Trust. Integrity. Reputation.
December - 2003 Not so fast
November - 2003 Sour grapes; lots of wrath
October - 2003 Non-status non-sense
September - 2003 Why?
August - 2003 Matthew, we hardly knew you
July - 2003 What good will come of prosecution?
June - 2003 We've heard it all beforeMay - 2003 Questions of leadership
April - 2003 We're with you, prime minister
March - 2003 Shelve the governance package
February - 2003 What's wrong with inclusiveness?
January - 2003 Hate lives cozily among us
2002 Editorials2001 Editorials
1999 Editorials
Not so fast
You know what's unreasonable?
Cultural genocide is unreasonable. Pretending to be a modern, post-colonial nation while still practising colonialism is unreasonable.
Let us clear up a couple of things about Canada's history.
In the beginning...of Canada... the people of Europe moved into somebody else's homeland and took everything they could get their hands on. They relied on the kindness of the people whose home this land was and had been for thousands and thousands of years, and took their help to survive and flourish.
Then the newcomers herded those same people who were living in this "empty" land that Europe had "discovered" onto the rockiest, bleakest little patches of dust that could be found and sent their children off to have their languages and cultures beaten out of them.
So it wrankles when a minister of the Crown, Minister Ralph Goodale in particular, tries to sell the Alternative Dispute Resolution that deals with claims that spring from the abuse of those children in the Indian residential school system as "humane."
Canada is suffering an arbitrary, self-serving amnesia about the premeditated assault on Indigenous cultures and languages by only compensating for sexual and physical abuse in the ADR. It's business as usual for the federal government by building a system or process that benefits the non-Native majority. The ADR is all about saving money, limiting liability, and it will be done on the backs of the victims.
And Canada is giving notice that there are more money-saving schemes in store for the future.
The minister of Indian Affairs is saying that First Nations people have to start paying their own way on housing, despite it being an obligation of the federal government since the signing of the treaties. Remember, the treaties? Those agreements that allowed the newcomers to access the lands from which they would reap their great wealth.
Why does it seem that it's always the people who benefited the most from these treaties who most resent living up to their part of the contract?
Minister Robert Nault said that expecting Canada to keep writing cheques is unreasonable. Minister Nault, we don't think you appreciate the breadth of what unreasonable can mean.
Aboriginal people have been housed in the cheapest, most inadequate shacks in over-crowded conditions for more than a century, and now they're being told to show a little initiative and pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. That's unreasonable.
To forget or ignore history in the face of the problems that exist for First Peoples in Canada is unreasonable.
For government leaders to fall all over themselves when the wealthiest among Canadians begin to whine about being asked to pay their fair share- that's unreasonable.
To work within a system that is so messed up that getting straight answers to even the simplest of questions on First Nations funding is impossible- now that's unreasonable.
Bloc Quebecois MP Yvon Lubien said last month that trying to get information about which outside consultants were getting what government contracts for how much from the Department of Indian Affairs was like getting answers from the Mafia. Of course, he had the protection of the House of Commons when he said it.
"The billions of dollars they claim they are spending on First Nations go into the pockets of bureaucrats and go to wasteful projects," he said. "They go for travel abroad to see how other governments deal with their Aboriginal peoples. That is where the money goes. There is a system in this department that operates something like the Mafia, where public servants call the shots and do as they please. You can try to get a breakdown of expenditures in contracts given by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development Canada to communications agencies, for example, or management firms. You can try to find out who profits the most from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, besides the First Nations. You will see it is not easy. In fact, it is impossible."
Now, let's get reasonable.
November - 2003Sour grapes; lots of wrath
This month, chiefs on both sides in the fight over such issues as Bill C-19, the fiscal institutions legislation, accused each other of sour grapes, of failing to accept the presence and legitimacy of the other's position and of failing to come to terms with political realities.
Each side accused the other of stubborn, single-minded, almost childish behavior. There's clearly a sharp divide on basic approaches among the chiefs of Canada.
We probably shouldn't be surprised. It's nothing new.
But it has become the central issue in First Nations politics and it needs to be addressed.
National Chief Phil Fontaine won the election, get over it, said one camp. Winning the election doesn't give him a blank cheque, said the other. If his mandate needs to be respected then so does ours, they added.
It's a knotty problem, no doubt about it. Especially when Indian Affairs Minister Robert Nault leaves no doubt that First Nations are under intense pressure to integrate into the Canadian constitutional family.
Integrate. Assimilate. Their meanings are similar but there is a crucially subtle distinction between the terms. One can integrate into another system-in this case the First Nations government system integrating into the federal system-and remain more or less intact and true to the origins. To be assimilated is to be absorbed utterly. Forced assimilation is one of the central elements of cultural genocide. So says the United Nations and just about everybody else who has ever pondered such issues.
Integration is not assimilation, but it can come awfully close to the line, especially when you consider Canada's sordid past in dealing with Aboriginal issues.
The minister-and to some extent, the national chief because he used the word in his pre-budget submission called Getting Results-wants First Nations to integrate into the Canadian system.
Nault said it bluntly. The government of Canada will never pour millions of dollars (or billions if Fontaine's Getting Results agenda is to be given the gift of life) into a sovereigntist movement. They didn't do it in Quebec and they won't do it with First Nations.
The AFN will soon embark on a process to renew itself, so said the national chief. We'll believe it when we see it. There have been so many false starts over the years that have fallen by the wayside in recent memory.
Somebody from Fontaine's transition team will be given the job of holding consultation sessions all across the country, so Native people can bash away at how the AFN should shift shape.
Fontaine told Windspeaker that he will seek to include the traditional leaders in that process. Many traditional leaders are unabashedly sovereigntists. If that's what the people want then the AFN may as well give up all expectations of ever receiving another penny from a Canadian government except through the court or negotiation processes. A lot of well-paid Native politicians and technicians will have to tone down their financial expectations, in the short-term at least. Some would say that would be a true test of their commitment to First Nations people.
The fundamental question that needs to be resolved before any of this can be addressed is the one of sovereignty. Nault said First Nations can have jurisdiction in some areas that is superior to that of the federal government, but the feds will always be the senior partner.
That's what integration looks like. If Fontaine and his supporters want that, as it appears they do, it's time to come clean and say it.
Ask the question: Do we abandon sovereignty in favor of integration? Yes or no?
Nault's comments make it clear that any time anyone uses the phrase "in the modern context" it refers to integration, not sovereignty.
That may or may not be a good thing. But the First Nations people should be asked the question before one more step is taken in any direction.
Fontaine tried to push things through-some would say lead, others dictate-and the opposition chiefs were able to stop him, because under the AFN charter, it was wrong.
The national chief apologized.
"I fall in line. The national chief falls in line," he said. But if there's a line, who's at the head of it? Let's have a real, sincere dialogue on that issue and then try to move forward together.
October - 2003Non-status non-sense
What the heck is a non-status Indian, anyway?
Lawyer Jean Teillet tells us there's lots more of them now than there used to be.
So who are they? Would it be fair to say that a non-status Indian is a non-Indian? If that's the case, then why call them anything at all with the word "Indian" in it?
Would you call a double burger with cheese and bacon a non-pizza? We don't get it.
If they're Indians, then what apocalyptic event took away their status as an Indian? How do you do that?
If you don't have status as an Indian, are you an Indian? Can a bureaucrat change a person's race, his or her very genetic makeup, with a stroke of a pen? Can a judge suddenly turn you into something you're not with a carefully worded decision from the bench?
We didn't ask if this was logical, since it doesn't appear to have ever had a chance to be that. We're just trying to make sense of it all. You're either an Indian or you're not, right?
So maybe the best definition of a non-status Indian is this: an Indian person that some wise guy in Indian Affairs has decided to throw into some artificially constructed category where the government can then deny his or her rights.
The more we ponder on this the more convinced we become that the term "non-status Indian" is one of the most ridiculous creations of the Canadian bureaucracy of all time.
And that's saying something.
We say you either are an Indian or you aren't, no matter what the Indian Affairs registrar might think. But somebody's probably going to have to pay a lawyer a couple of million bucks before we can say that without fear of contradiction.
The Supreme Court of Canada has laid down the formula for deciding who can exercise Métis rights. Congratulations to the Métis people who came out winners in this case, especially Steve and Roddy Powley.
We're hoping that all Métis people can exercise Section 35 Métis rights. But we'll wait and see on that one. Now that there is a way to deny people's claims that they are a member of group with constitutionally protected rights that might cost Canada money, you can bet some ambitious guy in a suit in Ottawa is looking for a way to turn that into a way to save money.
Let us save you a little time Ottawa. As the courts seem to be saying, stop wracking your brains for ways to keep Aboriginal people on the margins of society. You want to save money and improve Canada's economic prospects? Start getting smart, ambitious people doing productive work instead of wasting their time and talents trying to come up with ways to maintain an unjust status quo.
Canada's Constitution says that the rights of the Indigenous peoples of this land are "recognized and affirmed." The courts now seem to be saying what we've been saying all along. Let's put some meaning into those words.
Canada, you signed a treaty with the Mi'kmaq people. Honor it. Some people got rich by taking the Mi'kmaq's rightful share of resources. It took a couple of hundred years but Canada finally got around to recognizing the injustice of it all. Those rich folks are going to have to give back some of their ill-gotten gain; no matter how much they contribute to the Liberal Party every year.
Native people in Atlantic Canada are going to be able to share in fisheries and the logging industry. And because those resources must be managed responsibly to ensure their survival, we can't just up the take. Somebody's going to have to give something up, and we think it should be those people who have benefited by the injustice.
That's been what this fight has been about all along. The wealthy, influential and powerful have perverted the course of this nation in the name of greed. The courts are saying stop it.
The politicians should listen.
September - 2003Why?
From Sept. 5 to Sept. 7, 1995, there were almost 200 photographs and 35 videotapes taken at Ipperwash Provincial Park by police observers, and the public has yet to see them.
Those photos and videotapes were suppressed for eight long years, including all the way through two criminal trials where they may have provided crucial evidence: First in the case against Warren George, who was sentenced to six months in jail for his part in the confrontation that September at Ipperwash; and second in the case against Kenneth Deane, who saw his police career flushed into a sewer pipe for killing Dudley George in the park on Sept. 6, 1995.
Why?
We haven't seen those photos and videotapes despite the fact they might identify the people-Warren George accused members of the police-who took part in the beating of Cecil George at Ipperwash, so that those people could be brought to justice.
Why?
We haven't seen those photos and videotapes despite the fact that they could shed light on a claim by police that the protesters at Ipperwash Provincial Park were armed with guns.
Why?
Why haven't the people who took the photos talked about their relevance?
Why don't we know who ordered those photos taken? Why haven't they talked about their existence?
Why haven't the people responsible for monitoring what was on those photos said anything? Why haven't we heard from those people who filed them, catalogued them, knew where they were kept?
Who else in the police service and in government knew about them and why haven't they said anything about them?
Who came up with the idea of claiming the photos and videotapes were sealed by a court warrant? Who authorized that story to be told to the information commissioner and a court? Who made the call to finally admit there was no warrant? Why was that call made? Why was it made at the time it was made? By whom?
We want names.
If those tapes verify what Warren George claimed-that several police officers criminally assaulted band councillor Cecil George-then every one of those people who haven't talked about those photos and tapes are complicit in a cover-up and should lose their jobs and their pensions.
We urge the privacy commissioner in Ontario to get to the bottom of this matter. Ask the tough questions. Demand thorough answers.
We've called for a public inquiry into the death of Dudley George for almost a decade now, but this fiasco with the photos would seem to require an inquiry all its own.
We need to know who failed the Ontario public because the confidence in its government and police service is sorely in need of repair.
The federal government talks about accountability for First Nations. It's hypocrisy. Don't lecture us about good governance when you choose to ignore the stench of a rotting system in your own backyard.
Don't lecture us until one of you has the courage and integrity to stand up and admit that the public governments in Canada are plagued by the exact corruption you accuse First Nations' governments of practicing.
Don't lecture us until one of you is prepared to entertain the idea of a non-First Nations governance act. Or is that too much to ask?
Why?
Comments?
TOP
August - 2003
Matthew, we hardly knew youSo the Coon Come era of Assembly of First Nations politics has come to an end.
Though he tried hard to take his abrupt electoral dismissal with good grace, we could tell it was not easy. Going right from the stage where he'd made his farewell speech directly to the Shaw Conference Centre's Room 13 to face the press was a tough task. He fielded just two questions before something snapped. Everyone in the room could see it.
Suddenly, the press conference was over and he was out of there. Emotion clouded his face as he hastily made his exit.
It was not easy to watch this decent man get treated so roughly. But that's politics.
The night before, we visited the feast held in his honor by the James Bay Crees at Edmonton's Westin Hotel. There, relaxed and among friends, the real Matthew Coon Come shone through. He spoke of his grandmother's vision of a time when the rivers would run backwards and the Cree people would have to pay for water and the land would be bare of trees. All of these things came to pass when logging companies clear-cut the land.
He shared the wisdom of his father, the hunter who lives on the land in the traditional way of his people. His father's advice was that as well as looking forward you must look back to see where you've been so you don't lose your way.
At the press conference after his defeat, he said something very revealing. After almost three years of staying away from biblical references in the name of political safety, this devoutly Christian man seemed to suddenly realize that that part of his life was over. He compared the state of Indigenous people in Canada to that of the Israelites fleeing Egypt under the leadership of Moses and then turning around and embracing the unpleasant but familiar oppression of the pharaoh.
"This agenda Phil Fontaine is advocating is one of dependency," he said. "I can say this now. It's like going back to Egypt where everything was 'good.'"
During his interview with this publication at the start of the campaign, Coon Come said he would continue to fight for the rights of his people whether he won or lost the election.
"It's all I've ever done. I don't know if I could do any other job," he said.
We know he'll be back in some capacity and First Nations people will be the richer for it. He said after his defeat that he looked forward to getting back to the land with his father and spending more time with his children. But the time will come when he will be back on the political scene.
The AFN seems to devour its leaders: Ovide Mercredi in 1997, Phil Fontaine in 2000 and now Coon Come. We believe it's because the AFN is funded by government and indirectly controlled by government and is not yet a true First Nation institution.
It has been plagued by division. Not by "diversity," although that's the spin that's put on it. Opposing factions within the AFN have treated each other shabbily in order to gain power and influence. In the fight against colonialism, that is a luxury the AFN cannot afford.
Phil Fontaine has pledged to do something about that. We hope he will be true to his word. We hope that he has learned some valuable lessons during his three years in the political wilderness. We think that some of those lessons were possible because Mercredi and Coon Come and, of course, Roberta Jamieson were part of the First Nation political landscape.
The organization was revitalized in Edmonton. More people than ever before were there and engaged. The trick will be to keep them engaged and that means some monumental changes will have to occur.
We sincerely congratulate Phil Fontaine on his victory and look forward to a new age in First Nation politics where a free and unfettered and necessarily critical but fair press will not be seen as the enemy or as something to be manipulated or ignored.
He promised as much during his pre-election interview with us and we're looking forward to seeing what that promise will look like.
We wish Matthew Coon Come well and hope he will find peace, that someday he will be back to share his considerable talents for the benefit of all First Nations people.
July - 2003What good will come of prosecution?
David Ahenakew is a portrait of tragedy. A man who ruined a lifetime of hard work by opening his mouth and letting the world hear that he holds some monumentally stupid-and, yes, hateful-opinions.
But Mr. Ahenakew is not so foolish as to ever say anything along those lines again, especially in public and especially to a journalist. He is disgraced. Knocked out of the political game he played with such gusto for so long. Left on the sidelines, a reminder to all that hate consumes the hater.
Why charge him with a criminal offence? What's to be gained?
If he truly believes those horrible, hateful, anti-Semitic things he said, then even 50 years in prison isn't going to change his mind. Is the humiliation of attending court and going through the process of being tried and possibly convicted of spreading hate going to be any worse than the humiliation he endured at the centre of the media circus that followed his remarks? Is justice about punishment or rehabilitation? If it's the latter, don't you think the man has learned his lesson?
We note that independent Member of Parliament Jim Pankiw continues to send out his taxpayer-funded pamphlets calling Native leaders racists and criminals. We note Pankiw lives in the same general neighborhood as Ahenakew. We note that Pankiw is non-Native and hasn't been charged while Ahenakew, a Native man, has been charged after both were investigated by the same Saskatoon-based police service. We know that Saskatoon is reeling from the revelation that many members of its city police department abandoned Native people on the outskirts of town, sometimes in frigidly cold weather, and they have been doing so for at least 27 years without anyone saying a word. We know some Native people died in the same general area where police have been known to drop people off.
We wonder about a backlash after Native leaders so mercilessly forced non-Native people in that city to take a look at what has been tolerated in the Saskatoon Police Service and why. We wonder if there isn't some element of that, conscious or not, in the decision to charge Ahenekew, a ruined old man.
National Chief Matthew Coon Come is right, we believe. Taking this tragedy to trial will provide a stage to every white supremacist, Nazi idiot within hundreds of miles. Don't give these people an excuse to crawl out from underneath their rocks.
Drop the charges. If Ahenekew ever says or does anything along those lines again, then put him away and lose the key.Welcome to Alberta
With the Assembly of First Nations' annual general assembly scheduled for our town this month, a lot of our friends who don't get out this way very often will be in our own backyard.
We think that's great. We're already in a celebrating mood as we mark the 20th anniversary of the Aboriginal Multi-Media Society, Windspeaker's parent society. Plus we've recently moved into a new and much improved (and much more spacious) building in northwest Edmonton. We're just a 15-minute drive from downtown, where the AGA-and most importantly, the national chief's election-will be taking place. In the spirit of western hospitality, we'd like to take this opportunity to welcome you to come and look around our new headquarters.
We hear the turnout for the AFN meeting is expected to be high. If you're going to be one of the many visitors to the City of Champions, we'd love to show you around.
On the subject of the election, after talking to all the candidates and their teams, we believe this is going to be an important moment in the history of First Nations' politics. We'd like to wish all the candidates the best of luck. More importantly, we'd like to wish the people who decide who the national chief will be for the next three years clear minds and lots of wisdom. It looks to us like it's going to be a difficult choice to make.
June - 2003We've heard it all before
May was a month when the big story was the brief flurry of words between the man that would be king and the fellow who is doing the bidding of the current sovereign. Yes, Liberal leadership front-runner Paul Martin and Minister of Indian Affairs, Robert Nault, crossed swords on the battlefield that is the First Nations governance act, with Martin dealing a substantial blow to the legislation in which Nault has so much invested-perhaps his political future.
Nault accused Martin of playing politics with legislation vitally important to the Canadian public. But really, whose interest is the minister serving? Nault said the interests of the grassroots First Nations people, that's who, but discussions in the standing committee on Aboriginal affairs tell a different tale.
Martin says because the chiefs of the Assembly of First Nations were skirted in the consultation process, the legal ramifications of passing the bill into law will leave Canada open to decades of court action. He said "the well has been severely poisoned in terms of this piece of legislation."
Nault says he can't deal with the chiefs. Well, not the chiefs... the chief of the Assembly of First Nations, Matthew Coon Come.
"Care should be taken not to measure this government's relationship with First Nations people on the basis of our relationship with Grand Chief Coon Come," he said. Why? We measure Canada's relationship with Americans based on the prime minister's relationship with the U.S. president.
We've seen this petulant little drama unfold before. Remember Ron Irwin, the Indian Affairs minister in the 1990s who introduced amendments to the Indian Act that were going to improve the lot of the grassroots people?
Irwin said the same thing about then-national chief Ovide Mercredi.
'Oh, Ovide disagrees with everything. We can't work with him,' said Irwin when the Indian Act changes he initiated got a rough ride by the First Nations leadership.
Personal attacks on Matthew Coon Come and other First Nation leaders? No, Mr. Nault, that's not the way a fiduciary acts when his trustee has some complaints about how things are being handled. Not the fiduciary that wants to steer clear of serious trouble, anyway.
We think the strain is starting to show on Robert Nault. He's starting to make comments not worthy of someone in the soon-to-be-facing-re-election category.
He says he's immune to protests? What's up with that? That's just arrogance. And he's not alone. The behavior by the Liberals in the standing committee on Aboriginal affairs has been arrogant in the extreme.
We're counting down. It's an hour-by-hour, minute-by-minute battle to see if the standing committee can rush the final report on the FNGA to the House before it's in recess for the summer.
The only triumph for democracy that could possibly come out of this mess, however, is if the Opposition succeeds in stopping the FNGA.
If the government rams it through it will be a sad day for every lover of real democracy, Native and non-Native alike.
As we've said before, let's go back to square one and get it right this time. Mr. Martin says that's what he intends to do. Let's hope he's telling the truth. If so, the sooner he can get to work, the better.
-Windspeaker
May - 2003
Questions of leadership
Elsewhere in this month's issue of Windspeaker, you will see Kettle and Stony Point Chief Tom Bressette state a fundamental truth about the First Nations' leadership.
He said that First Nation chiefs or technicians who criticize people who accept a federal government paycheque are throwing rocks from the front porch of their glass houses. Elected chiefs can't hint that Bressette, and others like him who do work for federal boards, are any less committed to the Indigenous cause just because they take government money.
That allegation follows a false logic that eventually takes us all back to the proposition that all First Nation leaders are fundamentally corrupt. We don't believe that's the case. Some people will take that 'golden carrot.' Some never will. Some will dip their toe in that dangerous pool and then quickly pull it out again. Some will dive in and drink deeply.
But to say that all band council or tribal council leaders are sell-outs is going too far. Those who quietly raise that criticism are usually doing so for self-interested, political reasons and, as always, when each points a finger there are three others pointing back.
Yet, traditional leaders have been using the criticism about the Indian Act leaders for more than 100 years, haven't they?
They reason that you're either in one canoe or the other.
They say the world-view that is required to work in the federal bureaucracy is, by definition, non-Indigenous, even anti-Indigenous.
They could be right.
These traditional leaders aren't on the government payroll. They don't take federal paycheques for the political work that they do. In fact, they are ridiculed, dismissed and marginalized because they don't have budgets and desks and fax lines and email accounts as part of their infrastructure. They, the modern-day equivalent of the pre-contact Indigenous governments, are seen as less than legitimate because they don't look or act like government bureaucrats.
But is there a middle ground, a best of both worlds approach that could be considered?
We don't need to tell our readers that there is a distinct and unique Indigenous way of looking at the world and that that viewpoint is not exactly encouraged in the federal bureaucracy.
That may well be why we see, all too often, First Nation leaders acting more like managers than leaders. They're part of a system that manages information and authorities and mass populations of people. The system doesn't encourage leadership. In fact, it discourages leadership by making elected First Nation leaders spend so much time shuffling papers and signing forms that they don't have time to develop and work towards a legitimate vision of a better future.
Traditional leaders who have resisted the urge to make good money in the government system, who are often forced to live on welfare in order to stay in their home communities where there is no economy to speak of, have two things going for them. They are unquestionably not at risk of being co-opted and they have the time to think about the things that real leaders need to ponder.
We believe traditional governments need to play a bigger role for just those reasons.
While modern governance institutions are being developed by First Nation leaders who work in close proximity to the federal government and its bureaucratic culture, the traditional leaders could and should offer an important perspective.
Don't you think the fact that the federal government refuses to recognize and deal with these governments is a significant indicator that they have something to offer that will break the shackles of colonialism and pave the way for real self-government and a real nation-to-nation relationship?
We do. So how do we get from where we are to where we want to be?
Comments?
TOP
April - 2003We're with you, prime minister
We've never been shy to publish opinion that is critical of the Liberal government and Prime Minister Jean Chretien. Often, the Liberal Party's approach to Indigenous issues just doesn't mesh with the way we, and many of our readers, believe things should be done.
So in the interests of fairness, we feel it's important and necessary to say there have been a couple of times recently when we've found ourselves saying-with a certain amount of amazement-that we're really proud of the position the prime minister has taken.
His stance (at least his public one) on the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq is a case in point.
While we agree that Saddam Hussein is someone who needs to be dealt with, we feel even more strongly that the United Nations must be the body that should decide which action needs to be taken to deal with him and when that action should be taken.
We believe that if any one nation decides it has a superior right to interfere with the internal affairs of any other sovereign nation without the clear support of the international community, well, that leads to disaster on a monumental scale.
Mr. Chretien showed incredible courage in making that same determination in the face of what must have been daunting pressures from many corners. Now that he's come to this determination, we hope he'll see the parallels between the situation in Iraq and the situation Indigenous peoples find themselves facing here at home in Canada.
Colonialism has been recognized as an out-dated, racist, immoral concept. The United Nations should be the place where conflicts between nations are mediated and settled by neutral third party nations. The United Nations should also be the place where the past violations against Indigenous nations-nations that still exist, albeit in many cases in reduced and desperate circumstances due to the on-going ravages of colonialism-be mediated in good faith.
The prime minister refused to be pressured into going along with a great friend and ally because of his belief in the high principle that the international rule of law must prevail. We feel he now has no choice but to decree that Canadian officials at the United Nations must stop short-circuiting the efforts of Indigenous nations trying to undo the damages of colonialism by seeking reparations and genuine self-rule.
All of our Indigenous contacts who attend the sessions dealing with Indigenous issues at the United Nations or the Organization of American States tell us they face highly organized opposition from Canada's external affairs department. They say that Canada, the United States and Australia, the three large modern nation states that were founded on Indigenous lands, have worked in concert at the international level to frustrate attempts by Indigenous peoples to regain some measure of control over their traditional homelands.
We're told that the basic goal of Canadian officials at these institutions is to ensure that no price is ever paid for the wrongs of the colonial period, that anything wrongfully taken from Indigenous peoples-whether it be rights of self-determination, land or resources-is never returned. It's a battle to maintain the status quo at all costs. A battle to preserve the gains realized when colonizing nations "discovered" lands where people were already living, and established nations where nations already existed.
Peace, order and good government at the international level requires that all nations be subject to the same rights, obligations and protections. No one nation is above the law. No one nation is better than any other nation.
Mr. Chretien, we salute you for standing up for that high ideal. Now bring it home to Canada.
March - 2003Shelve the governance package
The events of the Assembly of First Nations' two-day special confederacy have convinced us to jump off the editorial fence and make our position known on the federal government's First Nations governance initiative.
Shelve it.
First Nations' people should get that much consideration and here's why.
What was amply demonstrated by the AFN in Ottawa in February is that the organization is toothless, powerless and poorly constructed and is unable or unwilling to effectively represent the grassroots people's interests in regard to this initiative.
When fewer than 40 chiefs out of 633 find it important enough to join in a battle that is seen to be a fight for the very survival of the First Nations' unique position in modern Canadian society, you know there's something seriously wrong with the organizations' underpinnings. It's a wonder the AFN has lasted this long.
The AFN leadership has the power to follow orders from the grassroots chiefs-not the grassroots people. The chiefs have actively fought to exclude the people from participating in the selection of the AFN's leadership.
Following the orders of 633 bosses is not real power. The national chief gets played like a ping pong ball by the competing regional interests and spends all his time trying to be all things to all people. That's not leadership. It's an invitation to cronyism and corruption or total ineffectuality.
The chiefs claim they speak for their constituents. The minister claims the grassroots people tell him the chiefs don't speak for them and that he is pushing his agenda as their representative.
In reality, the only people First Nations have protecting them from this government agenda and their own leaders are a bunch of hard-working First Nation bureaucrats who run around putting out fires and fighting a battle they never had a hope of winning.
First Nations' people need a government, a multi-national government, that is effective and empowered. They don't have one and the federal government is taking advantage of that fact to push forward an agenda that will ultimately only benefit the federal government.
We believe the minister must show he truly cares about the grassroots people by calling a halt to this legislative agenda. He must give the First Nations people a chance to create a workable structure of government that has a chance to truly represent their interests.
Anything else is paternalism-modern-day colonialism.
There are days when we really believe Minister Robert Nault is sincere in his stated desire to help improve the quality of life for Native people. If it is true, then he will see the merit of what we are proposing. He will tell the Prime Minister, and all the others in the central agencies of the federal government, that the ravages of colonialism and government oppression have rendered the leadership of the Indigenous nations of this land too weak and disorganized to play the role they need to play if we are to get it right this time.
He will voluntarily withdraw the legislation until such time as there is no doubt who has the unquestioned authority to speak for Native people. And then he will listen to what they have to say.
He will not quibble about the cost of this process because Canada owes First Nations more than it can ever repay. But as a partner in the process, Canada has a right to demand accountability, as do the First Nations people.
For the sake of the people, this game of little boy politics, where all is spin and nothing is quite what it appears, must end.
Go back to the drawing board minister. And take the chiefs with you.
February - 2003What's wrong with inclusiveness?
Last month, dozens of Aboriginal people-including many leaders-used the pages of this publication to express their outrage at the hatred-based statements of David Ahenakew. And we were extremely proud to provide that space.
But let's not be hypocritical, folks. Windspeaker has over the years, and is still, following stories where First Nations leaders don't want Bill C-31s in their communities, and where Métis organizations don't want mixed blood people who aren't linked to the Red River Métis in their groups. In the past we've reported that the Kahnawake Mohawk council only want people who possess a certain amount of Mohawk blood and there have been many other similar examples across this land.
We've seen many Aboriginal leaders and many grassroots people condoning such exclusion, so this isn't going to make us any friends, but we've got to say it: this is racism, plain and simple. It would be hypocritical not to say that after last month's outpouring of anti-racist sentiment on our letters and editorial pages.
This publication has always been an enemy of racism. We've attacked it wherever we found it, including on reserves or in other Aboriginal communities. And we again state, as is always the case, not only is racism evil and hurtful and unfair and destructive, it's stupid.
It's stupid, because, in each of the instances mentioned earlier, it plays into the hands of the federal government. We believe all public governments in this country believe they have an "Indian problem." In most public policy we've seen there is at least a hint of resentment of Aboriginal rights and entitlements. An unspoken aim of most public policy is to reduce the cost of Aboriginal rights and entitlements to the point where one day they disappear. We're convinced of that. So excluding any Aboriginal person from any Aboriginal community is helping that agenda.
We noticed the undisguised tone of glee in all the press releases from all the Aboriginal political organizations that responded to the 2003 census numbers when they were released on Jan. 22. With numbers up 22 per cent since 1996 and the percentage of people in Canada who claim some Aboriginal ancestry now at 4.4 per cent, leaders were feeling that their political clout had risen along with those numbers and they weren't shy about demanding more attention. That's the way things work in a democracy.
Want to make the numbers rise faster and higher? Stop the exclusion.
Exclusion keeps the numbers down in the marginal range. Inclusion could take you into the 10 to 15 per cent range. In case you haven't been following the polls, that would put us in the company of the New Democratic Party, the Canadian Alliance, the Progressive Conservative Party and the Bloc Québécois.
During an often-repeated public service announcement that was meant to discourage Native kids from committing suicide, Buffy Sainte-Marie years ago concluded "We need all the Indians we can get." She was right.
Excluding people because they are not quite Indian-enough for this group or that is suicide of a different kind- political to say the least.
January - 2003
Hate lives cozily among us
Now that a certain calm has come to this community after four days of sickening tumult that was caused by the hate-filled spewing of Dr. David Ahenekew at a meeting in Saskatchewan in December, it's time for a little sober reflection.
Ahenekew's public rant on Jews and the Holocaust and Hitler, as ugly as it was, provides us with an opportunity to talk about this issue of racism in an open and honest manner.
Racism in Canada lives in dark corners. We react strongly to it when it comes into the light, beating it back with a vengeance, but if we were honest with ourselves, we'd admit that we don't really want to know how it thrives there in the shadows.
Hate is fed by ignorance and incompetence. Silence provides hate sanctuary. When we turn a blind eye to it, in whatever form hate takes, we condone its existence. When we find hate within ourselves and we fail to recognize it and rout it out, we allow it to propagate. When we find it in others and don't banish it through whatever means we have at our disposal, we are complicit when it does harm.
Dr. Ahenakew's revisionist version of history clearly put him in the realm of idiots, but there is something that scares us more.
The former Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations Senator was a leader. He was a role model and an inspiration to the current generation of leaders in the province. In hindsight, we must now ask, are there other demented minds at the controls?
We wonder this because of the initial reaction to Ahenakew's comments by the Saskatchewan First Nations leadership.
After reporter James Parker of the Saskatoon StarPhoenix caught Ahenakew's vitriol on tape, he naturally went to Ahenakew's leaders for comment.
"Whatever he says personally is an opinion as a war veteran. He has that right," said FSIN Vice-Chief Lawrence Joseph.
"He's entitled to his opinion," said FSIN Grand Chief Perry Bellegarde, who also advised the reporter not to quote Ahenakew.
Although in time they did the right thing, the leaders of the FSIN did not distinguish themselves in the beginning. And the political spin they put on it after the fact seems hypocritical in the extreme.
Matthew Coon Come passed the test with flying colors, however.
He has been criticized for not finding a way to lead the Assembly of First Nations in a unified, positive direction. He has been seen as an impotent leader who has been nullified by a divided and uncooperative executive board. But Coon Come responded strongly and with breath-taking quickness to this situation.
His immediate condemnation of Ahenakew's remarks left no doubt that this was the real Matthew Coon Come standing up and saying what he believed. He clearly did not wait for his board to hash out a clever response. He saw a wrong and he did what he had to do.
He seized the opportunity to make a stand against a vile alliance of evil-prejudice, racism and bigotry. He has fought this enemy before, and judging from the response we got from other leaders, he's not alone in his hell-bent desire to defeat it.
The events that saw one man ruin his own life's work in the most jaw-dropping way are over. Ahenakew apologized. He resigned from public life. And so should he have done. He's left us with a queer legacy though. A story of how hate destroys the hater. We should tell it to our children. And let this story never be forgotten.Note: Some community reaction is found here.
Comments?
TOP