(Originally Posted on my Facebook on March 1,2011)
Over the last two (2) months the world has seen much protest and democratic movement for reform in the way of governing within the Middle East. With the toppling of tightly controlled regimes, by dictators, in Tunisia and Egypt, movements have developed, and spread, to Algeria, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Yemen, and Oman (to name a few). The developed world cheers as these changes occur, knowing full well that, for the most part, the citizens of these nations must push for these changes themselves. All the west can do is call for these regimes to remove themselves from control, or condemn the brutal attack that the ‘leaders’ of these nations do to their own people – such as in Libya.
I too congratulate the people of these states in pushing for change and democratic reform – an increase in the voice of the people, in my mind, is always a good thing – but they must also remember to be careful of the tyranny of the majority, which we in the west, who come from minorities, have learned as our democracies developed.
However, while Canada, Australia, and other colonial established states approve and support these changes in governance, and majority of its citizens, there are people within their own ‘borders’ who continue to be denied this idea of democracy. Yes, I am talking about, in Canada specifically, First Nations people and their elected officials. While many in Canada push for the idea of democratic reform and human rights – specifically first generation (civil and political rights) in places like China (Tibet), Iran, various African countries, and other middle-eastern countries – First Nations people continue to have their ability to have democratic representation within their own Chief and Councils is thwarted by the state of Canada and its government – more specifically Indian Affairs and it’s Minister.
A History not Taught:
A vast majority of Indigenous cultures that share treaties with the British Crown, which is represented by the Canadian government, had various forms of ‘consensus’ governments that were done so in a ‘democratic’ sense. For example, although majority of Canadians learn that there were hereditary Chiefs who controlled their people like despots, the truth is that they were held accountable by various people. The Huadenshaune, who had Chiefs, had clan mothers who always had a final decision in what their Chief decided – or, like Cabinet Ministers in Canada, offered suggestions to their Chief. Furthermore, meetings were held with their tribe members to come to a consensus on decision making. On top of this, the clan mother’s had the right to remove a Chief from their position if they believed they were not doing an effective job – not to mention they also could decide that the next in line to become Chief, due to hereditary ideals, was not sufficient, or efficient, enough to be the leader. This entire process, like a vast majority of other Indigenous groups, allowed male and female members, no matter their possible hierarchal status, to be involved in the decision making – far before the Canadian state allowed this for non-white Christian males.
For Indigenous governments, this changed as British Subjects, and then the Canadian state, began to gain prominence and more control in what is now North America, and Canada. With the enactment of the Indian Act in the 1870s, the Canadian state began to exert control, more fully, on First Nations governance. As time passed, their systems of government were forced to ‘westernize.’ Disenfranchising the female members of the tribes, and in some cases thus stripping the total governance ideals of many of them – such as the Huadenshaune. Furthermore, the Indian Act allowed complete control of First Nations governances by the Canadian government, despite legal binding treaties that expressed they, and the British Crown, would not intervene in their governing forms. Eventually the Canadian state controlled all aspects of First Nations government, despite no agreement by First Nations to allow them to do so – it was completely imposed. This control included complete decision making in the distribution of finances, jobs, as well as who was elected in the positions of the Chief and its councillors.
To this day, the results for Chiefs and Councillors that are elected in First Nation territory are finalized by Indian Affairs. Thus, the Indian Affairs ministry has the ability to deny the results of an election if they so choose – which they have done many times in the past when the results showed someone winning who was more traditional and who would challenge the Canadian state. On top of this, the Chief and Councils can be considered like vassal states due to the strings, majority of the time, being pulled by Indian Affairs, and the Canadian government. All decisions that are made are finalized and approved or disapproved by this bureaucracy – whether a majority in a First Nations community agrees or disagrees with a decision.
On top of this, Indian Affairs continues to deny the ability of First Nations communities to decide if they would prefer to return to a traditional form of consensus governments, how long a term is for Chief and Council, and what forms of recall and accountability that those who elect them can use. This is a major problem as it affects the accountability of First Nations governments. For the few that are corrupt, as long as Indian Affairs does not notice the siphoning of band money into the pockets of their Chief, it can continue on – especially if they have good relations with the government. This is a common occurrence, even when members of the community may know of this, and speak out against it, for years before a media outlet picks up on it. This then spirals into a stereotype of First Nations governments being corrupt and undemocratic – yet Canada, Canadians, and the media outlets do not realize that one of their own Bureaucracy allows this to occur.
The Sad Truth:
This situation still exists today – in 2011. First Nations people continue to be denied the ability to hold their elected officials accountable, what form of democracy they would like to see enacted, what decisions will be made for them and how it will be done, and to have their voices properly heard. In a democratic world where people can speak out about a government, and in Canada where citizens of a city, province, and government, have the ability to some form of recall on their elected officials, why does Canada continue to deny the same ability to First Nations people? Why are First Nations peoples access to a ‘democratic form of government’ – a form that the west not only adopted from the Greek and Roman ideal of government, but also the Haudenshaune form; that’s right, American democracy and the idea of universality are First Nation ideas and forms of governing – denied?
Thus, in a time where we as global citizens, as humans, see change being pushed in Muslim Nations, with Canada and countries like it endorsing this and cheering it on, I believe it is time to allow First Nations people the same right to democracy. It is time to allow First Nations the right to self-government, a right to self-determination, a right to accountability of their elected officials, and a right to their own forms of democracy.
I find it extremely hypocritical to support and praise movements for inclusion and democracy in the world but continue to deny it to those within a state’s own ‘perceived’ borders. All Canadian Federal Parties should reach out to First Nations people and re-entrench their civil and political rights - rights that are considered a cornerstone in Western society and governance.
Sunday 6 March 2011
Canada's Dark History: Why First Nations Will Never Forget and the Need for Canadians to Understand
(Originally Posted on my Facebook on June 10, 2010)
Below is a chronology of events relating to what some may term genocidal and assimilationist policies used by the Canadian, Provincial, and pre-confederation governments in dealing with, as Duncan Campbell-Scott stated, "the Indian Problem." This chronology only looks into a small aspect of a disturbing history and if you look closely you will see that some of these actions continued well into the 1980s. This is why many of us fight for accountability for the Canadian government and will most likely never stop. It is also just part of the reason why I am involved with politics and education as I want healing and an optimistic path for all of us ... this can only be done with understanding the past in hopes to prevent it from occurring again or continuing....
(Note: Although the wording can be deemed in a biased and angry manner the information is still accurate. Please take the anger with a grain of salt and remember why it exists in the first place ... only we can bring forth a more positive future and relationship.. a relationship back to the two-row wampum belt philosophy) - (The tagging was also done randomly... and geographically ;))
____________________________________________________________________________________
1857: The Gradual Civilization Act is passed by the Legislature of Upper Canada, permanently disenfranchising all Indian and Metis peoples, and placing them in a separate, inferior legal category than citizens.
1874: The Indian Act is passed in Canada’s Parliament, incorporating the inferior social status of native people into its language and provisions. Aboriginals are henceforth imprisoned on reserve lands and are legal wards of the state.
1884: Legislation is passed in Ottawa creating a system of state-funded, church administered Indian Residential Schools.
1905: Over one hundred residential schools are in existence across Canada, 60% of them run by the Roman Catholics.
1907: Dr. Peter Bryce, Medical Inspector for the Department of Indian Affairs, tours the residential schools of western Canada and British Columbia and writes a scathing report on the "criminal" health conditions there. Bryce reports that native children are being deliberately infected with diseases like tuberculosis, and are left to die untreated, as a regular practice. He cites an average death rate of 40% in the residential schools.
November 15, 1907: Bryce’s report is quoted in The Ottawa Citizen’s headline.
1908-1909: Duncan Campbell Scott, Superintendent of Indian Affairs, suppresses Bryce’s report and conducts a smear and cover-up campaign regarding its findings. Bryce is expelled from the civil service.
November, 1910: A joint agreement between the federal government and the Roman Catholic, Anglican, Presbyterian and Methodist churches establishes the structure of Indian Residential Schools and the contractual obligations of churches running them. Duncan Campbell Scott refers to the policy of the government as that of seeking a “final solution to the Indian Problem”.
May, 1919: Despite an escalating death rate of Indian children in residential schools from tuberculosis - in some cases as high as 75% - Duncan Campbell Scott abolishes the post of Medical Inspector for Indian residential schools. Within two years, deaths due to tuberculosis have tripled in residential schools.
1920: Federal legislation makes it mandatory for every Indian child to be sent to residential schools upon reaching seven years of age.
1928: Sexual Sterilization Act is passed in Alberta, allowing any inmate of a native residential school to be sterilized upon the approval of the school Principal. At least 3,500 Indian women are sterilized under this law.
1933: An identical Sexual Sterilization Act is passed in British Columbia. Two major sterilization centres are established by The United Church of Canada on the west coast, in Bella Bella and Nanaimo, in which thousands of native men and women are sterilized by missionary doctors until the 1980’s.
1933: Residential school Principals are made the legal guardians of all native students, under the oversight of the federal Department of Mines and Resources. Every native parent is forced by law to surrender legal custody of their children to the Principal - a church employee - or face imprisonment.
1938: Attempt by the federal government to close all residential schools and incorporate Indian children into public schools is defeated by pressure brought by Catholic and Protestant church leaders.
1946: Project Paperclip - a CIA program utilizing ex-Nazi researchers in medical, biological warfare and mind control experiments - uses native children from Canadian residential schools as involuntary test subjects, under agreements with the Catholic, Anglican and United churches. These illegal tests continue until the 1970’s.
http://www.gpc.edu/~shale/humanities/composition/assignments/experiment/paperclip.html
1948 - 1969: Offshoot programs of Project Paperclip are established in United Church and government hospitals in Nanaimo, Brannen Lake, Sardis, Bella Bella, Vancouver and Victoria, British Columbia; in Red Deer and Ponoka, Alberta; and at the Lakehead Psychiatric Hospital in Thunder Bay, Ontario. All of these programs use native children abducted from reserves, foster homes, and residential schools, with the full knowledge of church, police and Indian Affairs officials.
1969: Indian Affairs Minister Jean Chretien tables his White Paper in Parliament, which reaffirms the "assimilationist" policy of the past century that denies sovereignty and equal status to native nations. As a token gesture, Chretien assigns a limited control over Indian education to local, state-funded band councils. Many residential schools are phased out altogether or simply taken over by band councils.
1984: The last Indian residential school is closed, in northern British Columbia.
1990: State-funded leaders of the Assembly of First Nations discuss “abuses” in residential schools for the first time publicly.
1994-95: Eyewitnesses to murders at the United Church’s Alberni residential school speak out publicly, from the pulpit of Reverend Kevin Annett in Port Alberni. Annett is summarily fired without cause within a month, and is expelled from United Church ministry without due process during 1996.
February, 1996: The first class action lawsuit of Alberni residential school survivors is brought against the United Church of Canada and the federal government. The church responds with a counter-suit and an attempted “gag order” on Kevin Annett, which fails.
1996-7: Further evidence of murder, sterilisations and other atrocities at coastal residential schools are documented by Kevin Annett and native activists in public forums in Vancouver. The number of lawsuits brought against the churches and government by residential school survivors climbs to over 5,000 across Canada........and it continues (check canadiangenocide.nativeweb.org)
2005/2006 - The court case regarding live-in residential schools for Canada, excluding Newfoundland and Labrador, reaches an agreement. The government of Canada issues an apology in June which is quickly questions be racial comments made be a rookie MP.
2009 - September - Stephen Harper announces that "Canada has no history of colonialism." (Note: To Stephen Harper - Explain the previous points!)
Below is a chronology of events relating to what some may term genocidal and assimilationist policies used by the Canadian, Provincial, and pre-confederation governments in dealing with, as Duncan Campbell-Scott stated, "the Indian Problem." This chronology only looks into a small aspect of a disturbing history and if you look closely you will see that some of these actions continued well into the 1980s. This is why many of us fight for accountability for the Canadian government and will most likely never stop. It is also just part of the reason why I am involved with politics and education as I want healing and an optimistic path for all of us ... this can only be done with understanding the past in hopes to prevent it from occurring again or continuing....
(Note: Although the wording can be deemed in a biased and angry manner the information is still accurate. Please take the anger with a grain of salt and remember why it exists in the first place ... only we can bring forth a more positive future and relationship.. a relationship back to the two-row wampum belt philosophy) - (The tagging was also done randomly... and geographically ;))
____________________________________________________________________________________
1857: The Gradual Civilization Act is passed by the Legislature of Upper Canada, permanently disenfranchising all Indian and Metis peoples, and placing them in a separate, inferior legal category than citizens.
1874: The Indian Act is passed in Canada’s Parliament, incorporating the inferior social status of native people into its language and provisions. Aboriginals are henceforth imprisoned on reserve lands and are legal wards of the state.
1884: Legislation is passed in Ottawa creating a system of state-funded, church administered Indian Residential Schools.
1905: Over one hundred residential schools are in existence across Canada, 60% of them run by the Roman Catholics.
1907: Dr. Peter Bryce, Medical Inspector for the Department of Indian Affairs, tours the residential schools of western Canada and British Columbia and writes a scathing report on the "criminal" health conditions there. Bryce reports that native children are being deliberately infected with diseases like tuberculosis, and are left to die untreated, as a regular practice. He cites an average death rate of 40% in the residential schools.
November 15, 1907: Bryce’s report is quoted in The Ottawa Citizen’s headline.
1908-1909: Duncan Campbell Scott, Superintendent of Indian Affairs, suppresses Bryce’s report and conducts a smear and cover-up campaign regarding its findings. Bryce is expelled from the civil service.
November, 1910: A joint agreement between the federal government and the Roman Catholic, Anglican, Presbyterian and Methodist churches establishes the structure of Indian Residential Schools and the contractual obligations of churches running them. Duncan Campbell Scott refers to the policy of the government as that of seeking a “final solution to the Indian Problem”.
May, 1919: Despite an escalating death rate of Indian children in residential schools from tuberculosis - in some cases as high as 75% - Duncan Campbell Scott abolishes the post of Medical Inspector for Indian residential schools. Within two years, deaths due to tuberculosis have tripled in residential schools.
1920: Federal legislation makes it mandatory for every Indian child to be sent to residential schools upon reaching seven years of age.
1928: Sexual Sterilization Act is passed in Alberta, allowing any inmate of a native residential school to be sterilized upon the approval of the school Principal. At least 3,500 Indian women are sterilized under this law.
1933: An identical Sexual Sterilization Act is passed in British Columbia. Two major sterilization centres are established by The United Church of Canada on the west coast, in Bella Bella and Nanaimo, in which thousands of native men and women are sterilized by missionary doctors until the 1980’s.
1933: Residential school Principals are made the legal guardians of all native students, under the oversight of the federal Department of Mines and Resources. Every native parent is forced by law to surrender legal custody of their children to the Principal - a church employee - or face imprisonment.
1938: Attempt by the federal government to close all residential schools and incorporate Indian children into public schools is defeated by pressure brought by Catholic and Protestant church leaders.
1946: Project Paperclip - a CIA program utilizing ex-Nazi researchers in medical, biological warfare and mind control experiments - uses native children from Canadian residential schools as involuntary test subjects, under agreements with the Catholic, Anglican and United churches. These illegal tests continue until the 1970’s.
http://www.gpc.edu/~shale/humanities/composition/assignments/experiment/paperclip.html
1948 - 1969: Offshoot programs of Project Paperclip are established in United Church and government hospitals in Nanaimo, Brannen Lake, Sardis, Bella Bella, Vancouver and Victoria, British Columbia; in Red Deer and Ponoka, Alberta; and at the Lakehead Psychiatric Hospital in Thunder Bay, Ontario. All of these programs use native children abducted from reserves, foster homes, and residential schools, with the full knowledge of church, police and Indian Affairs officials.
1969: Indian Affairs Minister Jean Chretien tables his White Paper in Parliament, which reaffirms the "assimilationist" policy of the past century that denies sovereignty and equal status to native nations. As a token gesture, Chretien assigns a limited control over Indian education to local, state-funded band councils. Many residential schools are phased out altogether or simply taken over by band councils.
1984: The last Indian residential school is closed, in northern British Columbia.
1990: State-funded leaders of the Assembly of First Nations discuss “abuses” in residential schools for the first time publicly.
1994-95: Eyewitnesses to murders at the United Church’s Alberni residential school speak out publicly, from the pulpit of Reverend Kevin Annett in Port Alberni. Annett is summarily fired without cause within a month, and is expelled from United Church ministry without due process during 1996.
February, 1996: The first class action lawsuit of Alberni residential school survivors is brought against the United Church of Canada and the federal government. The church responds with a counter-suit and an attempted “gag order” on Kevin Annett, which fails.
1996-7: Further evidence of murder, sterilisations and other atrocities at coastal residential schools are documented by Kevin Annett and native activists in public forums in Vancouver. The number of lawsuits brought against the churches and government by residential school survivors climbs to over 5,000 across Canada........and it continues (check canadiangenocide.nativeweb.org)
2005/2006 - The court case regarding live-in residential schools for Canada, excluding Newfoundland and Labrador, reaches an agreement. The government of Canada issues an apology in June which is quickly questions be racial comments made be a rookie MP.
2009 - September - Stephen Harper announces that "Canada has no history of colonialism." (Note: To Stephen Harper - Explain the previous points!)
2010 Vancouver Winter Olympics Misconceptions:
(Originally Posted on my Facebook on February 13, 2010)
Below is something I wrote to a couple of people due to this misconception of First Nations people being treated wrongly because of these games. Below is what I believe to be true due to my opportunity to work with this event as well as my own research. Please read, comment, and pass along. It is not the most sophisticated writing I have done but it gets right to the facts.
____________________________________________________________________________________
While working last year I had the opportunity to deal with the Vancouver 2010 Olympics. I also had the opportunity to discuss in great detail issues/rumours that were being harboured by people against these games, which I discuessed specifically with the Four Host First Nations. This term is given to the Four First Nations who’s territory the Olympic Games will be, and are being, played on. These four include the Lil’wat, Musqueam, Squamish, and Tseil-Waututh peoples.
The truth is these Olympics mark the first time that an Indigenous population was approached, and asked for permission to host said games on their traditional territory. These 4 Indigenous peoples agreed, after consulting with their citizens. These games also mark the first time in their history that an indigenous people became full partners in said games. Thus, the 4 communities are full partners and participators in these games, which is why the leaders of these communities have been given ‘Head-Of-State’ status – which is also a first time for First Nations. In fact, when these communities agreed to allow it, and gave their permission, it had to be accepted first by the traditional leaders of their people, and then the band elected leaders. Which it had been.
The fact is that the condemnation towards these Olympics, when dealing with ‘native issues’ is not coming from a vast majoirty of First Nations people themselves, but is being used by non-native people who are involved with very radical left-winged groups. Just as there are crazy and ignorant right winged zealots, there are some who exist on the left wing as well. These people, who holds banners such as ‘No Olympics on Stolen Land’ are not speaking on behalf of us, or these communities who’s territory is being used for these games. In fact it is controversial and despicable of said groups to speak on behalf of us, or to speak on behalf of these 4 communities, when they do not have the right or proper standing to do so with us or these First Nations.
Furthermore, the fact is these leftist zealots are simply using the native issue as a way to promote their yearning for attention, nothing more. This can be heavily seen today since these people have turned to rioting and damaging peoples property because they were no logner getting attention.
It is said that the media is not being truthful on this and exposing these protesters for what they are – which are liars. The fact is they are not speaking on behalf of us and are not speaking for these communities – majority of them are simply pushing for an end to capitalism, and the beginning of socialism – but the media does not focus on these aspects, instead giving much attention to the ‘native’ aspect.
In order to learn this you have to look further into it, I suggest trying the Four Host First Nations site – where they have press releases, one of which has a traditional elder of one of the communities condemning these people for spreading lies, etc.
These games are a time for all of us around the world to come together and forget our ignorances and differences. For 2 weeks it allows us to be friendly rivals and that we can unite together, even if it does not happen that often.
I have followed the development of these games and I ruge people to look into the other side, especially the perspective of these communities who’s territory the games are being held on. I would also express that many First Nations communities, the AFN, and so on, have endorsed these games because of their inclusiveness and respect towards us and our rights.
I urge people to look into things further before picking sides or lambasting groups of people as it is the right thing to do - in many cases those people may actually have little to do with the situation at hand
____________________________________________________________________________________
While working last year I had the opportunity to deal with the Vancouver 2010 Olympics. I also had the opportunity to discuss in great detail issues/rumours that were being harboured by people against these games, which I discuessed specifically with the Four Host First Nations. This term is given to the Four First Nations who’s territory the Olympic Games will be, and are being, played on. These four include the Lil’wat, Musqueam, Squamish, and Tseil-Waututh peoples.
The truth is these Olympics mark the first time that an Indigenous population was approached, and asked for permission to host said games on their traditional territory. These 4 Indigenous peoples agreed, after consulting with their citizens. These games also mark the first time in their history that an indigenous people became full partners in said games. Thus, the 4 communities are full partners and participators in these games, which is why the leaders of these communities have been given ‘Head-Of-State’ status – which is also a first time for First Nations. In fact, when these communities agreed to allow it, and gave their permission, it had to be accepted first by the traditional leaders of their people, and then the band elected leaders. Which it had been.
The fact is that the condemnation towards these Olympics, when dealing with ‘native issues’ is not coming from a vast majoirty of First Nations people themselves, but is being used by non-native people who are involved with very radical left-winged groups. Just as there are crazy and ignorant right winged zealots, there are some who exist on the left wing as well. These people, who holds banners such as ‘No Olympics on Stolen Land’ are not speaking on behalf of us, or these communities who’s territory is being used for these games. In fact it is controversial and despicable of said groups to speak on behalf of us, or to speak on behalf of these 4 communities, when they do not have the right or proper standing to do so with us or these First Nations.
Furthermore, the fact is these leftist zealots are simply using the native issue as a way to promote their yearning for attention, nothing more. This can be heavily seen today since these people have turned to rioting and damaging peoples property because they were no logner getting attention.
It is said that the media is not being truthful on this and exposing these protesters for what they are – which are liars. The fact is they are not speaking on behalf of us and are not speaking for these communities – majority of them are simply pushing for an end to capitalism, and the beginning of socialism – but the media does not focus on these aspects, instead giving much attention to the ‘native’ aspect.
In order to learn this you have to look further into it, I suggest trying the Four Host First Nations site – where they have press releases, one of which has a traditional elder of one of the communities condemning these people for spreading lies, etc.
These games are a time for all of us around the world to come together and forget our ignorances and differences. For 2 weeks it allows us to be friendly rivals and that we can unite together, even if it does not happen that often.
I have followed the development of these games and I ruge people to look into the other side, especially the perspective of these communities who’s territory the games are being held on. I would also express that many First Nations communities, the AFN, and so on, have endorsed these games because of their inclusiveness and respect towards us and our rights.
I urge people to look into things further before picking sides or lambasting groups of people as it is the right thing to do - in many cases those people may actually have little to do with the situation at hand
Canadian Politics: What Happens when People Feel They Shouldn't Care?
(Originally Posted on my Facebook on October 16, 2009)
On Wednesday October 14th another controversy hit the air waves, television, and internet – yet the majority of you may not realize the significance of what has occurred. It is because of this reasoning I am writing about this self-serving situation that has occurred.
The story I am referring to regards the Conservative Party of Canada using its Party logo on government funded cheques that have been going to communities, counties and townships to help with infrastructure, the economy, and other needs. It was not to long after this that it was noticed that this had occurred for quite some time and that, in some cases, these cheques even had the name and signature of the local M.P who was handing out this cheque.
This controversy was unleashed due to a recent picture of the Conservative Member of Parliament for the Nova Scotia riding of South-Shore-St. Margaret’s, Gerard Keddy, was printed in a local newspaper. This picture shows Mr. Keddy holding a cheque, along with a constituent, that is clearly in blue and white (Conservative party colours, with the Title “Investing in our Communities,” also a Tory slogan. Just underneath this title, on the upper left hand side, is the Conservative party Logo. In the bottom right corner, clearly shown, is Mr. Keddy’s own signature. (to see picture please click: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nova-scotia/story/2009/10/14/ns-keddy-cheque.html .
When Mr. Keddy was pressed on this he replied that “he never noticed the Tory blue design ... large conservative party logo ... or his signature at the bottom.” He also stated that “[he] would absolutely do it again.” But yesterday his tune changed and stated otherwise and seemed apologetic.
Eventually another photo surfaced regarding the Member of Parliament for the British Columbia riding of Okanagan-Shuswap, Colin Mayes. This too had the party colours and logo just underneath a bolding and capitalized sentence that stated “Funding Provided By...” This led to the release of dozens more pictures of Conservative Members of Parliament handing over government funded cheques with party colours, party logos, or their own name emblazoned on them. Some of them include Minister of Public Safety and Member of Parliament for the Ontario Riding of York-Simcoe, Bev Shipley - Member for the Ontario riding of Lambton-Kent Middlesex, Shelly Glover – Member for the Manitoba riding of Saint Boniface, Patrick Brown – Member for the Ontario Riding of Barrie, and Larry Miller – Member for the Ontario riding of Bruce Grey Owen Sound. (To see more pictures of these MPs and others, including Dean Del Mastro please click: http://www.flickr.com/photos/conservativecheques/
This situation, as it continues to unfold, should be a concern to all of us. Traditionally, and when done properly. Government funded grants, loans, and funding being handed out, is done with the Federal Government logo and in a normal cheque form. It is not done in a party colour nor does it have a party logo. The MP’s signatures on the cheque is very misleading and promotes the idea that it was the specific party and the Member who donated this money.
This is a tremendous manipulation of Canadian taxpayers money and violates so many ethics and government laws. Yet I worry no one will care about this because they are disenchanted by what Canadian politics have become. I can just see the Conservative, and NDP loyalists telling myself, and other Liberals to “be quiet” and that “we have no right to talk about ethics on money expenditures” due to the whole Ad Scam Affair. And it is exactly this tune, the notion of “you did it so you have no right to say a word,” “you did it first,” etc, that have led so many Canadians to not care about their elected government. Many believe Canadian politics has become nothing but a “He said/she said, You did/they did,” whining, throwing insults at one another, charade.
This has become so common since the 2004 election, even more since 2006. It seems to be a Conservative “war call” whenever the Liberals try to do their job as opposition. Yes, it is easy to attack a political party that has governed for a majority of the years, a party, Liberals, that had governed for 13 years prior to the current government. I also understand the NDP and Liberals also do this but why do we allow this blaming game to occur?
Is it because we don’t care? Is it because we simply do not understand? Or, is it due to pure “laziness”? I have constantly heard from many people that “they don’t vote because it doesn’t matter,” “they don’t vote because no matter who wins nothing will change,” and so on. For those of you who think this I want to try and with you about why these stances are detrimental to our political system. When we take this stance and disenfranchise ourselves from our governing bodies – the political parties, politicians, and decision makers, we allow those who are destroying “good politics” to win. We allow them to mould the political system into a web of nastiness and division. We allow those politicians who are there to work for the common good of all Canadians, those politicians who became involved for the right reasons, to become voiceless and “a dying breed.” Our lack of caring allows for situations such as what the Conservatives have recently done to occur repeatedly.
We as a society also tend not to take the time to educate ourselves on the issues. I have also heard often from people that “they don’t have the time to learn about the issues,” that because they don’t have the time to understand they don’t cast a vote. Why is it difficult to go online and pull up party websites? – http://www.conservative.ca/, http://www.liberal.ca/, http://www.ndp.ca/, http://www.greenparty.ca/. We as a society seem to be good at making excuses and blaming others for our lack of ability to help fix things such as the state of our political system.
As more and more of us care less about what our politicians do/create, more degrading and corruptive situations will occur. The more apathetic we become the less chance any change will happen - whether it be from health care, to First Nations issues and Government accountability. Or as Mindy says, on the London radio station 103.1 Fresh FM during her daily rants, maybe that’s just me?
The story I am referring to regards the Conservative Party of Canada using its Party logo on government funded cheques that have been going to communities, counties and townships to help with infrastructure, the economy, and other needs. It was not to long after this that it was noticed that this had occurred for quite some time and that, in some cases, these cheques even had the name and signature of the local M.P who was handing out this cheque.
This controversy was unleashed due to a recent picture of the Conservative Member of Parliament for the Nova Scotia riding of South-Shore-St. Margaret’s, Gerard Keddy, was printed in a local newspaper. This picture shows Mr. Keddy holding a cheque, along with a constituent, that is clearly in blue and white (Conservative party colours, with the Title “Investing in our Communities,” also a Tory slogan. Just underneath this title, on the upper left hand side, is the Conservative party Logo. In the bottom right corner, clearly shown, is Mr. Keddy’s own signature. (to see picture please click: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nova-scotia/story/2009/10/14/ns-keddy-cheque.html .
When Mr. Keddy was pressed on this he replied that “he never noticed the Tory blue design ... large conservative party logo ... or his signature at the bottom.” He also stated that “[he] would absolutely do it again.” But yesterday his tune changed and stated otherwise and seemed apologetic.
Eventually another photo surfaced regarding the Member of Parliament for the British Columbia riding of Okanagan-Shuswap, Colin Mayes. This too had the party colours and logo just underneath a bolding and capitalized sentence that stated “Funding Provided By...” This led to the release of dozens more pictures of Conservative Members of Parliament handing over government funded cheques with party colours, party logos, or their own name emblazoned on them. Some of them include Minister of Public Safety and Member of Parliament for the Ontario Riding of York-Simcoe, Bev Shipley - Member for the Ontario riding of Lambton-Kent Middlesex, Shelly Glover – Member for the Manitoba riding of Saint Boniface, Patrick Brown – Member for the Ontario Riding of Barrie, and Larry Miller – Member for the Ontario riding of Bruce Grey Owen Sound. (To see more pictures of these MPs and others, including Dean Del Mastro please click: http://www.flickr.com/photos/conservativecheques/
This situation, as it continues to unfold, should be a concern to all of us. Traditionally, and when done properly. Government funded grants, loans, and funding being handed out, is done with the Federal Government logo and in a normal cheque form. It is not done in a party colour nor does it have a party logo. The MP’s signatures on the cheque is very misleading and promotes the idea that it was the specific party and the Member who donated this money.
This is a tremendous manipulation of Canadian taxpayers money and violates so many ethics and government laws. Yet I worry no one will care about this because they are disenchanted by what Canadian politics have become. I can just see the Conservative, and NDP loyalists telling myself, and other Liberals to “be quiet” and that “we have no right to talk about ethics on money expenditures” due to the whole Ad Scam Affair. And it is exactly this tune, the notion of “you did it so you have no right to say a word,” “you did it first,” etc, that have led so many Canadians to not care about their elected government. Many believe Canadian politics has become nothing but a “He said/she said, You did/they did,” whining, throwing insults at one another, charade.
This has become so common since the 2004 election, even more since 2006. It seems to be a Conservative “war call” whenever the Liberals try to do their job as opposition. Yes, it is easy to attack a political party that has governed for a majority of the years, a party, Liberals, that had governed for 13 years prior to the current government. I also understand the NDP and Liberals also do this but why do we allow this blaming game to occur?
Is it because we don’t care? Is it because we simply do not understand? Or, is it due to pure “laziness”? I have constantly heard from many people that “they don’t vote because it doesn’t matter,” “they don’t vote because no matter who wins nothing will change,” and so on. For those of you who think this I want to try and with you about why these stances are detrimental to our political system. When we take this stance and disenfranchise ourselves from our governing bodies – the political parties, politicians, and decision makers, we allow those who are destroying “good politics” to win. We allow them to mould the political system into a web of nastiness and division. We allow those politicians who are there to work for the common good of all Canadians, those politicians who became involved for the right reasons, to become voiceless and “a dying breed.” Our lack of caring allows for situations such as what the Conservatives have recently done to occur repeatedly.
We as a society also tend not to take the time to educate ourselves on the issues. I have also heard often from people that “they don’t have the time to learn about the issues,” that because they don’t have the time to understand they don’t cast a vote. Why is it difficult to go online and pull up party websites? – http://www.conservative.ca/, http://www.liberal.ca/, http://www.ndp.ca/, http://www.greenparty.ca/. We as a society seem to be good at making excuses and blaming others for our lack of ability to help fix things such as the state of our political system.
As more and more of us care less about what our politicians do/create, more degrading and corruptive situations will occur. The more apathetic we become the less chance any change will happen - whether it be from health care, to First Nations issues and Government accountability. Or as Mindy says, on the London radio station 103.1 Fresh FM during her daily rants, maybe that’s just me?
Harper Decries “ [Canada] also [has] no history of colonialism.”
(Originally Posted on my Facebook on October 1st, 2009)
Over the past couple of days, while I was resting and getting better from a serious cold, I received emails from my fellow members of the Aboriginal Peoples Commission of the Liberal Party of Canada. These emails contained articles and expressions regarding Stephen Harpers latest claim, and jab, at Indigenous people from within what is now called Canada. At the G20 meeting, in the United States, Harper, while boasting about how great Canada is, claimed “We also have no history of colonialism.”
As a Canadian and a member of the Hiawatha First Nation, as I am a mixture of both, my jaw dropped at this claim. My heart sunk as well because the fact is that most Canadians would agree with this statement. I don’t hold this against general Canadians however, as they are heavily uneducated in a system put forth by the provincial and federal governments – which just so happens to leave out much of the colonial history that occurred here, including after 1867. Politicians, who are able to see internal policies and documents that exist now and in the past, are a different story. How can an individual who is elected as leader of a country, a democratic one at that, claim such blasphemy? No one can truly answer this – all that can be done is educate.
The term colonialism is defined “as the practice and processes of domination, control, and forced subjugation of one people to another.” If Harper had looked at the definition before stating such a reckless response, he may have thought differently. Then again, this is Harper we are talking about – a man who looked up to Tom Flanagan - a man who expresses in many papers and books that First Nation women are “loose” and give birth to many children who tend to be fathered by different men; that First Nation university students “do not know what it is like to pay for their education and work for it” – instead getting a free ride; that First Nations “are lazy and dirty”; and so on – and relied on him for advice on Indigenous policy.
However, if one does delve further into Canadian history they would find infamous examples and quotes from texts, personal journals, and policies that would show just how ridiculous Harper’s comment was. During John A. MacDonald’s time in office, he became responsible for the death of hundreds of First Nations people inhabiting the western half of Canada. He did this through starvation as he was worried about similar rebellions as that of the Red River Rebellion – led by the Métis. He was also responsible for erecting quite a few army forts right near First Nations Reservations – in order to watch them and make sure they were “good savages.”
Another example is the enforcement of European society, politics, and ignorance on to First Nations people. Making men the dominate form – while originally most First Nations societies had the sexes on an equal footing, or in the case of the Iroquois (Haudenashaune) – matrilineal. Canada also enforced special schools that many Indigenous children were forced to attend, where it was expected to civilize them and “beat the Indian child out of them.” These are also known as the infamous residential schools – the last of which closed in 1996.
Duncan Campbell Scott, the Head of the Department of Indian Affairs in the 1920’s expressed that “our objective is to continue until there is not a single Indian in Canada that has not been absorbed into the body politic and there is no Indian question.” Prime Minister Mackenzie King even stated, during his tenure, that “Canada should remain a white man’s country is believed to be not only desirable for economic and social reasons but highly necessary on political and national grounds.” Furthermore, for many decades it was illegal for a First Nations person to leave their community, which there are many cases were they were even fenced in, without a paper signed by the government appointed Indian Agent.
The Indian Act, a Canadian imposed doctrine that put all treaties under it – even those originally done by Britain, came into existence in 1873. With Canada and Great Britain recognizing the BNA act in 1867, it brought onus onto Canada to uphold what Britain had already done with, and to, the Indigenous groups in Canada. Lastly, there can be no other term than a colonialist regime when a constitution of a country is drawn up and the original inhabitants are excluded and made wards of the state and no citizenship or rights – until 1960, when Prime Minister Diefenbaker brought in citizenship for Indigenous people.
The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP), put forth by Prime Minister Mulroney, explicitly laid out “Canada’s imposition of a colonial relationship” – which is the heading of one of the actual chapters.
Yet Harper, and his MPs such as Rod Bruinooge – a self proclaimed Métis, refuse to acknowledge these few examples out of many and believes that “[Canada] also [has} no history of colonialism.” But, was it not Harper himself, and his government that got up in the House of Commons that mid June day in 2008 and expressed, on behalf of Canadians and the government of Canada, a sincere apology for residential schools and the abuses that occurred within them? Do his actions here not contradict himself tremendously? Either he clearly did not mean what he stated that mid June day, or Harper is a moron.
As Chief Ghislain Picard, Representative of the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador, stated “denying the history of colonials in Canada is like denying the holocaust.” I too, have to agree with this statement, but also add in that denying the history of colonialism in Canada is also like denying that slavery existed in the American south, that it was not Japan that bombed Pearl Harbour, and that everyone on this planet gets along!
In my closing remarks, the optimistic side of me wants to believe that Canadians will open their eyes to these ignorances and reform to education on Indigenous issues – at the primary, secondary, and post-secondary level are needed, but the pessimistic side of me believes Canadians won’t care, that the major news outlets of this country won’t give this situation much coverage, and that the Canadian government will continue to ignore and deny its reckless, dark, and disturbing past.
The NDP seem to have – they now support this government ...
Over the past couple of days, while I was resting and getting better from a serious cold, I received emails from my fellow members of the Aboriginal Peoples Commission of the Liberal Party of Canada. These emails contained articles and expressions regarding Stephen Harpers latest claim, and jab, at Indigenous people from within what is now called Canada. At the G20 meeting, in the United States, Harper, while boasting about how great Canada is, claimed “We also have no history of colonialism.”
As a Canadian and a member of the Hiawatha First Nation, as I am a mixture of both, my jaw dropped at this claim. My heart sunk as well because the fact is that most Canadians would agree with this statement. I don’t hold this against general Canadians however, as they are heavily uneducated in a system put forth by the provincial and federal governments – which just so happens to leave out much of the colonial history that occurred here, including after 1867. Politicians, who are able to see internal policies and documents that exist now and in the past, are a different story. How can an individual who is elected as leader of a country, a democratic one at that, claim such blasphemy? No one can truly answer this – all that can be done is educate.
The term colonialism is defined “as the practice and processes of domination, control, and forced subjugation of one people to another.” If Harper had looked at the definition before stating such a reckless response, he may have thought differently. Then again, this is Harper we are talking about – a man who looked up to Tom Flanagan - a man who expresses in many papers and books that First Nation women are “loose” and give birth to many children who tend to be fathered by different men; that First Nation university students “do not know what it is like to pay for their education and work for it” – instead getting a free ride; that First Nations “are lazy and dirty”; and so on – and relied on him for advice on Indigenous policy.
However, if one does delve further into Canadian history they would find infamous examples and quotes from texts, personal journals, and policies that would show just how ridiculous Harper’s comment was. During John A. MacDonald’s time in office, he became responsible for the death of hundreds of First Nations people inhabiting the western half of Canada. He did this through starvation as he was worried about similar rebellions as that of the Red River Rebellion – led by the Métis. He was also responsible for erecting quite a few army forts right near First Nations Reservations – in order to watch them and make sure they were “good savages.”
Another example is the enforcement of European society, politics, and ignorance on to First Nations people. Making men the dominate form – while originally most First Nations societies had the sexes on an equal footing, or in the case of the Iroquois (Haudenashaune) – matrilineal. Canada also enforced special schools that many Indigenous children were forced to attend, where it was expected to civilize them and “beat the Indian child out of them.” These are also known as the infamous residential schools – the last of which closed in 1996.
Duncan Campbell Scott, the Head of the Department of Indian Affairs in the 1920’s expressed that “our objective is to continue until there is not a single Indian in Canada that has not been absorbed into the body politic and there is no Indian question.” Prime Minister Mackenzie King even stated, during his tenure, that “Canada should remain a white man’s country is believed to be not only desirable for economic and social reasons but highly necessary on political and national grounds.” Furthermore, for many decades it was illegal for a First Nations person to leave their community, which there are many cases were they were even fenced in, without a paper signed by the government appointed Indian Agent.
The Indian Act, a Canadian imposed doctrine that put all treaties under it – even those originally done by Britain, came into existence in 1873. With Canada and Great Britain recognizing the BNA act in 1867, it brought onus onto Canada to uphold what Britain had already done with, and to, the Indigenous groups in Canada. Lastly, there can be no other term than a colonialist regime when a constitution of a country is drawn up and the original inhabitants are excluded and made wards of the state and no citizenship or rights – until 1960, when Prime Minister Diefenbaker brought in citizenship for Indigenous people.
The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP), put forth by Prime Minister Mulroney, explicitly laid out “Canada’s imposition of a colonial relationship” – which is the heading of one of the actual chapters.
Yet Harper, and his MPs such as Rod Bruinooge – a self proclaimed Métis, refuse to acknowledge these few examples out of many and believes that “[Canada] also [has} no history of colonialism.” But, was it not Harper himself, and his government that got up in the House of Commons that mid June day in 2008 and expressed, on behalf of Canadians and the government of Canada, a sincere apology for residential schools and the abuses that occurred within them? Do his actions here not contradict himself tremendously? Either he clearly did not mean what he stated that mid June day, or Harper is a moron.
As Chief Ghislain Picard, Representative of the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador, stated “denying the history of colonials in Canada is like denying the holocaust.” I too, have to agree with this statement, but also add in that denying the history of colonialism in Canada is also like denying that slavery existed in the American south, that it was not Japan that bombed Pearl Harbour, and that everyone on this planet gets along!
In my closing remarks, the optimistic side of me wants to believe that Canadians will open their eyes to these ignorances and reform to education on Indigenous issues – at the primary, secondary, and post-secondary level are needed, but the pessimistic side of me believes Canadians won’t care, that the major news outlets of this country won’t give this situation much coverage, and that the Canadian government will continue to ignore and deny its reckless, dark, and disturbing past.
The NDP seem to have – they now support this government ...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)