Recently, iPolitics columnist Michael Harris took some valuable iPolitics webspace to pout over a scathing letter to the editor by Peter MacKay. It was well-earned by Harris, who had bought into Amir Attaran's bizarre attempt to single-handedly re-write Canadian drug law. Whichever iPolitics editor decided it was a good idea to give Harris space to publicly mope over the tongue-lashing ought to have their heads examined.
Doubly so for his most recent work.
It's everything that Harris has managed to distinguish his work as: lazy, amateurish, and steeped in a Twitter-ized narrative that doesn't hold up to very basic scrutiny. It's less a coherent work of political journalism and more a list of complaints. But even as Harris piles on the complaints, he also manages to pile on the factual errors. To whit:
"During the Idle No More protests in Ottawa, PM Harper was as aloof as
Louis the 14th, refusing to meet certain native leaders who were tired
of the federal runaround on land claims and treaty rights. They learned
that Stephen Harper doesn’t make time for nobodies.
The government attempted to humiliate Chief Theresa Spence during her
protest by leaking an audit about her lack of managerial skills on her
home reserve. That tactic was put in perspective when the Treasury Board
later lost $3.2 billion in taxpayers money, but said that was okay because no one was alleging any misspending."
This is the kind of disaster that ensues when a would-be journalist takes their directions from social media.
First off, Prime Minister Stephen Harper didn't refuse to meet with First Nations leaders as Harris claims. Harper did in fact meet with Assembly of First Nations Chief Shawn Atleo. Other First Nations leaders -- many of whom backed Spence's demand for such a meeting -- refused to attend such a meeting, and even threatend Atleo with political repercussions if he did attend. In fact, Spence herself attempted to emotionally blackmail Atleo.
Secondly, the Deloitte audit of Attawapiskat's finances was released at the time it had been scheduled to be released. Spence was fully aware of this, and decided to grandstand against Harper -- by faking a hunger strike -- anyway.
Then there's the biggest whopper of all: claiming that the $3.2 billion was "lost" only after the release of this audit, when in fact the money in question was budgeted between 2001-09. Which means that for approximately five years, that money was either spent or not spent -- the audit in question couldn't actually tell which -- under a Liberal Party government. (Update - the treasury board has tracked the $3.2 billion. Not a penny of it was misspent, misappropriated, or lost -- something Harris seems to have very little to say about.)
That's three staggering factual errors in just two paragraphs. It's enough to beg the question of just who does the editing at iPolitics -- or if Harris' work is subjected to any kind of editing at all.
One thing is for certain: if Michael Harris won't check his own facts -- and it seems clear that he won't -- someone needs to do it for him. Unfortunately for iPolitics, it was me.
Showing posts with label Idle No More. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Idle No More. Show all posts
Thursday, September 19, 2013
Thursday, April 4, 2013
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.
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.
Sunday, March 24, 2013
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."
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."
Saturday, March 9, 2013
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.
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.
Thursday, February 28, 2013
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.
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.
Saturday, February 9, 2013
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.
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.
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
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.
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.
Sunday, January 27, 2013
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.
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.
Thursday, January 17, 2013
"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.
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.
Monday, January 14, 2013
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.
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:
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:
It's over. It's just over.
Wednesday, January 9, 2013
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.
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.
Monday, January 7, 2013
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.
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.
Thursday, January 3, 2013
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).
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).
Friday, December 28, 2012
Let's Look Behind the Veil of IdleNoMore
I'm honestly trying like hell to not blog about Twitter on Bad Company anymore. That's what High Noon is for. But the impetus to write this particular post came over approximately two days of battling it out with "Idle No More" fanatics on Twitter.
As it turns out, the three individuals I spent the last couple of days trouncing, all three were essentially lifelong professional students. So at least as it pertained to these three individuals, apparently "idle no more" means that they're really still idle and just pretending not to be.
Moving along.
Idle No More enthusiasts made a pretty big deal when the Chiefs of Ontario Political Confederacy announced that it would not recognize or enforce Bill C-45. "Good for them!" all the fanatics declared. "They're standing up for their rights!"
What rights were they standing up for? Well, when you examine their press release in further detail, you discover that the Chiefs are standing up for their rights to deny rights to their people. They specifically refer to Bill S-2. the Family Homes on Reserve and Matrimonial Rights act, which is part of Bill C-45.
Just what is the Family Homes on Reserve and Matrimonial Rights act? I'm so glad that you asked. It's essentially a bill that will establish the rights of aboriginal women in the case
This was something that was brought up, in all places, at Rabble.ca by, of all people, consummate aboriginal 1%er Pam Palmateer. So you just know hilarity is about to abound. I'll give you the Colesnotes version of it: she insists that Bill S-2 is bad. She also repeats the claim that First Nations were never consulted about the bill.
As it turns out, this is patently false.
Apparently Pam Palmateer never bothered to consult a primer written on the bill by the Canadian Bar Association. It was written two years ago when this bill was known as Bill S-4. But as it turns out, the recommendations embodied in the bill were actually made by a committee that included the Assembly of First Nations. To whit:
"The federal government, in collaboration with the Native Women’s Association Canada (NWAC) and the Assembly of First Nations (AFN), commissioned a series of consultations, resulting in a 2007 report by Wendy Grant-John. That report concluded that the simple application of provincial and territorial MRP law to reserves would be insufficient to deal with current deficiencies, and instead recommended a concurrent jurisdiction model like that proposed by Bill S-4."
The CBA lamely notes a lack of "consensus" among First Nations about specific remedies, but also notes the urgency for action:
"The issue of [Matrimonial Real Property] on reserve has been the subject of Parliamentary scrutiny in recent years, as noted in the Legislative Summary to the Bill. The main concern is a 'jurisdictional gap' in the Constitution Act, 1867. Property and civil rights fall under provincial power by virtue of section 91(13), and under territorial jurisdiction as delegated by the federal government, giving provinces and territories jurisdiction over the division of matrimonial real and personal property. At the same time, real property on reserve is exempted from the application of provincial and territorial law under section 91(24), which provides for federal jurisdiction over 'Indians and Lands Reserved for Indians'.
The Indian Act does not address MRP issues on reserve. While the First Nations Land Management Act provides a mechanism to address MRP issues, it is a statutory regime to which First Nations voluntarily chose to subscribe. Its provisions are not mandatory for First Nations in Canada."
So in other words, First Nations bands can essentially make up their MRP rules as they go along. And apparently Pam Palmateer is entirely comfortable with a situation in which a non-status individual living on reserve in a marriage or common-law relationship promptly becomes a "trespasser" on reserve should that marriage or relationship break up, leaving the non-status individual (not necessarily a non-aboriginal, BTW) with right to nothing.
It leaves non-status women in violently abusive relationships with remarkably few options. Domestic violence is a scourge anywhere it takes place, and it takes place on reserve with greater frequency than it takes place anywhere else in Canada. Yet non-status women accepted onto reserve as part of such a relationship are very much second-class citizens on reserve -- let alone within Canada -- and based on what she has to say it doesn't seem particularly uncharitable to conclude that Pam Palmateer intends for it to remain that way.
This is just one group of people Bill C-2 extends protections to. It also extends legal protections to individuals of status as well. So why, specifically, would the COPC refuse to acknowledge or enforce it? Because if you liberate their second-class citizens, if you take away their right to make up the rules as they go along, you're taking an awful lot of power away from them.
Which is what Idle No More is really about. It's not about standing up for the rights of First Nations -- unless the "right" they're standing up for is the right to actually have no rights. No. It's really about maintaining the power of aboriginal 1%ers over the aboriginal 99%ers. And don't be shocked if it's ever discovered that any number of chiefs have coerced some of the protesters into participating by leveraging whatever social assistance they receive against them. This is something that happens on-reserve quite frequently -- on some reserves with far greater frequency than on others.
As it turns out, the three individuals I spent the last couple of days trouncing, all three were essentially lifelong professional students. So at least as it pertained to these three individuals, apparently "idle no more" means that they're really still idle and just pretending not to be.
Moving along.
Idle No More enthusiasts made a pretty big deal when the Chiefs of Ontario Political Confederacy announced that it would not recognize or enforce Bill C-45. "Good for them!" all the fanatics declared. "They're standing up for their rights!"
What rights were they standing up for? Well, when you examine their press release in further detail, you discover that the Chiefs are standing up for their rights to deny rights to their people. They specifically refer to Bill S-2. the Family Homes on Reserve and Matrimonial Rights act, which is part of Bill C-45.
Just what is the Family Homes on Reserve and Matrimonial Rights act? I'm so glad that you asked. It's essentially a bill that will establish the rights of aboriginal women in the case
This was something that was brought up, in all places, at Rabble.ca by, of all people, consummate aboriginal 1%er Pam Palmateer. So you just know hilarity is about to abound. I'll give you the Colesnotes version of it: she insists that Bill S-2 is bad. She also repeats the claim that First Nations were never consulted about the bill.
As it turns out, this is patently false.
Apparently Pam Palmateer never bothered to consult a primer written on the bill by the Canadian Bar Association. It was written two years ago when this bill was known as Bill S-4. But as it turns out, the recommendations embodied in the bill were actually made by a committee that included the Assembly of First Nations. To whit:
"The federal government, in collaboration with the Native Women’s Association Canada (NWAC) and the Assembly of First Nations (AFN), commissioned a series of consultations, resulting in a 2007 report by Wendy Grant-John. That report concluded that the simple application of provincial and territorial MRP law to reserves would be insufficient to deal with current deficiencies, and instead recommended a concurrent jurisdiction model like that proposed by Bill S-4."
The CBA lamely notes a lack of "consensus" among First Nations about specific remedies, but also notes the urgency for action:
"The issue of [Matrimonial Real Property] on reserve has been the subject of Parliamentary scrutiny in recent years, as noted in the Legislative Summary to the Bill. The main concern is a 'jurisdictional gap' in the Constitution Act, 1867. Property and civil rights fall under provincial power by virtue of section 91(13), and under territorial jurisdiction as delegated by the federal government, giving provinces and territories jurisdiction over the division of matrimonial real and personal property. At the same time, real property on reserve is exempted from the application of provincial and territorial law under section 91(24), which provides for federal jurisdiction over 'Indians and Lands Reserved for Indians'.
The Indian Act does not address MRP issues on reserve. While the First Nations Land Management Act provides a mechanism to address MRP issues, it is a statutory regime to which First Nations voluntarily chose to subscribe. Its provisions are not mandatory for First Nations in Canada."
So in other words, First Nations bands can essentially make up their MRP rules as they go along. And apparently Pam Palmateer is entirely comfortable with a situation in which a non-status individual living on reserve in a marriage or common-law relationship promptly becomes a "trespasser" on reserve should that marriage or relationship break up, leaving the non-status individual (not necessarily a non-aboriginal, BTW) with right to nothing.
It leaves non-status women in violently abusive relationships with remarkably few options. Domestic violence is a scourge anywhere it takes place, and it takes place on reserve with greater frequency than it takes place anywhere else in Canada. Yet non-status women accepted onto reserve as part of such a relationship are very much second-class citizens on reserve -- let alone within Canada -- and based on what she has to say it doesn't seem particularly uncharitable to conclude that Pam Palmateer intends for it to remain that way.
This is just one group of people Bill C-2 extends protections to. It also extends legal protections to individuals of status as well. So why, specifically, would the COPC refuse to acknowledge or enforce it? Because if you liberate their second-class citizens, if you take away their right to make up the rules as they go along, you're taking an awful lot of power away from them.
Which is what Idle No More is really about. It's not about standing up for the rights of First Nations -- unless the "right" they're standing up for is the right to actually have no rights. No. It's really about maintaining the power of aboriginal 1%ers over the aboriginal 99%ers. And don't be shocked if it's ever discovered that any number of chiefs have coerced some of the protesters into participating by leveraging whatever social assistance they receive against them. This is something that happens on-reserve quite frequently -- on some reserves with far greater frequency than on others.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)