Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson)
Subject: Re: Internal passports
Reply-To: robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson)
Organization: Motorola - Mobile Data Division; Richmond, BC
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: 16 Oct 92 17:01:40 GMT

Ross Wetmore (rossw@sco.COM) wrote:
>In article <1992Oct13.184026.774@mdivax1.uucp> robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson) writes:
>>Don A. Bowman (dbowman@shade) wrote:
>>>No it doesn't. It says that an Aboriginal self-government could limit who
>>>could move into a reserve. Could is different than will be.
>>
>>At any rate, I would argue that the point is not whether any bands exercise
>>this power; the point is that they apparently can. Denying mobility rights
>>on the basis of race, which will most likely be the criterion used in at
>>least some cases, is not only morally suspect, but also sets a terrible,
>>terrible precedent. What is one supposed to say when the Aryan Nations
>>decides to set up a whites-only community and points to constitutionally
>>guaranteed aboriginal apartheid as its guiding light.
>
>  Should we as a majority feel that we are unfairly treated by those who
>come in merely to exploit Canadian resources, we erect tariff barriers,
>regulations and other discriminatory policies to force such groups to
>comply and adapt to Canadian standards and share the benefits with 
>Canadians. I have not heard this referred to as economic apartheid.

Apartheid refers to discrimination & segregation based on *race*.
Protectionism, which is not based on race, is thus not referred to as
"economic apartheid".

>  Given that municipal communities limit mobility rights by controlling
>affordability and nature of housing, most governments by assigned land
>use or zoning restrictions, or Quebec attempts to do this by language
>and cultural laws, I find it difficult to object to native communities
>wishing to have some control over their community composition based on
>cultural and historic traditions.

Again, what is described above does *not* use race as its discriminator.

>  Since natives have generally not been 'racist' in any previous
>historical traditions, but instead welcomed anyone into the tribe who
>learned and accepted its traditions and standards (just look at the
>spectrum of physiologies in their spokespersons), I don't see anything
>but a reflection of their own personal mores in those that keep insisting
>that 'genetics' and 'race' are the deciding factors.

My mother is a truly wonderful person who I have nothing but respect for.
Yet, I would not think it prudent to allow her the ability to discriminate
on the basis of race even though I *know* she would not do so. 

>  I believe the powers given to override certain white-man's rights in
>the Accord are to be justified by the preservation of native tradition.
>You must argue that native tradition is 'racist' first, before you can
>justify such terms as apartheid and race-based. Now if the Accord
>specified these sorts of protections for people of yours and my cultural 
>background then there would be some historical justification for your 
>fears. Natives do not have a history of Hitlers, yet, and deserve the
>benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise.

If natives are being given the power to discriminate on the basis of race,
then you can be sure that at least one of the over 600 native bands will do
so. As for benefit of the doubt: I do not have a history of being a child
molester, but I don't think it reasonable that I should be given the
benefit of the doubt thus resulting in legislation allowing me to molest at
will.

Indeed, since Ross is *positive* that no native government will ever try to
employ racial discrimination, there is a simple fix that would make both of
us happy: amend the legal text to make racial discrimination by native
governments illegal. What do you say Ross?

>>Let's face facts, if the legal text is doing what the Vancouver Sun article
>>said it is doing, then the *best* that can be said about it is that a
>>serious double standard concerning race is being constitutionally
>>entrenched.
>>-- 
>>Jim Robinson
>
>  The double standard is not a problem. As long as the jurisdictional lines
>are clearly drawn, as with national boundaries, then there is no problem
>with regional diversity of laws and cultural protections. The rules within
>given jurisdictions should be fair and evenly applied to all. Becoming a
>part of that jurisdiction means accepting the laws of the land within it,
>which includes such mundane issues as to how one becomes a 'citizen'.

No argument, for the most part, here. My argument is with natives being
given the power to use race as a means of denying "citizenship". If Canada
again tried to restrict immigration on the basis of race, there would
rightly be a tremendous hue and cry. Yet what we would find totally
unacceptable is apparently being constitutionally entrenched for natives.

>  That natives are 'protected' from swarms of non-natives moving in and
>taking over their reserves, their lands and eradicating their culture is
>exactly what the division of jurisdictions is about, why there have been
>treaties in the past, and why the natives feel justified in asking for
>protections in this round. What you are asking for is what they have
>fought against for centuries, so it is not surprising your views are
>not in the compromise agreement.

Replace "natives" with "Canadians of European descent"; replace
"non-natives" with "non-European immigrants"; replace "reserves" with
"towns". The result is a racist immigration policy. The only surprising
thing is that a number of well intentioned people are using arguments that
racist groups use when arguing for racial segregation.

>  The problem with all these practices is not that they are inherently
>good or evil, but whether they are taken to extremes and become evil
>or self-destructive in specific instances.

I disagree. Racism is indeed inherently evil. 

>  A second point that your posting brings out that is a common one with
>those of limited cultural tolerance, is the necessity to view such arguments
>from both sides, and not assume that one's own cultural past or rules 
>should be the sole criterion used to judge the outcome.

Cultural tolerance and racial tolerance are two different things for most
people. Please try to not be intellectually dishonest and instead address
what I am saying instead of what you wished I was saying. 

BTW, I have lived in 3 different countries for extended periods of time. In
one of those countries people of European descent, such as myself,
constituted about 5% of the population compared to people of African
descent who constituted about 90% of the population. I understand the
difference between racial and cultural tolerance, and I know what it is
like to live as a visible minority.

I'll make this easy for both of us. I will ask a few questions and I merely
request a simple yes or no followed by as much elaboration as you feel
necessary. [I'm sorry to put these questions in such a format, but,
frankly, I often have a hard time following Ross' style of writing]

1) Do you believe that the legal text gives aboriginals the legal right to
   discriminate on the basis of race (*not* culture)?

2) Do you believe that aboriginal governments should have the legal right
   to discriminate on the basis of race, especially wrt mobility rights?

3) Do you believe that Jim Keegstra, for example, should be able to set up
   a whites-only community?

4) If your answer to 2 is yes, and your answer to 3 is no, how do you
   rationalize this apparent inconsistency?
-- 
Jim Robinson
robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com
{ubc-cs!van-bc,uunet}!mdivax1!robinson

Newsgroups: can.politics,bc.general