From: rossw@sco.COM (Ross Wetmore)
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Internal passports
Date: 15 Oct 92 14:04:44 GMT
Organization: SCO Canada, Inc.

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.

  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.

  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.

  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.

>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'.

  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.

  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.

  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.
---- 
Ross W. Wetmore - (416)922-1937 x259    | RFC822net: rossw@scocan.sco.COM
SCO Canada Inc, Toronto, Ont, Canada.   | UUCP:{uunet,utcsri}!scocan!rossw
<std.disclaimer>
----