5 Comments - Join in the conversation below »

1. We can’t talk openly about native issues? What drivel. Is that why the article you cite was published in the Star?

   What’s the “native issue” you feel we can’t “talk openly about”? Let me know, and I’ll find you a Windspeaker column or MSM article that addresses it.

   I think what the author is suggesting is that writers who speak from a point of profound ignorance on native issues will probably get lambasted for it - like, for instance, the author.

   Comment by balbulican — August 18, 2008 @ 5:45 am

2. Native issues have long been political suicide. It not that we have an “Indian problem” but that we have a “Government problem.” The amount of money that is wasted on programs that don’t work is just the start. Do we need to scrap the Indian Act and start with a clean sheet of paper? Perhaps the treaties themselves need to be reopened? Whatever it takes to fix the problems but who in Ottawa has the balls to tackle this issue? Lots of questions but where are the answers?

   Comment by Tim — August 18, 2008 @ 10:29 am

3. I think that both the Aboriginal leadership and most thoughtful politicians would agree that the the Indian Act needs to be scrapped.

   As for programs: some work, some don’t. The key, as always, is evaluation against formal, quantifiable program objectives. By those measures, the Aboriginal Languages Initiative, the Aboriginal Human Resources Development Strategy, and other “work” - i.e., they achieve what they were intended to achieve. Some programs don’t, and they should be restructured, replaced, or dumped.

   As for reopening the treaties - be very careful. Treaties in many cases involved the surrender of Aboriginal title; do you really want to give Nunavut back to the Inuit, and say “let’s start negotiating from scratch”? (Or Manitoulin back to the Ojibway, or the LG dams back to the Cree?)

   Comment by balbulican — August 18, 2008 @ 1:09 pm

4. I’m afraid we can’t talk honestly about native issues, Balbulican. And individuals with attitudes such as your own are the reason for that.

   Take, for example, the difficulties experienced by Pierre Poilevre because he said what individuals like yourself considered to be the wrong thing on the wrong day. Never mind that he made a very important (if not quite politically correct) point.

   Or the notion that we give governments an option regarding whether or not the’ll respect the Charter of Rights and Freedoms if the just so happen to be aboriginal…

   Comment by Patrick Ross — August 18, 2008 @ 9:50 pm

5. “I’m afraid we can’t talk honestly about native issues, Balbulican. And individuals with attitudes such as your own are the reason for that.”

   You’re quite mistaken, Patrick. I’m quite happy to talk honestly about Aboriginal issues. Unless by “talk honestly” you mean you want to lie or spread misinformation, in which case, you have to be prepared for disagreement.

   “Take, for example, the difficulties experienced by Pierre Poilevre because he said what individuals like yourself considered to be the wrong thing on the wrong day.”

   Individuals like myself, and the Prime Minister, and Mr. Polievre himself (unless you concede that his apology was a lie.)

   “Never mind that he made a very important (if not quite politically correct) point.”

   Last year, on this blog, our hostess made a remark suggesting that a national Aboriginal day provided an opportunity for Aboriginal fathers to take a break from fucking their daughters. Now, there may have been a real point buried in that statement. It was still a foul thing to say, and if it was intended to illuminate something about Aboriginal Canada, it failed.

   Mr. Polievre’s remark was, to put it charitably, an uninformed cliche that embarrassed him, his Prime Minister, and (again, unless you’re calling him a liar) himself. As to whatever point he was trying to make - if you’re calling for an honest, productive dialogue about Aboriginal issues, (and I don’t know you well enough to know whether you’re actually interested in that, or just picking an argument), that’t not how you start it…especially as a Minister of the Crown.

   ‘Or the notion that we give governments an option regarding whether or not the’ll respect the Charter of Rights and Freedoms if the just so happen to be aboriginal.”

   We don’t “give” Aboriginal governments that right - they believe that they have it, constitutionally, and there’s legal precedent to support that interpretation of “self government”. The Harper/Flanagan approach is to diminish self-governments to the status of municipalities: that simply will not fly.

   There you go. A perfectly civil discussion about Aboriginal issues. Would you like to continue?

   Comment by balbulican — August 19, 2008 @ 6:10 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment