From: myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui)
Subject: Re: Canada apartheid
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 15:02:13 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.135308.13251@bmerh85.bnr.ca> robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins) writes:
>Your comments criticizing my position on the aboriginal peoples
>sounded like they were copied from the Citizen editorial (including
>such words as "grate" etc.)

Cute. Are we moving our musings over to falsehood by association now?

I guess it's time for a Ross Perot one line zinger:

    stop talking about it and let's do something about it.

Aboriginal self government, as so eloquently stated and explained by
Mary Ellen Turpel on The Journal a few nights ago (I have the whole
thing on video tape), is one action plan that will definitely improve
the Indian's current plight among certain segments of their
population.

>Are you missing the fact that the Citizen is basically calling for the
>entrenchment of apartheid in our constitution?

That is the interpretation you are resolutely holding on to. Not me.
Apartheid can mean segregation by race, culture, territory, and a few
more, like by government. Quebec's demands are for culture, territory
and government only. So is the Indians' demand.

>They argue that because the Indian Act is racist (and it is) and unequal
>status was always "given" aboriginals, therefore we should accept 
>unequal rights for aboriginal and non-aboriginal citizens in the future.
>No thanks.

The Indian Act goes further. The Status Indians are put under the
control of the federal government, rather than being represented at the
federal level by elected or otherwise chiefs. It's like the current
situation in Hong Kong. The residents can elect and rant and rave all
they want.  And the present governor, Chris Patten, is an enlightened
enough man to be very receptive and progressive. But in the end, it's
one man's decision.  It's the same right now with the Status Indians.
They want to change that, so that decisions affecting their community,
say, on a reserve (there you have your nice clean geographic
partitioning) will be a consensus (or by a vote) of representatives
from that reserve, and no more, subject to the usual limitations on the
scope of their decisions similar to those governing a province.

First, tell me whether the above suggestion in changing the Indian Act
is a Good Thing. Then we can argue on the details. I think it is a
very Good Thing indeed. I know so, from having grown up in Hong Kong and all.

The nit picking on how those representatives will be chosen is far
lesser in importance than the fact that those representatives will be
the final decision makers. Ah, someone will now want to raise the
Hitler thing again.  No, obviously no one wants another Hitler to come
to power "on behalf of all you little people down there." That would be
sad indeed. But wasn't Hitler elected? See, even enforcing elections in
the future Natives' Self Government won't gaurantee that it'll work out
properly.

Hey, better crank up your frequency of postings.  I'm considering going
down to the advance polls Thursday to vote YES, provided I have time to
examine the oh-so-close-it's-almost-semi-final legal text by then.

Michael MY Hui  myhui@bnr.ca  Ottawa Canada
<< Mary Ellen Turpel is my hero. >>