Are First Nation Complaints All Part of a Commie Plot?

At the root of the Conservative movement on both sides of the border, is the fear of Communism.  In the U.S. they rallied around Joseph McCarthy, and Ronald Reagan became the poster boy for the anti-communist movement.

I read yesterday that Canada's First Nation chiefs are taking their case to the UN, and I think that's a good idea, because clearly the Harper government has overstepped their bounds.

The chiefs asked the UN to appoint a "special rapporteur" to examine whether the Harper government is dealing with the crisis in a way that meets its obligations under Canadian and international treaties concerning First Nations people.  The declaration, which also calls on the federal and provincial governments to respond to communities in dire need, was added to the meeting's agenda at the last minute as the controversy over Attawapiskat grows.

That story reminded me of something I had read several years ago about this party's views on Canada's Aboriginal people, and fortunately, I was able to find the piece again online.  It was written by Alex Roslin, a leading Canadian investigative journalist , and was first published in Windtalker, Volume 17, Issue 12, 2000.

Under the heading: New name, old attitudes - CRCAP, Roslin warns us of what would happen if the Alliance Party was ever able to form government.  And now that the Alliance Party has formed government, his predictions are coming true.

In 2000, the Reform Party underwent a name change, but kept all of their prejudices intact, justified in their mind, because of a commie threat.

So you thought the Cold War was over and communism was dead. Not according to Canada's great right hope, the Canadian Alliance. The new right-wing party believes the red menace is lurking in First Nations communities across the land, and promises to stamp it out.  The Canadian Alliance, which unites Reformers and [provincial] Conservatives [Mike Harris and Ralph Klein] and has set its sights on winning the next federal election, has a platform on Aboriginal issues that promises to bring relations with Native peoples to a boil ... The new party also has an interesting view on Aboriginal self-government: it should be eliminated because it is "communistic."

Jason Kenney who was handling Stockwell Day's leadership campaign, had suggested that Aboriginal self government, would be a breeding ground for Communism, and Diane Ablonczy said that

...the Canadian Alliance would invoke the notwithstanding clause - the device used by the Quebec government to sustain its unconstitutional French language law - to overrule court decisions affecting First Nations and any other issue the party doesn't like.  ... Also new in the Canadian Alliance platform is opposition to "race-based allocation of harvest rights to natural resources." This particular position brings the party into conflict with numerous recent Supreme Court decisions and international legal norms.

Even their own constitutional experts warned that the notwithstanding clause could not be used on Native issues.

When Stephen Harper headed up the Alliance he shared the same views, and in fact, during his 2004 election campaign (then under yet another name: The Conservative Party of Canada) he ran against our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Constitutional experts have warned that the Conservative platform is so anti-charter it is a legal minefield. "A lot of this stuff raises serious constitutional issues." the University of Ottawa's Ed Ratushny told CanWest Global News Service. The experts have identified at least 12 positions that either, violate the charter, are ripe for serious court challenges or would require amendments to the Constitution.

If this government was never prepared to uphold our Constitution or our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, why would we expect them to honour legally binding treaties?

"They are saying they would just disregard treaties," said Jean LaRose, an AFN spokesman.  "They are just as extremist as before, but now they are trying to form a party that would stretch across Canada and form the government. That, for us, is very worrisome."  "Here is a party that wishes to place itself above the law and above the courts," said AFN National Chief Phil Fontaine in a statement. "I wonder if Canadians understand the implications of such a movement. It could override any legislation or court decision if it chose to, using nothing more than its own judgement."

Is that not what this government has been doing since stretching across Canada?  They have placed themselves above the law and if anyone disagrees with them, they simply use the law to tie things up in the courts until issues reach their best before date.

A federal court has just ruled that Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz "broke the law by not consulting with the Canadian Wheat Board or holding a farmer vote before moving to end the board's grain marketing monopoly.

"Had a meaningful consultative process been engaged to find a solution which meets the concerns of the majority, the present legal action might not have been necessary," Justice Douglas Campbell wrote in his decision. "... The minister will be held accountable for his disregard for the rule of law."

"Held accountable"?  Since when has this government ever been held accountable for anything? 

That idiot Peter Mackay is even thinking of suing Opposition members for suggesting that he was lying about his helicopter joy ride.

Of course, he'd have to sue Stephen Harper too, who gave a conflicting story to Mackay's, by saying he needed the helicopter because he was called back early from a fishing trip.

We elect MPs with the idea that they will either be part of the government, or part of the body elected to oppose the government, by trying to keep them honest.  What good are they if they can simply be sued by the government for challenging them?

And again ... this is what passes for democracy in Harperland.

I hope the UN will step in and make Harper step up, but I'm not counting on it.  He also campaigned against the United Nations.

"When it comes to issues of this country's vital security and national defence, you don't put that to the United Nations, which, quite frankly, is a coalition of everybody—the good, bad and ugly," (Stephen Harper, Toronto Star, February 28, 2004)

Will he simply claim that the Aboriginal communities are a threat to our security?  I mean aren't they all Commies?

The Move Forward to Colonialism

This week the Harper regime announced that they would be changing the name of "Indian Affairs" to "Aboriginal Affairs", seemingly the politically correct thing to do.

Immediately, several First Nations' leaders spoke out against the change, because it lumps all such nations into one. A legitimate argument.

On the other hand, aboriginal advocacy groups, believe that it will mean broader qualifications for government services. And indeed as part of the press release, Andrew MacDougall, a spokesman for Stephen Harper, said that “Changing the term used in the minister’s title from ‘Indian’ to ‘aboriginal’ better reflects the scope of the minister’s responsibilities" as they would now include Inuit and Métis.

However, to me, the name change means nothing, because it still fails to address the special relationship between the modern Canadian state and our indigenous people. The term "responsibilities" has the familiar paternal tone.

In his 2000 Massey lecture: the Rights Revolution, Michael Ignatieff wrote of us:

We are British North Americans, a colonial people in refuge from the republican experiment to the south. We are a community forged by the primal experience of negotiating terms of settlement among three peoples: the English, the French, and the aboriginal First Nations. This gives us a particular rights culture and it is this rights culture that makes us different. (1)

Those terms of settlement have been breached, and what we have created instead is a form of colonialism, where many First Nations people are subjugated.

Todd Gordon in his book Imperialist Canada, rightfully states that Canadian Imperialism begins with our Empire at Home.

The Canadian state's relationship with indigenous people provides a sharp example of the policy of accumulation by dispossession, and serves as a potent reminder of Canada's imperialist history. Any discussion of Canadian imperialism really must begin at home. Indigenous nations are Canada's very own Third World colonies, created and managed as part of an intensive, ongoing colonial project ... (2)

So while we can look at the living conditions on many reserves, with disgust, we can't make any significant changes until we understand the severity of the crimes against the people living there.

As Gordon reminds us.

There were hundreds of indigenous nations living across present-day Canada on land rich in resources, that did not wish to participate in the state and big business's plans for them and their land. But it was precisely the natural wealth of indigenous land and the labour of indigenous peoples (and poor immigrants) that provided the necessary basis for Canadian capital to grow and prosper in the first place, and to eventually move abroad to become a globally competitive force. It was on indigenous lands that mines were developed, oil discovered, private farms to feed the growing urban centres established, railways connecting the vast Canadian market laid, roads to transport goods carved out of the landscape and tourist resorts built. The whole foundation of Canadian capitalism rests upon indigenous land and resources. (2)

So this nation's prosperity was only possible because of negotiated terms of settlement. Terms of settlement that we are constantly abusing.

And that abuse is justified through a sense of racial superiority. A notion that will be accelerated with Fox News North reducing land claim issues to a struggle between "Indians and White People".

In Jack Layton's book, Speaking Out, he says:

I've learned from my years in municipal government that healthy public policy should shift resources to communities themselves, empowering those who live there to implement their ideas rather than live under the dictates of others. In the case of Aboriginals and Metis in Canada, the principle of social justice demands it. (3)

A good baby step, but then throughout the book he speaks more of the horrible living conditions and resulting community advocacy from non-aboriginals, but it doesn't address the big issue.

Any policy must start from a place of respect, and that means making First Nations equal partners in the development of our country.

Self government is essential, but it also means recognizing the validity of those governments.

A Unique Opportunity

Jack Layton has been given a rare opportunity to separate himself from Stephen Harper. And it comes with the election of Romeo Saganash.

A James Bay Cree, Saganash has experience in government, having served as director of governmental relations and international affairs for the Grand Council of Crees, for 30 years, and has advised parliamentary committees in Quebec and Ottawa.

And he worked very hard to get his seat, vigorously campaigning, in an attempt to garner the needed 9,000 votes. He earned 14,000.

He's intelligent, well liked and has the kind of face you instantly warm to.

Layton needs to appoint him as the "Aboriginal Affairs" critic. The Conservatives love their tokenism, keeping count, as if on a scorecard. But Saganash is no token anything. Another new MP that I just know I'm going to like.

Let's hope Layton recognizes the importance of his experience and capabilities. We are sorely in need of a change in direction.

Continuation:

A Harper Majority and Native rights

The “Coup D’etat at Barriere Lake and Why it Matters

Sources:

1. The Rights Revolution: CBC Massey Lectures, By Michael Ignatieff, Anansi Books, 2000, ISBN: 978-0-88784-762-2, Pg. 14

2. Imperialist Canada, By Todd Gordon, Arbeiter Publishing, 2010, ISBN: 978-1-894037-4507, Pg. 66-68

3. Speaking Out: Ideas That Work for Canadians, By Jack Layton, Key Porter Books, 2004 ISBN: 1-55263-577-5, Pg. 143

A Harper Majority and Native rights

Someone sent me a link to the above video. An interview on Fox News North between longtime Conservative insider, Ezra Levant, and Gary McHale, an anti-native rights activist.

McHale runs a website Caledonia Wake up call, that focuses in part , on Caledonia land claims, an issue that has sparked, often violent, protest.

He also runs a group: CANACE (Canadian Advocates for Charter Equality), that "exposes" racial (white) discrimination. He goes after the OPP for not arresting the native "terrorists" and was once arrested himself, for attempting to tear down native flags and replace them with Canadian ones.

The Caledonia situation is a complex issue, and the protests necessary before the subdivision was built, when it may have been too late. The provincial government reimbursed the developer and the matter, I believe, is still before the courts.

However, what I find troubling about the piece, is the constant referral to "Indians" and "white people". They stopped short of saying "Settlers and Injuns".

Can we expect more of this kind of inciting "white people" against "Indians"?

I'd written before of Randy Hillier, an Ontario Conservative MPP who once headed up a group called the Lanark Landowners Association, whose motto was “This Land is Our Land: Back off Government”. McHale represents a similar "settlers uprising".

Recent Wikileaks cables reveal concern shown by the United States toward native protests, that could hamper Harper's Border Security deal.

Environmental protests, especially against the tar sands and anti-war protests, are mentioned frequently.

Will we see more of an "us vs them" mentality, where men like Gary McHale, a blowhard "white man" is seen as an authority on First Nations issues?

When Stephen Harper was first elected in 2006, there was a great deal of concern shown by Native Canadians, given his close relationship with Tom Flanagan, who has written often trivializing land claims, and expressing the need for taxes to be collected on reserves.

With a majority, will Harper now become more forceful? Less tolerant of legitimate protest? We'll have to watch the situation closely. I don't like the tone of the arguments at all.

Conservative Government Sends Body Bags to First Nation to Deal With Swine Flu

In one of the most horrendous acts, the Conservative government, after promising help to First Nations; the ones most vulnerable to the H1N1 virus; has chosen to send body bags.

This government has done so many insensitive and horrible things, but this one is low even for them. To say that something is too low for a Conservative, is saying a mouthful. Can you imagine telling your doctor you're worried about getting sick and he sends you a body bag? Unbelievable.

Chiefs furious after body bags sent to reserves
September 16, 2009 9:18 PM ET
CTV News Staff

Opposition critics and First Nations leaders are slamming the government after Health Canada shipped dozens of body bags to aboriginal communities in Manitoba that have been hit hard by swine flu.

Chiefs said the body bags were sent to a handful of northern communities where dozens had to be airlifted earlier this year.

"If this is preparedness, they're sending the wrong message to our communities. Who would do such a thing?" Grand Chief David Harper, representing Manitoba's northern First Nations, asked Wednesday.

"It's like sending body bags to Afghanistan for our soldiers. We've been asking for proper health institutions, proper health equipment. Instead, what do we get? Body bags. That's totally unacceptable."

Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq said at a flu briefing in Ottawa Wednesday that she too was disturbed by the move.

"I have ordered my deputy minister to conduct a thorough and immediate inquiry into the situation and I will continue to work with First Nations, provinces and territories to ensure all Canadians are informed and protected against H1N1," she said.

Aglukkaq said she only found out about the body bag shipments during the press conference and could not answer any more questions.

David Butler-Jones, Canada's chief public health officer, called the body bags "unnecessary."
Opposition critics immediately slammed the move, saying it shows the government is unprepared in its flu response.

"This is an absolute disgrace. This is morally appalling," Liberal health critic Dr. Carolyn Bennett said in a news release. "Instead of flu-kits, instead of preparing and planning to get the vaccine on time - instead of planning to save lives - they spent their time planning on how to deal with the deaths."

Bennett is among the many critics who have expressed frustration with the government's slow response to help northern aboriginal communities deal with the H1N1 pandemic.

New Democrat MP Judy Wasylycia-Leis said she was angry that Health Canada refused to send hand sanitizer to reserves but is now sending body bags.

She said the move gives a poor impression about how Canada is preparing to deal swine flu if there is a larger outbreak.

More Postings on H1N1:

1. This H1N1 Crisis Could Have Been Handled Better. It's That Simple

2. Did You Ever Wonder What Stephen Harper's Private Health Care Plan Might Look Like?

3. Reform Conservatives Laugh and Heckle Over H1N1

4. Harper's Neo-Conservatism Is Turning Deadly. When Will we Wake Up?

5. Latest Deaths Reveal That 'Exaggeration' over H1N1 Has Been Proven to Be False

6. Poll Reveals That Canadians Believe That the H1N1 Crisis Was Mishandled

7. Panic by Canadians Caused by Incompetent Government

8. Did you Ever Wonder Just How Inhumane the Harper Government Was?

9. Reform Conservatives Are Still Not Taking H1N1 Seriously

10. The Harper Government Continues to Confuse us Over H1N1 Vaccine