Newsgroups: can.politics
From: robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson)
Subject: Re: Canada apartheid
Reply-To: robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson)
Organization: Motorola - Mobile Data Division; Richmond, BC
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: 14 Oct 92 00:22:42 GMT

We had some computer trouble on the weekend, so I am not sure if this
article made its way out. Hit 'n' if it looks familiar:

Michael Hui (myhui@bnr.ca) wrote:
>In article <1992Oct09.142518.23533@bmerh85.bnr.ca> robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins) writes:
>
>>So it looks like the new Constitution will define rights based on
>>(aboriginal/non-aboriginal) "race" and (francophone distinct/anglo-french)
>>language. I want rights based on citizenship, nothing more, nothing less.
>
>You are presupposing the criteria for being an aboriginal. Why don't
>you find out what the criteria will be? By hereditary linkage? By
>adoption of their culture? By consent of the aboriginal government,
>say, from their department of immigration? Or none of the above,
>namely, Indian land will be under aboriginal government, based on
>territory alone, much like our provinces are presently?

This is an excerpt from the Oct 9 Vancouver Sun. The title of the article
is  "Legal text contains important changes to proposals in consensus
report":

**********************START OF EXCERPT *******************************

"The consensus report says the Charter of Rights will apply to aboriginal
governments as it does to federal and provincial governments.

But the text makes clear the charter's guarantee of democratic rights
would not apply to aboriginal governments, as was revealed in a leaked
draft of the text last month. Native people people would not have the
right to elect their governments or run for native office, a provision
demanded by native leaders who want to protect the tradition of hereditary
chiefs.

In a surprise change, mobility rights would also be limited. The text would
amend the charter to specify that the right of Canadians to reside anywhere
in the country would not preclude aboriginal governments from establishing
programs or laws for the 'protection and advancement of aboriginal
languages and cultures'.

Though this provision is ostensibly designed to prevent non-aboriginals
from moving on to reserves, the Native Women's Association of Canada has
repreatedly argued that any limitation on mobility could be used to shut
out native women who marry non-aboriginals and the children of such mixed
marriages."

*************************END OF EXCERPT ************************************

So it looks like we could, and most likely will, have the situation where
one or more aboriginal governments will be run by non-elected "officials"
who cannot be tossed out of office by the people they are governing.

But more to the point of this thread, mobility rights are being limited
with the purpose of preventing non-aboriginals from moving on to reserves.
Whereas some aboriginal governments may choose not to exercise this power,
it is nontheless there and will surely be used by others. Thus, it would
appear that there is nothing to prevent an aboriginal government from being
raced based as Frank is concerned about.

Should this amendment be passed I wonder how long it would be before a
KKK-like organization attempted to set up an all white community with the
purpose of 'protection and advancement of' white 'languages and cultures'?
They would argue, quite consistently, that the aboriginals are doing this,
so they should be allowed to as well; and that if they are not allowed to
do this then a double standard is being applied. Quite rightly, they will
be disallowed from setting up their all white community, but they will have
a new rallying cry that will appeal to some and which, more importantly,
will be based on the precedent set by the natives: if the native can do it,
why can't we, they will say again and again; why is apartheid correct when
practised by a natives, but not correct when practised by whites. This is
the type of crap one can expect to see with race based legislation.

>I hate to clump the two of you together, but some of your arguments
>have such a populist tone, namely, they help your audience conjure up
>sinister scenarios that have no basis in fact, that you might as well
>campaign on the NO side on the same podium as the Reform party. The
>Reform's rhetoric is faithfully reported in the press nowadays, and
>I never fail to spot their populist propaganda every time. Perhaps you
>are learning from their technique too?

Gee, Michael uses the word populist in the same way that a US Republican
uses the word liberal; and, apparently, with the same intellectual honesty.

From my Webster's:

populist: 1: a member of a political party claiming to  represent the
common people; esp, often cap : a member of a US political party formed in
in 1891 primarily to represent agrarian interests and to advocate the
free coinage of silver and government control of monopolies.
2: a believer in the rights, wisdom, or virtues of the common people.

The RP does fit the first part of definition 1 as well as definition 2,
but I do not see anything inherently bad about that. Could you elaborate,
Michael? Or should we just accept that populists (and liberals :-) are
"bad people"?

BTW, as for the press "faithfully" reporting the RP's "rhetoric". Here is
an excerpt from an editorial on the Oct 7 Globe & Mail. It is about the
debate between Manning and NDP leader Audrey Mclaughlin in Guelph two days
earlier. The editorial was, in general, favourable to McLaughlin, but it
contains one relevant tid-bit:

**************************************************************** 
"The surprise was Ms. McLaughlin's competence as a debating opponent to
Mr. Manning, who clearly has the best mind among the national party
leaders."
****************************************************************

So, if the G&M thinks Manning "clearly has the best mind among the national
leaders", is it not reasonable that they should report on him?  What should
the press do, ignore him because some people don't share his particular
vision? What poppycock! The people are quite capable of deciding for
themselves who is spouting garbage and who isn't. Indeed, if I must listen
to Mulroney tell me that the world will come to an end if the no side
wins, then I think that everyone else can tolerate a dose of "populist"
rhetoric. 
-- 
Jim Robinson
robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com
{ubc-cs!van-bc,uunet}!mdivax1!robinson

Newsgroups: can.politics