Well Stephen Harper has sent out the call to his knuckle draggers that he will be adopting the Reform Party's "Whites Only" policy.
I guess you can take the man out of the Northern Foundation, but you'll never the Northern Foundation out of this man.
The Conservatives say race and ethnicity shouldn't enter into the hiring process for federal jobs and have ordered a review of affirmative action policies. They want to look at government hiring practices, which currently give priority to qualified applicants from minority groups.
New Democrat MP Pat Martin called the move a "full-frontal attack on affirmative action." Visible minorities, including aboriginals, have long been underrepresented in the public service.
Pat Martin is right. And for Harper to start playing the race card now must mean he's in trouble with his "base". He had everyone they don't like beat up at the G-20, but apparently they are still not happy.
So I decided to be brave and confront this so-called "base". I couldn't get too close because they were thumping their chests and drooling, but I did get a pretty good shot of their ringleaders. They look different without their white sheets.
A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada
If you think the conservative "Tea Party" movement is daunting, take a look at a new report issued by the Department of Homeland Security that says right-wing extremism is on the rise throughout the country. In the report, officials warn that right-wing extremists could use the bad state of the U.S. economy and the election of the country's first black president to recruit new members to their cause.
In the intelligence assessment issued to law enforcement last week, Homeland Security officials said there was no specific nformation about an attack from right-wing extremists in the works. The agency warns that an extended economic downturn with real estate foreclosures, unemployment and an inability to obtain credit could foster an environment for extremists to recruit new members who may not have been supportive of these causes in the past. (1)
And:
A footnote attached to the report by the Homeland Security Office of Intelligence and Analysis defines "right wing extremism in the United States" as including not just racist or hate groups, but also groups that reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority. "It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single-issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration," the warning says. (2)
These Tea Parties are bringing back all of the old radicals and encouraging new radicals. It's what happens when you combine religious fundamentalism, the new Conservatives and Fox News.
One of the very bizarre accusations overheard at the tea bag protests Wednesday was that President Obama is somehow a "fascist." At the same time, and often in the same protest, he was also accused of being a "communist." Of course it's ideologically impossible to be both, in the same way it's impossible to be both informed and a FOX & Friends host, but then again I'm expecting too much logic and message coherence from people who spent all of Wednesday protesting against socialism and wealth redistribution while gathered in publicly funded -- dare I say "socialized" -- parks and town squares.
But back to that "fascist" accusation. I'm not convinced that tea baggers like Michelle Malkin understand that fascism is, in fact, a form of right wing extremism. Because for the last 24 hours or so, Malkin, Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and the usual band of apoplectic brainiacs appear to have been vigorously defending "right wing extremism" after having previously accused the president of being on the same flank of the ideological spectrum. (3)
I visited the site mentioned in the video, which is the second in the four part documentary: White Power USA: The Rise of Right-Wing Militia in America. Council of Conservative Citizens is a hate group, that has been legitimized by the new Conservative movement. According to the Anti-Defamation League, they are:
Ideology: White supremacy, white separatism
Outreach: Mass mailings, prison newsletter
Approach: Advances its ideology by inflaming fears and resentments, among Southern whites particularly, with regard to black-on-white crime, non-white immigration, attacks on the public display of the Confederate flag, and other issues related to "traditional" Southern culture.
Connections: Several mainstream figures have spoken at or attended CCC meetings, including Senator Trent Lott; Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour; Mississippi state senators Gary Jackson and Dean Kirby; and several Mississippi state representatives. Former governors Guy Hunt of Alabama and Kirk Fordice of Mississippi also spoke at CCC meetings.
Considerably more polished than traditional extremist groups, the Council of Conservative Citizens propounds its bigotry in the guise of hot-button conservative advocacy. Striking hard-right positions on such contentious issues as immigration, gun control and affirmative action, the organization has insinuated itself into the mainstream successfully enough to attract a number of prominent conservative politicians to its gatherings. However, an examination of the origins, membership and publications of the CCC suggests that it remains, despite its assertions to the contrary, squarely within Southern racist traditions. While not every CCC chapter may be equally extreme, all are founded on anti-minority bigotry. (4)
OK. So you don't think this could happen here, huh? Not in Canada, right? Well pull up a chair because you're going to want to be sitting for this.
We already have a non-profit group called Immigration Watch Canada. And guess who they call on for inspiration?
A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada
I have been writing a lot about the resurgence of hate groups, that have now attached themselves to anti-tax, anti-immigration and some of the more extreme Religious Right organizations. They are now moving from the fringes and using these organizations as a bridge to the mainstream.
The above is part one* of the documentary White Power USA: The Rise of Right-Wing Militia in America, and validates what I have been saying. And if you think we're immune you're dead wrong. I'm not suggesting a militia but we will be attacked. And Harper's Fox News North, launched by his ex communications director, Kory Teneycke, is where the battle will begin. They just have to overturn our hate crime laws, but they're getting closer all the time.
However, it actually started sooner than that. The Reformers have been quietly moving Canada to the right. Not in our thinking. Canadians are still Canadians. But the perception of Canada by other nations, is diminishing. They now see us as just another Bush administration.
The Mexican Invasion
Earlier this month, Habtom Kibraeb, an Eritrean refugee, committed suicide in Halifax from fear of a pending deportation. In December 2008, a 24-year-old woman was deported to Mexico, where she was murdered months later. She had applied for asylum in Canada twice. This tragedy occurred while Kenny was imposing visa requirements on Mexicans, claiming they were bogus. (1)
The above video mentions J.T. Ready, a Republican candidate who is heading up a movement to stop illegal immigration from Mexico. He has support from some pretty high places, including the Republican Party. One of them is Arizona State Senator Russell Pearce. He was responsible for drafting the controversial Proposition 200, which makes it a crime for public officials to fail to report people unable to produce documentation of citizenship when applying for benefits, and allows citizens who believe that public officials have given undocumented persons benefits to sue for remedies.
Since Proposition 200 passed last fall, its backers have presented an alarming 20 bills targeting immigrants in the Arizona legislature, have cheered the vigilante Minuteman Project on the Arizona-Mexico border, and have worked to sponsor similar bills in other states. But there is a growing grassroots mobilization against the resurgence of racist policies in Arizona, and the threat of an international and national boycott of the state looms. (2)
And yet it is gaining momentum and has sparked a new group: Protect America NOW!
J. T. lost the election but his Minutemen are still on the March and have the full endorsement of the Republican Senator Pearce. You can see them together in the photo to the right.
Just three weeks ago at a tea party rally in Tempe, he handed out fliers calling for landmines to be placed along the Mexican border to prevent illegal immigrants from crossing into Arizona.
Now, neo-Nazi J.T. Ready says he plans to lead an armed group into the desert south of Phoenix this weekend to put a stop to what he called “narco-terrorists.” Ready appeared decked out in camouflage during an interview Wednesday with KPNX (Channel 12). He showed off a stockpile of guns and ammunition he plans to take with him and claimed his group will stake out an area of Pinal County that drug smugglers use as a route to bring “chemical warfare into Phoenix.”Ready has grabbed more traction with local media in recent months as the debate over illegal immigration heats up. He has also appeared frequently at rallies and protests in support of Arizona’s new immigration law, hoping to attract supporters to his cause.
That was no different on May 29 at the “Stand With Arizona” rally in Tempe, an event organized by several tea party groups. Ready was there handing out fliers for the Mesa chapter of the National Socialist Movement, the largest neo-Nazi group in the United States. (3)
And left unchecked the worst may have already happened.
I called Santa Cruz County Sheriff Tony Estrada Thursday about a report I’d read on the Website of NBC affiliate KVOA Tucson concerning four border crossers fired upon by two men wearing camouflage and bearing assault rifles.
One man was injured with a gunshot wound to the left forearm, the rest were unharmed. The shooting occurred around 5 a.m. on Friday, June 11 at Peck Canyon, nearby Rio Rico. Sheriff Estrada suggested in the KVOA report that the shooters could have been U.S. citizens “hunting illegal border crossers.” What the piece didn’t explain is whether the victims of the attack had been able to identify the perps as Anglo or Hispanic. But Sheriff Estrada told me that the migrants couldn’t say. (4)
And:
In addition to shootings of Latinos by Border Patrol agents, there have been mysterious shootings and even murders in Arizona deserts. Troubling details are emerging that suggest these attacks on Latinos are not drug-related, as often reported, but the work of violent border vigilantes. (5)
These actions have been inspired by the new racist policies of the Republicans. Grover Norquist gave Russell Pearce an award for his no-tax rhetoric. The Tea Party group is an extension of the Republican party and Fox News, who have now validated hate.
"This is a problem in Canadian refugee law which encourages bogus claims." -- Prime Minister Stephen Harper
While apologizing to the president of Mexico, Prime Minister Harper has echoed what his immigration minister, Jason Kenney, has been saying for some time. Canada's refugee system is overwhelmed with bogus refugees who come to take advantage of a generous asylum system. These bogus refugees are queue jumpers who are sneaking into Canada through the asylum system. And nobody likes a queue- jumper, least of all Canadians.
... Kenney is quite clear about who a bogus claimant is: anyone who is a failed refugee claimant. He cites Mexican claims as the example. Eighty-nine per cent were rejected in 2008. He has said they are all queue jumpers, economic migrants who are abusing the refugee system. But are they?
With the minister's indulgence, I would define a bogus claimant as one who makes a false refugee claim knowing that he or she is not a refugee. That definition would undoubtedly cover some Mexican claimants who come to Canada with a phoney story about horrible events that never happened. It would even cover the Mexican migrant who has naively been misled by an unscrupulous travel agency to simply arrive in Canada. It would not, however, describe many of the failed Mexican claims ... When Kenney says that he does not believe that Czech Roma or Mexicans are refugees, and therefore they are presumably bogus refugees, he is contradicting both the IRB and the Federal Court which have both said that some Czechs and some Mexicans are refugees who are at risk of serious harm. (6)
Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism Jason Kenney is known as the Minister of Censorship and Deportation because of his record as one of the most repressive immigration ministers in Canadian history. Deportations have increased, while the number of people accepted as refugees and sponsored family members have drastically dropped. Instead, Kenney has increased the number of temporary workers who are constantly exploited for their labour. His new refugee bill creates a racist two tier system based on nationality, and he has called a wide range of migrants– from Mexicans to the War Resisters – “bogus”. Under his regime, an Eritrean refugee committed suicide from fear of a pending deportation, and a young woman was murdered upon her deportation to Mexico. (7)
Footnotes:
*You'll see Amy Goodman from Democracy Now on this video. She was the journalist who was detained in Canada and had her car searched because they were afraid of what she may be here speaking about. Ironically, it was freedom of the press.
A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada
One of my favourite episodes of All in the Family was when Archie Bunker realized how narrow thinking could manifest itself. After going into one of his usual tirades, he was approached to attend a meeting of like-minded good old Americans, only to have them don white sheets and propose a cross burning at his son-in-law's home, because of a letter he had written to the editor of the New York Times. This was Archie's spiritual awakening and it was so well done.
Many people mistakenly believe that the Moral Majority/Religious Right came about after Roe vs Wade, when abortion became legal, but that is not true. It was formed to fight against the end of segregation. In a sermon by Rabbi Caryn Broitman:
Evangelicals withdrew from politics for most of the last century until the rise of the religious right in the late 70’s. This rise was not in response to Roe v Wade, as their organizers would have us believe but in response to a civil rights issue, namely the Supreme Court decision that ruled that institutions that practiced segregation would forfeit their tax exempt status. This decision led to the withdrawal of tax-exempt status for Bob Jones University, who among other things, did not admit Blacks, and when they did, had a policy against interracial dating.
It was race, as well as the desire to maintain control over evangelical institutions, and not abortion, that led to the establishment of the religious right, as historian Randall Balmer has documented. In fact, the first candidate the religious right supported was Ronald Reagan, who had signed into law an abortion rights bill as governor of California. When Reagan was elected, his administration argued, not surprisingly, on behalf of Bob Jones University to the Supreme Court in 1982 to keep their tax-exempt status despite their racially discriminatory policies. (1)
And Ronald Reagan ran on a platform opposing the Civil Rights movement.
"With Reagan's outspoken opposition to the Civil Rights Act in 1964, Republican strategists knew that they would have to write off the black vote. But although 90 per cent of black voters cast their ballots for the democrats, only 30 percent of eligible black Americans voted. Republican ... strategist Paul Weyrich stated "I don't want everyone to vote ... our leverage in the election quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down. We have no moral responsibility to turn out our opposition." (2)
And when George W. Bush was running against John McCain for the leadership of the Republican party, one of the first places he visited was Bob Jones University. When McCain's team got wind of it they went public, stating that in his attempt to woo the Religious Right, he had spoken at a school that forbid interracial dating and were strongly anti-Catholic.
Bush fired back and told CNN, "I denounced the policy at Bob Jones", but transcripts of his speech showed that he did no such thing. (3)
However, inadvertently, the backlash resulted in the university changing it's policy in 2000:
Jones acknowledged that recent scrutiny of the school's policies was behind the decision. "This thing has gotten so out of hand," he said. "All of a sudden the university is at the center of a Republican presidential debate."The southern school adopted its ban on interracial dating in the 1950s ... JU did not admit black students until the 1970s. The school lost its tax-exempt status in 1983 after a 13-year battle with the Internal Revenue Service, which said the school's policies violated federal law.The school had justified its ban on interracial dating by saying that God created people differently for a reason.George W. Bush spoke at the school prior to South Carolina's primary. Although other candidates have spoken at BJU over the years without incident, the appearance by Bush was portrayed by political foe John McCain as an endorsement of the school's extreme beliefs, including its prohibition on interracial dating and its anti-Catholic views. (4)
There are many reasons to be alarmed over the rise of the Religious Right in Canada. I had mentioned that since they have such strong backing from their American counterparts, they are a threat to our sovereignty. But there is another threat that is more profound. The legitimizing of bigotry.
The Religious Right/Moral Majority resulted with the founding of the Council for National Policy, where Stephen Harper delivered his now infamous speech.
The relationship between the Republican Party and the Religious Right started in earnest in 1981 with the creation of the powerful insider club known as the Council for National Policy (CNP). Excited by Reagan's election, Tim LaHaye of the Left Behind series, Paul Weyrich of the Free Congress Foundation, Richard Viguerie, a wealthy Republican fundraiser, and other far-right conservatives decided to bring together the religious right, the small government/anti-tax right, and several extremely wealthy, like-minded businessmen such as Joseph Coors (whose company recently bought Molson) and Herbert and Nelson Bunker Hunt, rabid anti-Communists affiliated with the John Birch Society. (5)
They apparently approved of Stephen Harper three years before "W". He was one of them: A good old boy. In fact Paul Weyrich, mentioned above as a Reagan strategist, went to extraordinary lengths to help Harper get elected in 2006.
A top U.S. conservative commentator now says he authorized an e-mail warning right-wing American groups not to talk to Canadian journalists before the election for fear of scaring voters and damaging Stephen Harper's chances. Paul Weyrich, head of the Free Congress Foundation, told The Canadian Press last week that the widely distributed message was the product of an overzealous staff member of the research group. (6)
This group was founded on racism and only embraced issues like abortion after, when they realized that hatred was not palatable. But after visiting many (many, many, many) sites associated with this movement, their visceral attacks on the gay community and women are alarming. But what is also alarming is their veiled attacks on Muslims and their 'white supremacist' activities on campuses. Morton Blackwell, one of the founders of the Council for National Policy is behind a new group Youth for Western Civilization, and the renewal of an older group Young Americans for Freedom.
They launch campaigns like “Catch an Illegal Immigrant Day” and run “Straight Power” demonstrations with signs that read “End Faggotry” and “Go Back in the Closet.” Similar campaigns are beginning to take place on Canadian campuses, where the subtext is often Muslims.
Sadly, many of the foot soldiers of the Religious Right would not condone this behaviour, and believe that they are only protesting abortion or same-sex marriage. Yet they may now be aligned with a movement that is so much more.
The Moral Majority was never a majority. A majority of Americans are unwilling to have Paul Weyrich or anybody else dictate to them what is moral and righteous in personal life. In 1992, when the morals police and gay bashers seemed in ascendancy at the Republican National Convention, the public response was so negative that George Bush had to spend the first couple of weeks of the campaign backpedaling. (7)
And as Rabbi Broitman points out:
The religious right has never represented all evangelicals, however, and in the last few years there has emerged an alternative voices in the evangelical community that have been suspect of the close alliance between evangelicals and one political party. As Evangelical leader David Gushee argues, “it is impossible both to represent the ‘Church’ and to function as a bloc within a national political party.” Religion is most faithful to its truth when it speaks from the margins of power, not the seat of power. (1)
It might be time for some members to start reassessing this political movement fueled by religious fervour, or they could find themselves, like Archie, in a room full of people wearing white sheets.
Sources:
1. Yom Kippur Sermon 5769: A critical analysis of the Jewish alliance with the Christian Right regarding Israel, By Rabbi Caryn Broitman, Yom Kippur 2008
2. Hard Right Turn: The New Face of Neo-Conservatism in Canada, Brooke Jeffrey, Harper-Collins, 1999, ISBN: 0-00 255762-2, Pg. 22)
3. The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception, By David Corn, Crown Publishers, 2003, ISBN: 1-4000-5066-9, Pg. 36-37
4. Bob Jones University Drops Interracial Dating Ban: Fundamentalist school finds itself thrust into Republican presidential debate. From Evangelical Press, Christianity Today, March 1, 2000
5. Too Close for Comfort: Canada's Future Within Fortress North America, By Maude Barlow, McClelland & Stewart Ltd., 2005, ISBN: 0-7710-1088-5, Pg. 48
"The highest duty of government is the protection of its citizens. Canada must ensure consequences when foreign governments torture or kill our people.” Stephen Harper, National Post, 2004
So what happened between 2004 and now? Is it not his government's duty to protect our citizens when they are held, tortured and killed in a foreign country?
Apparently not; as Abousfian Abdelrazik can attest to. Unless you're a white, influential Canadian, you can expect to be treated as a disposable citizen.
Lawrence Cannon's handling of foreign affairs has furthered destroyed Canada's international reputation as a fair and democratic nation. Just look at how he handled the case of Canadian citizen Suaad Hagi Mohamud.
He suggested that not only did the levees fail the residents, but so too did the government. And why was that? Because many of the victims were poor and black.
Katrina exposed something very ugly. First off, that poverty exists in the U.S on a very large scale, something they didn't really want the rest of the world to know; but also, that racism was still a huge problem. Mr. Ignatieff told the crowd of a story that had a profound affect on him at the time:
One of the cries that went up from the people trapped in the convention center in New Orleans was very significant and I’ll never forget seeing thewoman who said this: she said, “We are American citizens, we are American citizens, we are not refugees, we are not stateless objects of your charity, we are citizens of this republic, we have rights here and our rights have been denied.”
Ok, for that woman and for thousands of people who went through the experience of the last five or six days, the thing that was so shocking was thattheir citizenship counted so little.... But these ties of citizenship arelegitimate and accepted as binding only if citizenship confers equal rightsregardless of race and social class.
It would certainly appear that for some Canadians, their citizenship does count for very little in the eyes of Cannon and the rest of the Reformers.
The Horrifying case of Abousfian Abdelrazik
9/11 claimed many victims. Not just those in the Twin Towers or at the Pentagon, or the thousands of human beings killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Because it made us all victims of fear, and because of that fear we were willing, for awhile at least, to give up some of our civil liberties in the name of the "War on Terror". And we could also justify forfeiting the rights of individuals deemed to be enemies of the state, regardless of how little it took to earn that distinction.
That's what happened to Mr. Abdelrazik. As an activist and champion of Human rights, he had his name put on a list. And because of that list, in the spring of 2003, while visiting his sick mother in the Sudan; he was arrested. And apparently the arrest was made on behalf of the Chretien government, on behalf of the U.S. and our own CSIS.
While in custody he was severely beaten and eventually under extreme duress confessed to being a terrorist. Because of that false confession, on July 23, 2006; the United States Department of the Treasury designated him as a supporter of al-Qaeda and "for his high-level ties to and support for al-Qaeda," he was added to the UN Security Council terrorist no-fly blacklist by the U.S.
By the time the Reformers took power in 2006, the Sudanese government , which had actually cleared Abdelrazik of all charges, just wanted rid of him. Attempts to have him returned to Canada failed so they were looking at other options.
Paul Koring of the Globe wrote:
The Harper government was warned shortly after it came to office in 2006 that Sudan’s notorious military intelligence agency was ready to “disappear” Abousfian Abdelrazik, a Canadian citizen, unless Ottawa allowed him to go home, The Globe and Mail has learned. Sudan wanted to “deal with this case for once and for all: we judge as significant their verbal reference to a ‘permanent solution,’” Ottawa was bluntly told by Canadian diplomats in the Sudanese capital, according to documents now in possession of The Globe.
Instead of protesting the threat or warning Sudan – a regime notorious for its human rights abuses – that Ottawa would hold it responsible if harm came to a Canadian citizen held in one of its prisons, diplomats in Khartoum were ordered by a senior Canadian intelligence official to deliver a non-committal response “notwithstanding the expected displeasure of the Sudanese.”
Enter Lawrence Cannon:
Though even the United States removed his name from their list, this government had no intention of backing down. According to the Hamilton Spectator; "the Harper government spent more than $800,000 in legal fees fighting a losing battle to keep Canadian citizen Abousfian Abdelrazik from coming home." Why?
The lobby of the Canadian embassy in one of the world’s leading basketcase nations is an odd place for our government to house a man posing a serious threat to national security, wouldn’t you say? And yet, this is what Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon would have us believe he and his predecessor have been doing with Abousfian Abdelrazik for over a year.
Yesterday, the latest chapter in the Sudanese-Canadian’s mind-boggling six-year struggle to return home unfolded as many had ruefully predicted. Having booked and paid for a flight to Canada, thus fulfilling the conditions under which the government had promised, in writing, to issue an emergency passport, the apparently destitute Abdelrazik was instead told he needed somehow to get himself removed from the United Nations’ no-fly list before the papers would be issued.
Quite apart from the absurdity of the condition, Foreign Affairs itself had until recently been petitioning to have Abdelrazik’s name stricken from that list, citing all-clear verdicts from CSIS, the RCMP and Sudanese intelligence. Also, the blacklist doesn’t prevent anyone on it from returning home. Nevertheless, Mr. Cannon made it official yesterday: "I denied Mr. Abdelrazik an emergency passport on the basis of national security,” he said. No further explanation was forthcoming. What the hell is going on here? The idea that Foreign Affairs is digging in its heels simply to avoid being seen to back down implies a lack of foresight ...
It wasn't until June 18, 2009, that the government announced that it would abide by the court's ruling. Nine days later Abdelrazik flew to Canada. In the fall of 2009 he sued the Canadian government for $24-million, and $3-million more for Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon's,“misfeasance in public office.”
Another characteristic of a sociopath is callousness and lack of empathy. What Pierre is discussing is the compensation paid to aboriginal victims of systematic abuse in the forced residential schools.
The tone of his voice definitely reveals a callousness, and the fact that he's looking for "value" for this compensation shows that he clearly does not understand the trauma suffered by former students. In fact his use of the word "partook", like they were willing participants in their own abuse, certainly indicates that he lacks any human compassion.
What is also telling is when he states that "some of us are starting to ask". The Reform-Alliance-Conservative Party have never agreed with the status afforded our First Nations, not understanding that they have treaty rights. They were never "conquered" as some would suggest, but have a legal right to their land and it's resources.
First Nations Second Thoughts
Several years ago, Marcie McDonald wrote an article for the Walrus magazine, entitled The Man Behind Stephen Harper, in which she discusses Tom Flanagan and the agenda of the Calgary School. McDonald opens with the following:
Consternation rumbled across the country like an approaching thunderhead. For aboriginal leaders, one of their worst nightmares appeared about to come true. Two weeks before last June’s federal election, pollsters were suddenly predicting that Conservative leader Stephen Harper might pull off an upset and form the next government.
What worried many in First Nations’ circles was not Harper himself, but the man poised to become the real power behind his prime ministerial throne: his national campaign director Tom Flanagan, a U.S.-born professor of political science at the University of Calgary. Most voters had never heard of Flanagan, who has managed to elude the media while helping choreograph Harper’s shrewd, three-year consolidation of power.
But among aboriginal activists, his name set off alarms. For the past three decades, Flanagan has churned out scholarly studies debunking the heroism of Métis icon Louis Riel, arguing against native land claims, and calling for an end to aboriginal rights. Those stands had already made him a controversial figure, but four years ago, his book, First Nations? Second Thoughts, sent tempers off the charts.
In it, Flanagan dismissed the continent’s First Nations as merely its “first immigrants” who trekked across the Bering Strait from Siberia, preceding the French, British et al. by a few thousand years – a rewrite which neatly eliminates any indigenous entitlement. Then, invoking the spectre of a country decimated by land claims, he argued the only sensible native policy was outright assimilation.
Aboriginal leaders were apoplectic at the thought Flanagan might have a say in their fate. Led by Phil Fontaine, National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, they released an urgent open letter demanding to know if Harper shared Flanagan’s views. Two months later, Harper still had not replied.
For Clément Chartier, president of the Métis National Council, his silence speaks cautionary volumes. Martin’s minority government could fall any minute, giving Harper a second chance at the governmental brass ring. “If Flanagan continues to be part of the Conservative machinery and has the ear of a prime minister,” he worries, “it’s our existence as a people that’s at stake.”
Recently a Conservative MP, Peter Goldring, posted a newsletter to his website suggesting that Louis Riel was a villain.
Goldring posted the letter in response to a request from the federal New Democrats who wanted Louis Riel to be recognized as a father of confederation and wanted a conviction that saw him hanged for treason overturned. In his letter Goldring wrote, "Riel didn't father confederation; He fought those who did." Riel, a politician who fought for Metis rights in the late 1800s and also helped found the province of Manitoba, led two violent rebellions against the Canadian government and was hanged for treason.
The letter went on to say, "To un-hang Louis Riel and to mount a statue to him on Parliament Hill would elevate anarchy and civil disobedience to that of democratic statesmanship." The letter has now been removed from Goldring's website, but the words have Alberta's Metis outraged.
Was he one of the "some of us"?
In January 2002, when Jim Flaherty was the Ontario finance minister under Mike Harris, he suggested that the First Nations weren't "real people". (1)
Was he one of the "some of us"?
Backlash
Most knowledgeable listeners concluded that Poilievre continued to advocate the old Reform Party view and was not actually proposing to adopt any of the mutually acceptable solutions natives had agreed to or that previous governments had advocated. Mr. Harper, on taking office, had discarded Paul Martin's Kelowna Accord which was to begin to address some of the problems noted above.
Many listeners heard, in this context of prior positions by his party, Mr. Poilievre's comments as excusing prior governments' behaviour. His exact words: "Now, along with this apology, comes another $4 billion in compensation for those who partook in the residential schools over those years. Now, you know, some of us are starting to ask, 'are we really getting value for all of this money..."." As the word "partook" implies voluntary choices rather than state-sponsored child abuse, and those who pay compensation in civil courts are not usually consulted as to whether they (the abusers) are "getting value", the words appeared to convey some racist assumptions.
"Mr. Poilievre, who did not spend his childhood "partaking" in state-sponsored child abuse, is not sure the government is getting "value" for the compensation it is paying the natives it abused."
Anita Neville, the Liberal aboriginal affairs critic, called Poilievre's comments "disgraceful" and "ignorant." "I invite him to take a tour of many of the First Nations communities in this country and see how people are living," she told the Canadian Press. "The irony of something like this on the day of the apology... . And I fear it reflects an attitude or a view that is prevalent among many members of hat caucus." Opposition MPs called for Poilievre's resignation. According to news reports, many Conservative MPs were also angry at Poilievre.
The day after his appearance on CFRA, Poilievre rose in the House of Commons to apologize for his statement saying, "Yesterday on a day when the House and all Canadians were celebrating a new beginning, I made remarks that were hurtful and wrong. I accept responsibility for them and I apologize."
Liberal Tina Keeper, an aboriginal MP from Churchill, branded Mr. Poilievre "a national embarrassment," and said she had received more calls from constituents about Mr. Poilievre's remarks than she had about the prime minister's request for forgiveness for the assimilation policies of the residential-school program. (2)
This coming just as Stephen Harper was making a public apology put the entire thing in context. And for that context allow me to quote Tom Flanagan again when he was trying to repackage Harper to appear "prime ministerial": "How do we fool people into thinking that we're moving to the left when we're not?" (3)
Enough said.
Sources:
1. Canadian Race Relations Foundation, "Flaherty: Enough is enough says the Executive Director of the CRRF", News release, January 22, 2002
2. Wikipedia
3. The Pilgramage of Stephen Harper, By: Lloyd Mackey, ECW Press, 2005, ISBN: 10-1-55022-713-0
Well Stephen Harper has sent out the call to his knuckle draggers that he will be adopting the Reform Party's "Whites Only" policy.
