Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Gwynne Dyer | Main | The UN Springs To Action »

Friday, December 31, 2004

NORMAN'S SPECTATOR

From today's edition of NORMAN'S SPECTATOR, where the articles are hotlinked.

The papers today again lead with the tsunamis. Indonesia —where the death toll could rise to 100,000—receives most of the attention.

Some papers emphasize the devastation, others the tales of survivors. Most go high with the local angle.

Several reports today focus on international aid and competition over which country is the most generous, or least stingy of them all.

At home, the Martin government is still scrambling to get on top of the situation. The Prime Minister, presumably red in the face, will arrive back in Ottawa from Morocco tomorrow.

Some of our compatriots in the nation’s capital have already moved on. NDP'ers want to be appointed to the Senate. The Governor-General is visiting our troops in Afghanistan.

In the UK, Tony Blair is refusing to convene the G-8. The Honours List has been published and the Tories have launched a pre-emptive strike.

Freedom of Information legislation comes into force tomorrow, and the Guardian knows the poop it’s after. The Financial Times is reporting some scary stuff about Prozac.

In France, parents will be able to choose their children’s’ family names as of tomorrow. What’s next in this crazy world?

There’s new hope for peace in Senegal, and Le Monde interviews a couple of gents who were released from Cuban prisons .

In the US, the Los Angeles Times fronts damaging information about a man who could be the next Chief Justice. The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board endorses that man today. Yikes.

Another editorialist says the bloom is off terrorism, a third does the math and concludes that CEOs in the US are younger, more female and less Ivy League.

Columnist Daniel Henninger looks back at 2004. On the front page, the Journal reports on new US torture rules.

Below the fold, the New York Times fronts problems with social security in the US , and violent class-conflict in China

Inside, Canada ’s suspected mad cow is reported. The Montréal band Stars’ “Set Yourself on Fire” gets a rave review.

We learn that Artie Shaw passed away at the age of 94. You can listen to some of his tracks here, and here’s the L. A. Times report.

The Washington Post serves up the third and final instalment on terrorists and WMD—today, of the chemical variety. Our second suspected mad cow is stuffed.

The New York Times’ editorial board serves up its New Year’s resolutions.

The Washington Post’s editorial board poops on Pakistan ’s Pervez Musharraf and on George Bush, too.

US AID Administrator Robert Natsios weighs in on aid to the disaster areas. David Ignatius serves up headlines you’re guaranteed not to read in 2005.

The Los Angeles Times’ editorial board looks back at science in 2004, says Karl Rove was the man of the year and accuses Canada’s Intrawest of being at the peak of fakery.

Jonathan Chait pans the Administration for cuts in science funding.

The Toronto Star editorial board accords lawyer Martha McCarthy the laurel of the year for her work on same-sex marriage. Top darts go to the NHL disputants.

The paper fronts Kofi Annan admitting that relief efforts are falling short, Tamils fighting for their share and a local MP who was on the immigration hot seat last night.

Kelly Gillespie reports from Thailand. From Ottawa, Jim Travers lets the PM off the hook but otherwise writes the truth about the government’s pitiful performance this week.

And, if you read Haroon Sidiqqui, you’ll understand why much of Canada’s foreign policy is essentially domestic politics.

Speaking of the influence of Canada’s largest circulation daily, as regular readers of this press review will know, for some months I’ve been challenging the Star to produce a list of the 45 countries in which Gwynne Dyer’s articles are published.

Yesterday, it effectively conceded the point, though—like most Star readers--you probably missed it.

Normally, the Star tag line on his columns reads: “Gwynne Dyer is a London-based independent journalist whose articles are published in 45 countries.”

Yesterday, the line was revised to indicate that his “articles are published in 45 papers worldwide.”

Since the Star has been misleading readers since 1999, you’d think they would have corrected the mistake.

I waited a day to see if they were late as they sometimes are, but they’ve issued neither a correction nor an apology to readers.

In fairness, the Star’s editors might not be responsible for the “burnished” qualifications they’ve published over the years.

A web search turns up several sites that contain “exaggerated” claims of the fecundity of Dyer’s punditry, including this Department of Foreign Affairs biography, to which visitors to his “only official website” are referred.

Elsewhere today, the Globe and Mail fronts the Canadian aid effort, a report from its stringer in Banda Aceh and Geoff York in Thailand.

The Globe also fronts some PR for the government on why DART was not dispatched. Inside, you’ll find a puff piece on how and why Bill Graham stepped up to the mike.

From the UN, Shawn McCarthy reports on US aid. Roy MacGregor is still in Saskatchewan. And the Globe wins the award for today’s most sophisticated correction.

The editorial board sees signs of hope for Mideast peace. Closer to home, it suggests Canada should strive to become the world’s most literate nation:

“A cultural change is needed to make it happen. Canadians need to say goodbye to reading mediocrity. Goodbye to third place on international reading tests, the ranking that this country's 15-year-olds achieved on the recently released 2003 OECD test. (Four other countries were roughly tied with Canada in third.) If third is a dismal result in ice hockey, it should be a dismal result in reading, too….By the thousands, children are playing hockey 10, 15, even 20 hours a week, including the interminable drives to and from the rink. When was the last time a child spent 20, 15 or even 10 hours in one week with books?”

The National Post editorial board accuses the government of dodging Parliament, and stuffs today’s top story, another Bob Fife doozie.

The paper fronts Canadians’ contributions outstripping the government’s, along with Robert Fulford’s long review of 2004, which is worth the price of the paper. Here’s a sample:

“Martin spent so much time abroad that his appearances in Ottawa began to feel like state visits….He was working within a Canadian cultural tradition founded by Lord Ronald in Stephen Leacock's Gertrude the Governess, the man who flung himself upon his horse and rode madly off in all directions.

Stephen Harper proved one of the year's great surprises. In the election campaign many voters expressed the fear that he would be captured by the hard right; little did they know that he was on the way to being bent out of shape by the soggy middle….

In the United States…Republicans made it clear they considered the Democrats loose-living, divorce-prone liberals who couldn't be trusted with America's soul; Democrats pictured Republicans as war-lovers who were fighting in Iraq either on a whim or because they hoped to make money. The Republicans had the advantage of enthusiasm; they apparently loved their candidate, whereas Democrats tolerated theirs, in the mistaken belief that he could defeat George W. Bush, the object of virulent liberal hatred…

When Yasser Arafat died in Paris in November, politicians across the West took this news as a welcome occasion for a hypocritical display of mock sorrow. But among the Palestinians, who had been victimized for decades by Arafat's murderous irresponsibility, his death opened fresh possibilities for peace and maybe economic progress as well….

[Premier Danny] Williams, a visionary, plans to lead a province that will be simultaneously both a have and a have-not, a new phenomenon in Canadian history.”

Inside, Fulford dishes up another fine piece—this one on columnist Bill Safire, who’s retiring. Unfortunately, Sheila Copps is not:

“The year began with what could best be described as my very public mid-life crisis. …

It is akin to a life-altering loss: You experience the same stages of grief felt in a death or divorce.

First, denial. I could not believe this was happening. How could I be forced out of a seat in Parliament to which I had devoted more than two decades of my life?

That emotion was quickly replaced by anger. The anger grew, but it also allowed my creative juices to flow. I closeted myself in a room and applied the best tourniquet to a bleeding heart -- the written word.,,,

I drank from a full cup in politics and I wanted more. But when it was not to be, I started to experience another side of the life I had put on hold. For the first time, I could plan dinner parties and family gatherings knowing they would not be cancelled. I no longer spent almost every weekend at work. Almost 35 years after we hung up our shoes, I joined old basketball chums in a reunion. And I rediscovered a passion for sailing with my husband.

All this is to say that as we prepare for Auld Lang Syne tonight, there will be few tears shed on my part for what was, and much anticipation for what will be.”

Elsewhere in CanWest land, the Vancouver Sun fronts news that the mother of the boy mauled by dogs earlier this week is a convicted drug dealer.

Yours truly weighs in with some federal and provincial predictions for 2005.

The Calgary Herald fronts the suspected mad cow, which turns out to be an Alberta bovine.

The editorial board dishes up its views, as do the tall foreheads in Edmonton. As Yogi used to say, can't anyone back there play this game?

The Ottawa Citizen fronts Canada forgiving debts, safe cigarettes and unsafe birth-control pills, a story that’s stuffed in Montréal. The Gaz editorial board comments on new tax breaks for filmmakers.

Inside the Citizen, the editorial board plumps for fair cab fares. Susan Riley weighs in on Stephen Harper:

“If there was an annual award for tactical daring, Stephen Harper would be the winner in 2004. The opposition leader engineered a brazen, daylight robbery of the Conservative brand, stealing the venerable party of John A. Macdonald from under the noses of confused and dispirited Progressive Conservatives.

At the same time, he buried the still-young Reform Party so completely and unsentimentally that there has never been a proper wake -- much less the wailing and whining you would have expected from so independent-minded a bunch.

Now Harper is busy crafting an agenda for his new Conservative Party that will be close enough to the Liberal platform -- centrist, incremental and familiar -- to avoid exciting concern in central Canada, but will, ideally, appear fresher, younger and more honest. In keeping with Liberal tradition, it will be light on detail and heavy on talk about "values."…

For all his shrewdness and intelligence, Harper still inspires mistrust. His conversion to mainstream values, for instance, is hard to credit given the depth and conviction with which he has written and spoken in defence of right-wing economic ideas. And long-time observers say he has become more, not less, socially conservative in recent years.

But he certainly knows how to play the political game. We'll soon see whether Canadians are willing to play along.”

In the Toronto Sun, Peter Worthington says the US gets a bad rap on foreign aid; he needs an arithmetic refresher in percentages--say, of GDP. Linda Williamson awards this year’s Pammys.

Bob MacDonald pans Paul Martin disastrous disaster performance, and Michael Harris does the honours to the PM from Ottawa.

TOP STORY

Quit sniping at Bush, Liberal MPs told

The National Post’s Robert Fife reports:

Posted by Norman Spector on December 31, 2004 | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d83421fe4d53ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference NORMAN'S SPECTATOR:

» Parasites Want to Become Senators from Gods of the Copybook Headings
Some members of the ever, and thankfully, shrinking federal NDP caucus want a socialist in the Senate. [Read More]

Tracked on 2004-12-31 11:06:58 AM

» Parasites Want to Become Senators from Gods of the Copybook Headings
Some members of the ever, and thankfully, shrinking federal NDP caucus want a socialist in the Senate. [Read More]

Tracked on 2004-12-31 12:06:23 PM

» Unglued from small dead animals
... [Read More]

Tracked on 2004-12-31 2:55:14 PM

» Unglued from small dead animals
Update ... oh, the hyperbole...... [Read More]

Tracked on 2004-12-31 8:56:41 PM

Comments

"Elsewhere in CanWest land, the Vancouver Sun fronts news that the mother of the boy mauled by dogs earlier this week is a convicted drug dealer." -- Saw her picture from the Sun online.

She's definatley caucasian. Maybe we need to set up residential schools for white kids since it's so obvious that "the SYSTEM is failing these kids." Isn't that right? Or are Shotgunners only interested in gory child abuse/neglect stories when it involves Native Indian children?

Seems like the mother and husband were sleeping while the poor little tyke was being mauled to death. Imagine that! White people can be crappy parents as well!

Posted by: MWW | 2004-12-31 9:01:23 AM


You should do us the courtesy of quoting the media talking heads, columnists and "Shotgunners" who have been clamouring about the "we the community" failed the child.

It's a PC double standard, Meaghan. When it's white kids, the accusations of abuse and neglect center exactly where they belong - on the parents.

When it's a little Indian girl dying alone in an apartment or living with pimps and drug dealers, we are told its the fault of "society".

"we failed this child.... listen to the children ... ask them how we can help ... teach better parenting skills... more support for poor families ... a failure of all society".

Until you learn how to tell the the difference... oh wait. Telling the difference isn't in your own self-interest is it? Without the Indian Oppression Industry you'd really have no way to satisfy your own attention seeking behavior, would you?

I changed my mind. We don't need residential schools for those little 4 year olds running the streets of Saskatoon late at night. We need institutions to lock up the Indian activists and apologists, so that there's an outside chance that the concept of "personal responsibility" will take hold in First Nations communities.


Posted by: Kate | 2004-12-31 9:26:38 AM


"We need institutions to lock up the Indian activists and apologists, so that there's an outside chance that the concept of "personal responsibility" will take hold in First Nations communities."

Great Show there Kate. Lock us all up! What a champion of human rights you are!
If people say things you disagree with, you advocate institutionalizing them and imprisoning them! You know - that could qualify as hate-speech against Aboriginals under the Criminal Code.

I Hope Ezra keeps your post intact. Some of my less libertarian Indian friends are going to be very interested in reading your words Kate. Maybe they will file a complaint with the Saskatoon RCMP against you, and the Western Standard.

Of course I personally find "anti-hate" laws to be repugnant, but I seem to recall you didn't have a problem with it, when you were cheerleading for Michael Moore to be locked up for excercising free speech.

Have fun with the gendarmes!

I knew sooner or later one of your bigots would step over the line like this and show your fascist colours!


Posted by: MWW | 2004-12-31 1:30:25 PM


heh heh heh.....

Posted by: Kate | 2004-12-31 2:51:27 PM


"Heh heh heh....." Kate chuckled to herself after advocating for the institutionalization and locking up of Aboriginal activists for expressing opinions that she disagrees with.

Thank you very much Kate for demonstrating once again why the Conservative Reform Alliance Party will never be taken seriously or elected to office at any point in my lifetime in Canada! It's people like you that make that a reality!

Keep up the good work, [personal attack edited out by moderator]!

Here it is Ladies and Gentlemen!
The So-Cons of Canada's _new_ Platform for Aboriginal Policy in Canada "If we don't like what the Indians are saying - that's ok - we'll just lock them up! That will teach them to get Uppity!"

Beautiful Kate! Absolutley Beautiful! - Thanks for being so honest about the depths of your depraved thinking!

Posted by: MWW | 2004-12-31 3:11:58 PM


Glad to see you've posted my picture as an example of the kind of person you would like to see locked up and institutionalized Kate. Just keep piling it on dear! This just gets better and better.

What's next? Are you going to start bragging again about how you flamed off a blind woman in braile?

http://www.acepilots.com/mt/archives/000601.html

What a darling you are! And so wonderfully representative of "your kind of people".

Posted by: MWW | 2004-12-31 3:21:42 PM


"...the Conservative Reform Alliance Party will never be taken seriously or elected to office". Doesn't sound like any current Canadian political party that I know. Do you have the right country?

Posted by: Michael Dabioch | 2004-12-31 3:29:20 PM


"Doesn't sound like any current Canadian political party that I know" --

Sorry if your favourite political party has a branding issue due to people like Randy White, Sheryl Gallant, and now Kate McMillan. Anybody who knows anything about Canadian politics knows exactly what political party I am speaking of when I say "Canadian Reform Alliance Party" (The CRAP party) ie the current "Conservatives".


Posted by: MWW | 2004-12-31 3:48:33 PM


Unlike you, Meaghan, I treat all human beings as equals - be they blind, be they Indian, Chinese or Scottish. That means flaming them when they've asked for it (or have been dishing it out themselves) and that means holding Indian parents to the same basic standards of child care that is expected of any other.

You, Meaghan Walker-Willians are a symptom of the problem. An enabler, a pontificator and an apologist who rides like a parasite on the back of the soft racism of lowered expectations.

Posted by: Kate | 2004-12-31 4:02:32 PM


"I treat all human beings as equals" --

Ah so the Indian glue-sniffing joke on your blog, and the advocacy of locking up Indian activists and spokespeople, and the re-development of residential schools for Indian children is not specifically directed at Aboriginal people and is just for fun!

Tell it to the RCMP Kate. As far as I know, at least 2 complaints have been made in the past hour or so about your witicisms concerning Indians.

You shouldn't have a problem with that, eh Kate?
People being locked up for excercising free-speech? That's just what you have been calling for isn't it? It will be really great to see you get a taste of your own sick medicine.

In the meanwhile - I've got to get ready to go out to dinner with my Husband for New Years Eve.
Some of us have a life that doesn't revolved around obsessive compulsive blogging.

Posted by: MWW | 2004-12-31 4:12:34 PM


A few comments...

I'm white, so I probably don't 'get' a lot of stuff that affects the Aboriginal community. That being said, I'm a recovering alkie with a lot of friends in the same boat. I have scores alkie friends who just happen to be native, and they're every bit as capable of affecting a positive change in their lives and their communities as non-natives.

I do recognize the symptoms of what Kate is talking about in another community, though, and that is the one that renders aid to the mentally ill. The mentally ill in this country are surrounded by a cult of victimhood that impedes any meaningful recovery. Worse, there are those in the roles of 'helper' and 'caregiver' who purposefully perpetuate the cult of victimhood in their own self-interest. If the ill get better then the caregivers are out pounding pavement looking for a new line of work.

In addition to being an alkie I'm also a schizophrenic. One who was written off by all of the 'helpers' and 'caregivers' I was surrounded by. They were ready to consign me to a 'managed' life in a group home, and told me that was the best I could expect. Being on the ass end of 'lowered expectations' isn't pretty.

You know what? That didn't happen. My participation in a certain 12 step program surrounded me with people who believed that anyone could overcome the insurmountable with some hard work, some honesty, and a bit of faith. They kicked my ass hard until I was out of my rut and no longer thought of myself as a victim.

Thanks to them, I have a wonderful wife, kid, career, and a good income to keep everything going. I have done well as a technician, author, and trainer, and am now gaining recognition internationally as an accomplished photographer.

This is all because people cared enough about me to treat me like an equal and give me the tough love I needed when I needed it. People who Kate reminds me of very much.

My two cents. Happy New Year, everyone, and Happy New Year especially to you Kate. The world needs more people like you.

Posted by: Sean | 2004-12-31 5:00:01 PM


No dice, Sean. MWW has called AA a "cult" in these comments before, so your story carries no weight with her.

As for having something better to do than indulge in "obsessive compulsive blogging" -- you'd think a self-described libertarian would have better things to do on New Years Eve than file complaints with the RCMP "hate crimes" unit and google the names of other commenters like a good comrade.

Maybe I've misread this thread, but it seems to me that Norman wasn't the one who raised the issue of race vis the Vancouver woman. He mentioned that she was a drug dealer, but not that she was white.

Posted by: Kathy | 2004-12-31 7:15:05 PM


"The world needs more people like you."

I second that, Sean. Kate is number one. Happy New Year to all who blog and comment at the Western Standard.

Posted by: MikeP | 2004-12-31 7:16:11 PM


There's a whole lot of crappy parents out there. None have them right to kill,maim or put their cildren in harm's way but "No Responsibilty Crowd" is in full throated cry. I'm sick of supporting that attitude.

Posted by: circe | 2004-12-31 7:18:28 PM


"No Responsibilty Crowd" -

I would just like to mention this.
If Kate or Kathy, Mike or Sean can find a single instance of me advocating a lack of personal responsibility, for anybody - please feel free to post it. It is just a stupid, and far-fetched smear that Kate has manufactured out of whole cloth.

Glad to see the GUTLESS lobby of the Shotgun in full-swing - over her "Lock-Em Up" comments.

Even if I did advocate "No personal responsibility" (which I did not ever do) that's hardly a justification for a bigot like Kate to call for or advocate for myself or other Aboriginal Activists to be institutionalized and locked up. I'll leave her advocacy of recreating residential school horrors for another time.

That is a a point that none of you gutless sheep are even bothering to address. So obviously, her comments are pleasing to you or you agree with them. Either that or you see nothing wrong with what she said. (Which is very telling, in and of itself)

I will take now -- as noted for the record that Charles McDonald, Kathy Shaidle, Sean, and Mike P are all in the catagory of sanctioning and approving of her hate propoganda in advocating for Aboriginal Activists, Spokespeople to be locked up and institutionalized.

Glad to see everybody position made so perfectly clear. 5 genocidal fascists out of the woodwork. Can we see some more?

Posted by: MWW | 2004-12-31 7:48:39 PM


That was a short dinner.


Posted by: Kate | 2004-12-31 8:21:52 PM


"That was a short dinner."

Yes it was.
Sonny's BBQ here in Ocala isn't exactly fine dining. But it's amazingly good. My husband and I had a lovely time. After he is done catching up on some work for our business we are going to cuddle up in bed with my son, eat popcorn and watch Monty Python.

Have fun with your uh.... keyboard and the dogs Ms.Police-State-Kate.

Posted by: MWW | 2004-12-31 8:37:04 PM


You really should lay off the Black Magic chocolates during the holidays, MWW. Puts a bit more squeak in your chalk than normal, yaknowumsayin?

Posted by: rick mcginnis | 2004-12-31 8:40:23 PM


rick:

Are you dissing squeaky chalk?

You genocidal fascist.

Posted by: surly | 2004-12-31 9:22:25 PM


Meaghan's lying. She's trotted off to comment on my blog, in between those idyllic "has a life" moments, one presumes.

Posted by: Kate | 2004-12-31 9:36:32 PM


QUOTE:
“A cultural change is needed to make it happen. Canadians need to say goodbye to reading mediocrity. Goodbye to third place on international reading tests, the ranking that this country's 15-year-olds achieved on the recently released 2003 OECD test. (Four other countries were roughly tied with Canada in third.) If third is a dismal result in ice hockey, it should be a dismal result in reading, too….By the thousands, children are playing hockey 10, 15, even 20 hours a week, including the interminable drives to and from the rink. When was the last time a child spent 20, 15 or even 10 hours in one week with books?”
UNQUOTE

There are few avenues in Canada to becoming wealthy by hard work and entrepreneurship in Canada any more, which is why so many people gamble that their kid can make the NHL. It's also why so many people gamble in casinos, line up in the mall for lottery tickets, and sell drugs (which is why they gamble with their kids' lives by keeping attack dogs)

The only "cultural change" that will work is for Canadians to say goodbye to their pathetic public school system, and pony up the bucks to pay for a real education. Once you cut out the education bureaucracy and cut taxes, you'll find that those bucks will go a long way. In a country with low taxes and minimal government interference and corruption, you'll also find a million and one ways to put an education to productive use.

Posted by: Justzumgai | 2004-12-31 9:39:55 PM


You have a filthy mind Kate! Accusing me on your blog of some sort of impropriety with my son? You truly are depraved.

Posted by: MWW | 2004-12-31 9:41:40 PM


"I will take now -- as noted for the record that Charles McDonald, Kathy Shaidle, Sean, and Mike P are all in the catagory of sanctioning and approving of her hate propoganda in advocating for Aboriginal Activists, Spokespeople to be locked up and institutionalized."

If you can find anything anywhere in any of my writings where I say this (www.polspy.ca), please feel free to point it out.

I'm throwing my support behind Kate because of her advocacy for Canada's aboriginals. She wants to see them accorded the same respect received by non natives and for them to receive equal treatment under the law.

Or do you have a problem with that? Do you think our country's laws and policies should be based on race?

"5 genocidal fascists out of the woodwork."

Speaking of libel...

Posted by: Sean | 2004-12-31 11:28:34 PM


"If you can find anything anywhere in any of my writings where I say this (www.polspy.ca), please feel free to point it out."

The part where you support her comments about institutionalizing and locking up Aboriginal activists and spokespeople.

If you don't agree with that - it would be a good idea to express it... anytime now.

Posted by: MWW | 2005-01-01 1:40:36 AM


"The part where you support her comments about institutionalizing and locking up Aboriginal activists and spokespeople."

Perhaps that's a bit extreme -- I'd be satisfied with cutting off their public funding and removing their charitable status. Even the most cancerous tumour is doomed once its blood supply is cut off.

Tell me, if the problems faced by the Aboriginal community were to disappear tonight, were would you find your next paycheque? Or would there even be one? If not, what exactly is your interest in solving the problem? Or does it lie within the problem itself?

I suspect the latter.

Posted by: Sean | 2005-01-01 2:43:47 AM


"were would you find your next paycheque"

I've never worked in any Indian Act Industry job. Nor have I, in my role as an Aboriginal Accountability activist, accepted governmental assistance or grants, or any of the other claims being made about me by Kate and her blogging jack-officers. Such comments are absolutely sheer and unadulterated untruths.

I currently, and for the past 9 months -- run a very profitable business with my husband here in Florida. www.ontimeprocessservice.com We will be bringing this business home to the reserve to employ people there, as soon as Immigration Canada will let my husband legally live in the country.

Sean, I suspect you don't know the first thing about what I have actually advocated with respect to Aboriginal Policy. Maybe you should look into it - instead of just knee-jerk repetition of whatever nonsense, lies and libel that "Police- State-Kate" spews about me.

For instance - the lies that:

1)I Am not actually Aboriginal. Tell it to the Registrar of Indians, or the INS. I've got my blood quantum proof and lineage back 15 generations to Somena, Kuper Island, Nanaimo and Sliammon. Poor Kate doesn't realize she's just shoved her big foot in her mouth by perpetrating yet another stereotype about what "Aboriginal" people are supposed to look like

2) That I am somehow employed by or working in the Indian Act industry. Not true. Never has been. This is just a plain falsehood.

3) That I have engaged in some sort of impropriety with my son. This is just vicious and disgusting libel.

4) That I am a glue-sniffing Indian.

5) That I am opposed to self-sufficiency and responsibility for Aboriginal People

Are just some of what Police-State-Kate has been babbling on about this evening.

But you feel free to go right and ahead and _support_ Police-State-Kate with her lies, smears, misrepresentations, stereotypes, bigotry, racism and totalitarian fascism towards Aboriginal People by advocating that I and other Aboriginal activists be institutionalized and jailed for daring to disagree with the "recieved wisdom" of the Can-So-Con fringe full-time blogging Cranks and Kook brigade.

Posted by: MWW | 2005-01-01 3:18:30 AM


Sean

I'm not sure what you mean by equal treatment under the law.

Under the highest law in the land, the Constitution, aboriginal Canadians have rights that non-aboriginal Canadians do not have.

Posted by: Norman Spector | 2005-01-01 5:25:52 AM


Look out Rick, someone's bound to see your reference to "Black Magic" as a slur against African American wiccans.

To the men on this blog: please be informed that when one women pointedly mentions her "husband and their New Year's plans" to another woman, it's considered a passive aggressive "dis" ("I've got a man and you don't"). I'm delighted to perform these translation services absolutely free.

But Meaghan likes Monty Python so she can't be all bad! There's hope for all of us. However, she has helped drive me away from this blog for good, so that will give her one more notch for her belt. Have fun, guys and gals. I quit.

Posted by: Kathy | 2005-01-01 8:56:52 AM


"Under the highest law in the land, the Constitution, aboriginal Canadians have rights that non-aboriginal Canadians do not have."

This I have noticed. From where I'm standing, this additional protection looks to have the effect of shielding many natives from the consequences of their actions.

Nasty stuff.

So is living in a country where people are judged in a court of law more so on the basis of race than their actions.

Posted by: Sean | 2005-01-01 9:47:04 AM


Sean

Well, assuming you live in Canada, you'd best get used to it, because ss. 25 and 35 of the Charter are here to stay.

Complaining about the Canadian Charter is a reactionary, not a conservative position--though I'll concede it's not as reactionary as Mark Steyn complaining about the US Bill of Rights, which is now into its third century.

Posted by: Norman Spector | 2005-01-01 9:55:15 AM


"Under the highest law in the land, the Constitution, aboriginal Canadians have rights that non-aboriginal Canadians do not have."

Posted by: Norman Spector | January 1, 2005 05:

If that's the law then there's no law. All Canadians should be equal under the law. No special grants, no special laws and no special group interest laws. Equality period.

Posted by: circe | 2005-01-01 9:59:56 AM


MWW:

1. Somewhere out there is a man whose blood/DNA proves he is my father. This is the case 'technically', anyhow -- I don't consider him to be my father. I have never met the man.

You are technically an Indian. Whether you are 'really' an Indian depends on the relationship between you and other Indians. I am not qualified to comment on that, and as you'll notice, I have not other than the sentence above.

2. I never said you have. So you haven't made *any* money from Indian Activism (from, say, documentaries and book deals) either, and your motives are completely altruistic? You will not be gaining financially from your activism in any way?

If you do not stand to gain financially from your activism then you have my apologies and my compliments.

3. I'm not sure what's up with that and I don't want to comment on it. Your relationship with your son is none of my business.

4. I have never heard that you were. Even if this were the case, I would hardly be able to call you out on it given my own history of substance abuse (almost 13 years clean and sober, thanks).

5. Most of the Indian Activists I have met in the past are quite a bit like the Advocates for the Mentally Ill that I have had the misfortune to meet: they are simply interested in continuing the problem under the guise of helping (although they may believe they are) for the purposes of their own personal and financial gain. It's ugly, but that's how it works.

If you do not meet the qualifications that I have just set forth, again, my apologies.

----

I have been reading Kate's blog for some time now and my support for her is based on her obvious desire to see members of the First Nations living equally beside all other Canadians. She wants them to have equal treatment under the law, see them receive equal respect with non-natives for their accomplishments and equal condemnation for any crimes some of them may commit.

I respect and support that philosophy.

As to the flame war you two have going, I'm not going to get caught in the middle of it. This is not how I am starting out with 2005.

Happy New Year to you.

Posted by: Sean | 2005-01-01 10:11:45 AM


Problem is Norm, I don't believe the Charter provides special protection from the law for Indian parents who neglect and/or abuse their children.

That's a by-product of the guilt peddlars and victim industry leeches. You have to be here in Saskatchewan to believe some of the crap that was offered to explain away Delores Bird and Tamara Keepness this year... and the so-called solutions! One bleeding heart "expert" proposed building all-night basketball gyms so that children would have "somewhere safe to go" at 2 in the morning. She was the same one who protested that you can't "force" an 11 year old drug addict to get help.

WTF???

Political correctness and "First Nations cultural sensitivity" is killing children in this province.

The parents were responsible for the deaths of these children, and the members of the so called "community" around them, the apologists and the activists who blame everyone but the primary caregivers, helped seal their fate.

None of these children should have been in these homes in the first place. The toddlers who drift up and down our streets, the eleven year old prostitutes like Delores Bird, aren't there because the Charter puts them there. They're there because there are few consequences for delinquent parenting, and no political will to face the inevitable charge of "racism" that would result from any meaningful policy change.

As I said on my own blog, if there aren't enough foster homes for these street kids, then build them. Get them into a safe and secure place and introduce them to some semblance of normalacy, and hope for a real education. If boarding schools are good enough for middle and upperclass family, they certainly aren't too good for underprivilaged, neglected First Nations kids.

Posted by: Kate | 2005-01-01 10:23:51 AM


Kate

I agree it's most unlikely any Court would find that there's an aboriginal right to abuse children.

Posted by: Norman Spector | 2005-01-01 10:40:43 AM


Sean, I would email you, but the email link doesn't seem to work from here.

"1. Somewhere out there is a man whose blood/DNA proves he is my father. This is the case 'technically', anyhow -- I don't consider him to be my father. I have never met the man."

We actually have that in common with respect to paternity. My mother committed suicide in 1975. I had been taken from her care in the babyscoop social engineering plan. She actually killed herself by hanging herself with a baby swing. Chalk one up for the "do-gooding" white bureaucrats! She was not forced to give up my older half sister who was 1 year older than me. In fact, she was told by social workers that she couold either give me up, or lose both.

I was placed for adoption. My mother never told anybody who my father was. She was single at the time, and had been dating both a Cowichan man, and a Nanaimo man. I have met both of them. They have both said there is a good chance it's one of them.
But, under Canadian Law at that time with respect to adoption, and Tribal custom, when the father is unaknowledged, the baby is considered full blooded. I have a very good and close relationship with my adopted father, and he is the only father that I want or need.

"You are technically an Indian. Whether you are 'really' an Indian depends on the relationship between you and other Indians. I am not qualified to comment on that, and as you'll notice, I have not other than the sentence above."

(Just the fact that you have written the above indicates to me that you actually have far more knowledge about Aboriginal Culture than many non-natives I have ever met.)
As for that matter:
I have a huge network of relatives throughout Hul'qumi'num Territory. There isn't a Coast Salish Nation that I can visit, where I am not related to somebody. In the customs of our people one is considered "Siem" if they know where they come from, and their lineage. They are considered "Stashum" if they have forgotten, or no longer know. I am Siem. On my grandfather's side of the family we are directly descended from Sq'uaelum - one of the First Cowichan peoples that "fell from the sky" according to the legends and mythology.
The Last Sq'uaelum in our family was my great great grand uncle. My Indian name comes from my mother's grandmother, and that name is from Kuper Island.

The "car-seat cover" that I am wearing in the picture that Kate lampooned me with, is a speakers vest. A speaker is one of the roles in our Big House or Thi Lelum. The last great speaker in our family was Johnny Williams (my great great grandfather) and he was the one who was responsible by keeping Potlatch occuring (after the ban) by incorporating it into funeral rites, which was accepted by the missionaries who had banned our religious practices.

"2. I never said you have. So you haven't made *any* money from Indian Activism (from, say, documentaries and book deals) either, and your motives are completely altruistic? You will not be gaining financially from your activism in any way?"

I am not an altruist, nor do I claim to be. As a libertarian in philosopy, I view altruism to be a maudelin sentiment. During the 5 years of non-stop activism I poured more time, money and effort into fighting corruption on our reserve than any money I may have _earned_ writing for the National Post, Winnipeg Free Press, Cowichan Newsleader or Vancouver Province. A publishing company was interested in a book deal. I never really had the time to actually write the book. I was however strongly urged to do so, and assisted with the effort by my friend Gordon Gibson, a Sr.Fellow at the Fraser Institute.

I've gone broke doing what I was doing. I did it, because I value the well being of my relatives and I abhor governmental abuse of human beings, in any form or fashion or incarnation that it may take. Contrary to the BS spouted by Police-State-Kate, unlike many spokespeople in Aboriginal politics I have been extremely open and condenming of corruption in Indian Government which can and has lead to horrible situations like children being abused, neglected. Part of the reason I was asked to write about such issues is because there are damn few Aboriginal spokespeople who were willing to be candid about the problems of corruption, nepotism, graft, collusion in Indian Politics and with the DIA.

"If you do not stand to gain financially from your activism then you have my apologies and my compliments." - I would estimate that for every dollar I earned by writing, I spent at least 2 on fighting the corruption, legal fees, long-distance to challenge the Department of Indian Affairs, or assist other Aboriginal Peoples who were also fighting corruption, and were looking for advice on more effective ways to stop it.

"3. I'm not sure what's up with that and I don't want to comment on it. Your relationship with your son is none of my business."

Police-State-Kate intimated that I had engaged in some sort of sexual impropriety with my son. I printed her website off, before she changed her message into something that looks just slightly less than an out and out libel. Since that is a serious accusation of criminal wrong doing, especially involving sexual activity with a minor, I take that comment very very seriously. So does her ISP.

"4. I have never heard that you were. Even if this were the case, I would hardly be able to call you out on it given my own history of substance abuse (almost 13 years clean and sober, thanks)."

That's excellent. My experience with AA is as a member of Alanon. My son's father is a recovering alcoholic, and my adopted mother is a practicing alcoholic. I know that AA works. I personally had a bad experience with people in the program that my son's father was involved in who did not take the 12 and 12 seriously and established a cult of personality with a "Clancy.I" type sponsor. Resultingly, I am very cautious about AA and the tendancy for it to be turned into a cult that is emotionally as well as spiritually abusive to members of the program.

"5. Most of the Indian Activists I have met in the past are quite a bit like the Advocates for the Mentally Ill that I have had the misfortune to meet: they are simply interested in continuing the problem under the guise of helping (although they may believe they are) for the purposes of their own personal and financial gain. It's ugly, but that's how it works."

The entire social development programs of any given Indian band government is exactly as you describe. My policy in "assisting" people was simple. Most of the assistance involved common sense things like writing a letter to the Chief and Council over a concern that they had, who to contact in the DIA to address concerns. What their rights were with respect to issues of Band Officials using welfare and dependency as a threat against people for speaking out, or advising them when seeing a lawyer would be in their best interest with respect to a land claim.

After a year, I developed the policy of not helping people who would not make any effort themselves to solve a problem. I often was a taxi-service, food-bank, letter drafting, and photocopying service. So long as people did some of the leg work themselves, I was happy to help.
The rate of illiteracy on our reserve was shocking. I would often have elders call me, ask me to come over to read some letter they got from the Band and explain it to them in a way that they understood. Most of the elders on our reserve had great difficulty with illiteracy - a legacy of their "education" in the residential schools. A Grade 3 education was about the standard.

Why did I get involved in the first place? It was my late-grandfather that started it. He despaired over the conditions on our reserve, the kids suffering, the corruption, nepotism and graft. I really thought that when he got me into this, that it would take 18 months tops to straighten things out. I thought that if you got involved, rolled up your sleeves, wrote letters, attended meetings that issues would be resolved. After 5 years of it - watching elders with the same concerns die, waiting for a response from the DIA and Band government - and watching the machinery of the DIA collude with, aid and abet the corruption, and working myself to the point of physical, emotional and mental exhaustion I had to pack it in.

There is such an immense amount of corruption in the Indian Act system that one person trying to stop it, is a little like trying to use a portable hand-held fan to stave off a hurricane. The only solution I can see is for a complete and total destruction of the Department of Indian Affairs, as well as an end to government financing of Aboriginal affairs. That money rarely benefits the average Aboriginal person on the reserve. It mostly gets gobbled up by DIA bureacrats in kickbacks and contracts, and the elite Indian Act Government leadership who act as little better than sock-puppet chiefs at the whim of the Minister of Indian Affairs. I saw Matthew Cooncome be absolutley savaged for daring to refuse to play the game, while Phil Fontaine -- who was actually LITERALLY in bed with Jane Stewart when she was the Minister of Indian Affairs win the last election in a land-slide. There were only 200 or so Indian Chiefs who voted for Matthew. That is, in my experience, the exact number of honest and scrupulous Indian Chiefs.

As a means for Aboriginal people to finance their own governance and programs, I propose a simple solution of erradicating taxation on Indian Reserves for ALL people. This could result in Aboriginal Economic Development on a scale similar to Hong Kong. The full policy is elaborated on at length in my working paper on the "Coast Salish Free Trade Model".

The only way that Aboriginal People are going to become "equal" to Canadians in terms of economic well-being is to erradicate the generational dependency and poverty pimping of the Federal Government.

So Sean, There you have it. Thats the short message of 5 years of effort. If you can find another Aboriginal activist in Canada that is advocating these things, candid about the corruption infecting our reserves and is firmly pro-capitalist, and free-market, I'd love to know about them. I can only wish them luck at this point. They are going to need it.

Posted by: MWW | 2005-01-01 2:26:19 PM


"Mark Steyn complaining about the US Bill of Rights, which is now into its third century." ---

Norman, WTF? Did Steyn really do that? What was it that he found objectionable? I'm burning with curiosity.

Posted by: MWW | 2005-01-01 3:01:08 PM


Check out Steyn's column in the current Western Standard

Posted by: Norman Spector | 2005-01-01 3:31:55 PM


Are you sure its the Western Standard?? I see no mention of the Bill of rights in his ruling class column.

Posted by: MikeP | 2005-01-01 4:17:28 PM


"All Canadians should be equal under the law" --

Do you agree that the Canadian Government/Crown should honour the contractual obligations that it has entered into with any individuals, groups or entities, regardless of their race, creed, gender or religion?

If so, then you would be supporting the honouring of Treaties, signed between the Crown and Aboriginal Peoples prior to Confederation.

If you don't believe that the Canadian Government is honour bound to meet it's contractual obligations because the people it contracted with are Aboriginals, then that is hardly a position of "equality, under the law" - now is it?

Posted by: MWW | 2005-01-01 4:32:36 PM


"Unglued" means "unhinged", as in to lose composure, or become temporarily deranged, etc. "On Glue", or "Off the Glue" I might have interpreted as having some glue-sniffing connotation, but assuredly not "Unglued". MWW definitely lost composure, and lost it quickly.

MWW: "Maybe we need to set up residential schools for white kids"

Kate: "We don't need residential schools for those little 4 year olds running the streets of Saskatoon late at night."

I can see who introduced the idea of race and residential schools to the discussion.

Kate: "We need institutions to lock up the Indian activists and apologists"

Look up "tongue-in-cheek" sometime, MWW. Regardless, the concept of restraining the unbounded depradations of the victimization industrialists is a sound one.

If Kate made an off-colour comment about a family relaxing together with TV and snacks for New Year's because the venue happened to be a bed, it was very much poor taste and worth an apology, but hardly criminal. OTOH, if the majority deem it criminal, I think it's time to write off this country and emigrate because no good will come of travelling that vector any further.

Posted by: lrC | 2005-01-01 5:01:50 PM


"Do you agree that the Canadian Government/Crown should honour the contractual obligations that it has entered into with any individuals, groups or entities, regardless of their race, creed, gender or religion?"

I'd say that would depend on the nature of a particular contract, not the race of its signatories. If a contract is a piece of crap that does more harm than good, by all means tear it up.

Posted by: Sean | 2005-01-01 6:18:32 PM


"I'd say that would depend on the nature of a particular contract, not the race of its signatories. If a contract is a piece of crap that does more harm than good, by all means tear it up."

That's not a legal way to resolve disputes concerning contractual obligations/duties or agreements. One party is not allowed to just unilaterially say "We don't like this arrangement anymore, so we are not bound to adhere to what we agreed to".

That's breach of contract. The problem for the Government of Canada/Crown is that it did enter into contracts/treaties with Aboriginal People when it was in it's interest to do so. The fact that the terms of those treaties are no longer convenient for the Canadian Government, long after they have reaped the rewards and profited well from these Treaties/Contracts does not absolve the Crown/Government from the terms of those treaties.

That is why, to this date in time, for the Canadian Government to be freed from the terms of those contracts/treaties, it must only do so with the express consent of the Aboriginal People whom it treated with. Aboriginal "Rights" are not really "rights" in the strictest sense of the word. They are more like legal permissions and contractual obligations.

A case in point would be the recent court case involving the Samson Cree. Billions of dollars in Oil Royalties were supposed to be held and used in Trust for the Samson Cree. The Canadian Government violated the trust that it was supposed to uphold. The consequences being that the Canadian Government is now on the hook for Billions to those people. The first payment of over a Billion dollars should be hitting the bank accounts of the Samson Cree in a couple of months.

If the Canadian Government had not missapropriated those funds, and engaged in such practices for decades, it would not have cost taxpayers so dearly today.

And easier way to think of Aboriginal Law, and Aboriginal "rights" with respect to Treaties is simply to put it in the context of Torts.

You have probably heard a great deal about the issue of "feduciary obligation" on the part of the Government. The feduciary obligation was actually a creation of the courts to try and mitigate future cases (like the current Samson Cree) and avoid creating billions of dollars in debts to Aboriginals, by forcing the Government to cease exploiting the resources and lands of Aboriginal Peoples. It was supposed to be a check and balance against the kinds of wrongs that are now being specifically addressed by the Samson Cree Case.

The Unfortunate reality for the Canadian Government is that many of the methods it has used with respect to upholding it's obligations under various treaties were not carried out properly decades ago, when the costs involved in meeting those obligations would have been much more affordable. So, their ultimate efforts have been one of attempting to get Aboriginals to accept lesser terms and conditions, buying off corrupt leaders to keep the Aboriginal Peoples in check, and "assimilating" Indians to get them to legally disenfranchise themselves from their legal entitlements under those contracts.

British Columbia is in an extremely tenuous position currently because only the Douglas Treaties (comprising 5% of the land base of the province) were ever entered into. The BC Government's solution to the problem was to deny that Aboriginal People in BC ever owned their lands. Actually, that wasn't their first position. James Douglas actually advocated very strongly for the existence of Aboriginal Title, and tried very hard to get the Government to sign Treaties to properly and legally dispose of Land Claims.

The British Government at that time directed the British Columbia officals to use the revenues they earned from oil,coal,timber,mineral resources to legally Treat with the Aboriginal Peoples for their lands. This was never done, for the same reasons I described above. Possibly because at the turn of the century, the population of Native people had been so reduced, that it seemed likely that there would be no more Aboriginal Peoples to have to worry about if they waited long enough.

Unfortunaltey - the Aboriginal Peoples did not die off, and as such their ownership of their lands and the resources on those lands, still remains intact, and as such protected under the Royal Proclamation, as described in the Charter Sec 25.

If you have a problem with these issues, I would suggest that you take it up with the Crown, and specifically the British Crown. If you read the Royal Proclamation, it was King George's own declaration of law that created the current legal reality that natives and non-natives are dealing with. King George declared that Aboriginal Peoples were his subjects, and under his protection, and that, on their lands, they were not to be molested, hindered, or persectured. Further, no sale of Indian Lands could take place unless it was done with the permission and involvement of his agents, specifically assigned to the job.

Canada only became Canada by accepting those conditions and contractual obligations/treaties that had existed prior to Confederation and the existence of the Charter. That is why Sec 25 and 35 are in the Constitution, and that's why they can't really be removed.

I suppose they could be - but the legal cost to the Canadian Government and taxpayers would far exceed even the 6.8 Billion a year currently going out there. This is why the courts have time and time again urged that the Federal Government "negotiate" rather than "litigate".

The courts have been very clear on this point. It's simply not in the best interest of the Canadian Government to try and welch on it's contractual obligations. If it does - the courts will, as a matter of the principles of law have to judge in favour of the Aboriginals.

Posted by: MWW | 2005-01-01 7:48:40 PM


--"Unglued" means "unhinged", as in to lose composure, or become temporarily deranged, etc. "On Glue", or "Off the Glue" I might have interpreted as having some glue-sniffing connotation, but assuredly not "Unglued". MWW definitely lost composure, and lost it quickly." --

I'm not buying that. Police-State-Kate is very specific with her insults and the little smears and jabs she makes. She knew exactly what the insult would be by using that particular word.

It would be a little like calling a Jewish person "Big Nosey" - or putting a picture up of a black person eating watermelon, Or calling an aisan person "slanted" in their perspective.

It was intended to be as insulting as it possibly could be. See the other refference on the picture to 'Grey Owl'.

So, I'm supposed to take the "lock up the activists" message as a witty remark eh?

How bout if somebody came on this board, (as I mentioned to Ezra in email) and started talking about how Jewish leaders, spokespeople and apologists for acts against palestinians be locked up for supporting Israel.

That's a knee slapper right? It's as depraved as what Police-State-Kate said.

My husband has watched this exchange with his mouth nearly hitting the floor. To his perspective It's amazing how in the United States, mainstream republicans wouldnt dream of making such comments about black people. Look what happened with Trent Lott when he made the very innocent remark that "Wouldnt it have been great if Strom Thurmond had won the election for president back in 1948."
The Republicans drummed him out in a matter of days.

In Canada, however, it's par for the course for some so-called "conservatives" to make snide remarks about Aboriginals.

I'm not talking about mainstream conservatives. I'm talking about the wacko-fringe crank element of the party. For instance, Stephen Harper didn't take to kindly to it when Jim Pankiw spouted his nonsense about Aboriginals. Good riddance!

Perhaps in the incestous little can-con blogging world such comments as "locking up Aboriginal activists/spokespeople" are funny. I assure you that they would not be met with such good humour by mainstream Canadam or by serious and dedicated Conservative politicians who try very hard to keep their image from being tarred.

I think Tom Flannagan would go ballistic if an Conservative MP even attempted a joke like Police-State-Kate's pathetic attempt at "humour"

Posted by: MWW | 2005-01-01 8:11:37 PM


"That's not a legal way to resolve disputes concerning contractual obligations/duties or agreements. One party is not allowed to just unilaterially say "We don't like this arrangement anymore, so we are not bound to adhere to what we agreed to"."

There's a big world of difference between what's legal and what's right, isn't there? Apartheid used to be legal in South Africa. Slavery used to be legal in the U.S. I'm sure a whackload of contracts got screwed up when both ended. I'm sure many of the obligations were governmental in nature as well.

Many of the finer points of this debate are lost on me. Here's what I do see...

I live in a very nice housing division on the edge of Edmonton in a modest, yet comfortable 'starter home'. Exactly fifteen minutes drive west of me sits the Enoch Nation, a place that just oozes misery and squalor. The buildings are ramshackle and run down. It looks something like Beirut here in Canada.

I want the people living fifteen minutes down the road from me to be able to live in a nice home like I do. If that means tearing up contracts, discarding traditions, letting go of culture, whatever it takes, I'm for it.

Nobody should have to live like that.

Posted by: Sean | 2005-01-01 8:26:27 PM


Meaghan do you ever give up with the bullshit.
You purposely come on here to nit pick so you can get your days attention. You do your damndest to belittle, name call, and stifle any debate. I dont purport to be educated like you but even with my pea brain I understood Indian activists and apologists are part of the problem and Kate was telling them to get the hell out of the way. All I can say is you are ruining this blog. Its a new year so for Christ sake give it a new start and see if you can be civilized. If not, start your own blog and then you can be front and centre all the time.

Posted by: MikeP | 2005-01-01 9:07:29 PM


>I'm not buying that.

The chip on your shoulder is not my problem. If some people wish to cater to their own imagined guilt and to curry favour in selected chat parlours by helping you carry it, that is also not my problem.

Posted by: lrC | 2005-01-01 9:21:05 PM


MWW your faux outrage reminds me of that silly controversy of a couple of years ago when someone used the word niggardly and was accused of racism.

Posted by: ken the ex-canuck | 2005-01-01 10:03:03 PM


"If that means tearing up contracts, discarding traditions, letting go of culture, whatever it takes, I'm for it" --

Shouldn't that decision be up to the Aboriginal Peoples themselves? Or do you not trust that Aboriginal People are capable of making such decisions about their future and their lives?

You do know that South Africa's Apartheid system was modeled after Canada's Indian policy don't you?

Posted by: MWW | 2005-01-01 11:27:46 PM


"I understood Indian activists and apologists are part of the problem and Kate was telling them to get the hell out of the way." --

No Mike P, if that's all she said, this whole matter would not be an issue. What she actually said was that Canada needs institutions to lock up Aboriginal activists/spokespeople/apologists.

Now who is being an apologist?

Posted by: MWW | 2005-01-01 11:38:48 PM


"Shouldn't that decision be up to the Aboriginal Peoples themselves? Or do you not trust that Aboriginal People are capable of making such decisions about their future and their lives?"

I think it should be up to every single Canadian to make this decision, and put to us in the form of a national referendum. We're all in this together.

"You do know that South Africa's Apartheid system was modeled after Canada's Indian policy don't you?"

Nope, but it wouldn't surprise me. I did have a roommate from SA some sixteen years ago. He came over to Canada as a refugee and was covered from head to toe in scars from being mauled by police dogs back home. He was constantly amazed that he was sharing a house with a white guy. A neat fellow and a great Canadian now. :-)

Posted by: Sean | 2005-01-01 11:46:13 PM



The comments to this entry are closed.