously as "Steve."

Because Canada needs fewer Brigette DePapes and far fewer Theresa Spences. But Canada needs far more "Steves." And "Steve" could be anybody. Anybody at all.

When You've Lost The Star's Readers, It's Over

Heather Mallick got a little nutty regarding #IdleNoMore -- and took it upon herself to write a column that suggests that even the most well-meaning comments about the plight of Aboriginal Canadians are racist.

Once upon a time, I would have torn into Mallick's column full bore, and perhaps some day I will do so again. But right now it just so happens that I don't need to, as The Star's readers apparently took it upon themselves to do it for me.

Behold some of the comments regarding Mallick's rhetorically self-indulgent malarkey:

Note the agree-to-disagree ratios here. If Mallick simply expected to be backed up by her regular readers, they very clearly haven't been doing a very good job of it.

Now consider some of the comments affirming Mallick's aforementioned malarkey, replete with banal droning about "white privilege." Again, pay close attention to the agree-to-disagree ratios:

Accusing their critics of racism has been a favourite rhetorical shortcut for the #IdleNoMore movement and its supporters. But when even Toronto Star readers aren't buying it, it's very clearly time to pack it in.

It's over. It's just over.

Attawapiskat: It's Like Our Own Little North Korea Nestled Within Canada's Borders

I'm certain that when Chief Theresa Spence ordered any media arriving in Attawapiskat to ask questions about the explosive audit recently leaked to the media -- which Spence herself wishes people would dismiss as a distraction -- to leave or risk arrest, many of the aboriginal activists involved in Idle No More didn't so much as bat an eye. I imagine many of them are quite used to things like this. As Ezra Levant recently noted about the shoddy accounting in Attawapiskat's financials -- and I will now expand to the tyrannical bent of many First Nations leaders -- this is a way of life.

But it had me thinking about something that I had personally read and dismissed as malarkey -- which meant that many left-wing activists instantly fell in love with it. What I refer to is a recent blogpost written by one Tolbold Rollo -- I personally refer to him as Troll-bold -- and promptly re-posted in various sources. It was entitled "I Am Canadian (Because of Treaties With Indigenous Nations)."

It was laden with equal parts error, fantasy and logical fallacy. But what I'd actually like to draw attention specifically -- as this is very relevant to the current topic of discussion -- is a link within the blogpost. To a pamphlet Rollo wrote with Mohawk scholar Taiaiake Alfred.

It's unlikely that this pamphlet would stand up to scrutiny not only by anyone not affiliated with Idle No More, but with many of those affiliated with it, provided that they even bothered to stop and think about it.

Particularly the idea that the Parliament of Canada should pass legislation that would allow First Nations to govern themselves according to their own traditions. The problem for many Idle No More activists is that they have expressed a belief that the government of Canada cannot legislate any such rights for First Nations without being paternalist. But the problem for absolutely anyone else is that it could quite easily lead to what is happening in Attawapiskat to proliferate on reserves across Canada. Presumably at the tax-payers expense.

 Think about everything you've seen about Attawapiskat. The grinding poverty of most individuals. Compare that to the comparatively lavish salary of Chief Spence and her common-law husband Clayton Kennedy. Between the two of them their yearly household income tops $200,000. They are truly among the 1% of Canada's aboriginal community. Now, the expulsion of any outside media. Not all that different from North Korea.

Spence's actions have revealed for all to see what a great many Canadians must have suspected all along: that Chief Theresa Spence effectively runs Attawapiskat as her own personal fiefdom. From their actions of the past 48 hours, the band council looks an awful lot like a dictatorship, flexing its muscle to prevent residents from talking to outsiders and showing them how the band's money was really spent.

Now suppose that a great number of First Nations chiefs across Canada -- looking to Spence as their "inspiration" -- decide to follow suit. Suddenly, we have a handful of little North Korea-esque territories scattered throughout Canada, but hundreds of them. All it would really take is for any number of Chiefs to decide to themselves that this is consistent with aboriginal custom and tradition. Sadly, it may not take as much distortion of those customs and traditions for the power-hungry to draw this particular conclusion.

And that's what Attawapiskat has truly become. Call it Attawapiscam, call it Attawapisham, call it Attawapistan. Call it whatever you want. But don't mistake if for anything but what it is: the creeping encroachment of not just tyranny, but tyranny that imagines itself sovereign, into Canada.

And Henceforth, It Was Known as #Attawapiscam

Paul Martin is inspired by Attawapiskat Chief Theresa Spence.

Really. He even says so.

“I just told her that … she’d become really an inspiration for all Canadians and that we were obviously concerned about her health and that she’s got to take care of herself,” Martin announced.

But if you didn't know better -- or see the results of the audit released today -- you'd almost think that perhaps Spence hadn't been inspired by the government in which he served as Finance Minister, and eventually took over as Prime Minister. After all, it seems that Spence's Band Council and the government of which Martin was a part have so much in common.

After all, remember the Sponsorship Scandal? Adscam? Questionable spending of federal taxpayer dollars? No indication the work was actually done?

Yeah. Theresa Spence and Paul Martin are looking an awful lot alike right about now. Now, this shouldn't be confused with suggesting that Martin himself was directly responsible for Adscam. The results of the Gomery Inquiry pretty clearly indicated that Martin himself wasn't. Keep in mind that the results of the Deliotte audit don't yet point a direct finger of blame at anyone in particular.

But there's absolutely no question that when the shit went down, both Martin and Spence were either holding the keys of power, or (in Martin's case) at least holding the purse strings.

Keep in mind that the Attawapiskat audit doesn't reveal malfeasance per se. No one will know for certain until the forensic audit that Attawapiskat co-manager Clayton Kennedy ("coincidentally" Spence's honey bunny) called for. (Of course, it's remarkably easy for Kennedy.to say the funds can be tracked via the vendors and contractors when there are so few contracts, receipts, and documents of any kind. But I digress.)

Better yet, the government could just go ahead and call an inquiry into Attawapiskat. Which, if you ask me, is something that pretty much has to happen no matter what. After all, there are answers to be found and, one way or the other, Canada desperately needs them.

Now to say that there may be no malfeasance is not to say that there may be no scandal. There's no question there is a scandal of one sort or another. Which is why Canadians should go ahead and take their "inspiration" from none other than Paul Martin himself, and brand this scandal Attawapiscam. Even though it's a little bit on the longside, it actually makes a pretty decent hashtag.

Somewhere Outside Ottawa, Theresa Spence Has Gotten Very Nervous...

As Idle No More has grown, fed by left-wing activists desperate for attention and a consensus media desperate for a story, one would forgive First Nations' Chiefs if they began to convince themselves that it was all about them.

After all, Attawapiskat Chief Theresa Spence's "hunger strike" (which isn't really a hunger strike at all, as she's managed to maintain a... let's say "healthy"... weight by eating fish broth) has garnered a significant deal of attention. At first demanding a meeting with Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Governor General David Johnston, she received visits from celebrity guests like Justin Trudeau and former Prime Minister Joe Clark while refusing to meet with the Minister of Indian Affairs, or even Senator Patrick Brazeau (who himself is formerly Chief of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples). Now apparently Spence will settle for a meeting between Harper and other First Nations chiefs.

But as it turns out, maybe Idle No More wasn't that into Spence after all. After all, they recently began scrambling to distance themselves from Spence and other First Nations Chiefs.

It's not hard to see why. As it turns out, the Chiefs are the weak link of Idle No More, and everyone within that burgeoning "movement" -- in which First Nations activists have taken to being idle no longer by hanging out at shopping malls -- knows it. To examine the history of aboriginal self-governance on many reserves across Canada is to explore a seedy history of corruption, where Chiefs were able to rule with an iron fist and ruthlessly punish anyone who dared speak out against them.

If one is to take Idle No More on the word at some of their objections to Bill C-45, one would almost suspect that they want things to remain pretty much this way. But I digress.

“The Chiefs have called for action and anyone who chooses can join with them, however this is not part of the Idle No More movement as the vision of this grassroots movement does not coincide with the visions of the Leadership,”declared a statement on the Idle No More website.

In other words, Idle No More isn't going to take its directions from the Chiefs -- which is especially curious considering that Idle No More has stood up in defense of the Chiefs' interests far more than they're standing up for the interests of anyone else, or even themselves.

It seems Theresa Spence doesn't like that. The non-hunger-striking Chief urged "solidarity."

"We need to continue to encourage and stand in solidarity as Indigenous Nations," Spence announced. "We are at a historical moment in time, and I ask that grassroots, chiefs and all community members come together in one voice."

Certainly she'd prefer that this "one voice" be in fact her voice. But this is almost enough to make someone think that one of the reporters at the attention-hungry (not hungry-hungry) Chief's teepee turned to her and asked: "just why do we care about you at this point, again?"

Certainly, Spence must be hoping that Concordia University professor Daniel Salee is wrong when he says that Idle No More is now rejecting their traditional leadership, who have accepted so much money on behalf of First Nations and spent so much of it, accruing so much benefit for themselves, while managing to accomplish so very little for their own people. After all, if Salee is right, Spence will be among the first Chiefs that will be promptly disposed of (politically speaking, of course).