Open Letter to the Pope

Following is a letter composed with my assistance and sent by Bernice Daigneault to the pope in response to his refusal to apologize for the legacy of abuse in residential schools.  

AN OPEN LETTER TO “THE POPE”

March 30, 2018

Jorge Mario Bergoglio
aka Pope Francis
00120 Via del Pelegrino
Citta del Vaticano

Dear Mr. Jorge Mario Bergoglio (aka Pope Francis):

I am writing to express my outrage at your refusal to issue an apology for the Catholic church’s prominent role in the atrocious legacy of violence and abuse suffered by indigenous peoples attending residential schools in Canada. 

There are so many reasons why this infuriates me.  First of all, I am a residential school survivor of the Ile a La Crosse residential school (1962-64).   While there, I endured not only cultural, personal and physical abuse at the hands of the nuns but also sexual violence of the worst sort by a priest who would quote scripture as he was performing his mortifying acts.  None of the students of the Ile a La Crosse residential school have received any compensation from the Government of Canada because they claim the school was run by the Catholic church without support from the Government.  Although this is not entirely true, there were other schools like this which the Catholic church set up and ran with very little if any oversight from the government of Canada.  My point is that this puts the onus of responsibility directly upon the church to take responsibility for these abuses and be held accountable for them. 

Secondly, it is a shameful disgrace that the Catholic church has been so reluctant to participate in and contribute towards compensation efforts by the Canadian government and other churches to residential school survivors who are recognized.  It is even difficult if not impossible to take the Catholic church to court because, as a church, you have avoided status as a legal entity that can be held accountable in court just like any other corporate body in Canada.  So not only is the Catholic church avoiding taking responsibility for the genocidal nature of residential schools but now you as the patriarchal head of the Catholic church are refusing to apologize.  This is truly outrageous. 

Thirdly, you and other church officials keep on saying that dealing with the legacy of abuse in residential schools requires an individual or local/regional response.  Really!  I have seen lots of individual residential school survivors come forward over the last 25 years to talk about their victimization but not once have I seen a priest or a nun come forward to take responsibility for the “sins” they have committed as the perpetrators of this abuse.  You can’t have reconciliation if the individuals involved in violating indigenous people will not acknowledge they did wrong and are not held accountable for it.  Just like your refusal to apologize, this is avoidance and denial.  The absence of any such confession on the part of individuals within the Catholic church shows how deceitful it is to promote, as the Catholic bishops letter states, individual encounters and pastoral initiatives.  How are indigenous peoples supposed to trust or engage in pastoral initiatives when it was the very “pastors” who abused them!

Fourthly, a factor everyone keeps avoiding, is that when a social ill is perpetuated because of systemic or institutional realities, it is incumbent upon the head of that institution to not only apologize but to promote the radical transformation of that institution.  For example, racism in Canada and elsewhere will not be eliminated only by encouraging a change of heart and attitudes in individuals; it must be accompanied by a fundamental re-formation (or conversion, if you wish) of corporations and institutions in Canadian society.  Based on your statements about poverty, environment and capitalism, I believe you know this to be necessary.  But you need to apply this to your church as well.  The legacy of abuse in residential schools in Canada cannot be explained by a “few bad apples” in your church.  This atrocity is symptomatic of systemic factors such as church doctrine, liturgical issues and a patriarchal and hierarchal structure – the patrimony of the Roman Catholic church.  A true and meaningful apology has to be accompanied by institutional transformation. 

Fifthly, I believe it is the height of hypocrisy to advocate reconciliation, healing and solidarity with indigenous peoples and yet refuse to apologize for the atrocities committed by the Catholic church.  Without an apology, words such as reconciliation, healing and solidarity become mere masquerades to hide the real agenda of assimilation, new forms of colonialism and accommodation of indigenous peoples within the same basic institutional framework of the Catholic church.  This is not only hypocritical, it is deceitful.  Reconciliation and healing requires an acknowledgement of responsibility and a radical and fundamental change on the part of the individual or corporate entity that caused the conflict, injury or harm inflicted.  I believe you Christians call it “repentance”.  Without an apology, I am left wondering, like the Leonard Cohen song lyrics say, what repentance means. It makes your whole “Christian” message an empty shell. 

 Sixthly, the refusal to apologize clearly indicates the ongoing obstinacy of the Catholic church in truly understanding indigenous spirituality.  Our traditional spirituality comes from the land, the water, all of creation.  Having lived so close to creation for thousands of years, it is evident to us that Creator exists and that Creator has invisible attributes such as great power and a divine nature.  Even your scriptures recognize this (check out Romans 1:19-20).  My question is why have all of the Christian churches who set up missions in our settlements never recognized this?  You are so consumed with converting us into your intractable doctrines through whatever means possible that you are blinded to seeing true spirituality in traditions that are different than your own.  This raises the question of authenticity of your own spirituality.

Finally, I began this letter by using your real name, Jorge Mario Bergoglio.  I did this not out of disrespect but to speak to the real human being that you are and to speak on equal footing which, according to my tradition, we are.  One of the practices of residential schools and the Catholic church was to “christen” newly born indigenous children with so-called “Christian” names.  My first given name was Iskwewsis and later, when my nature became evident, I was named Asiskikootewanapiskosis, or Aski for short.  Giving us different names, such as Bernice or Mary or whatever, as a so-called sacrament of the church is part of the process of colonialism and church procedure.  If we are ever going to communicate and understand each other, we must start from who we really are, human to human, not from institutionally appointed designations. 

Sincerely,

Asiskikootewanapiskosis (aka Bernice Daigneault)

A letter re accountability to Saskatchewan Senators

Dear Senators from Saskatchewan:

I wish to strenuously object to the passage by the Senate of the Financial Transparency and Accountability Act.  Please allow me to explain why.  

First of all, this proposed Act was initiated as a Private Members Bill by an MP from Saskatchewan who does not even have any First Nations home Reserves in her federal electoral district.  That in itself, without addressing the specific contents, of the proposed Act is a clear indication of the untoward spirit and intent of her Bill.  It is highly unlikely that any First Nations have asked her to do this.  If she is representing her constituents in proceeding with this bill, she is representing the underside of some very ignorant and racist notions about what actually goes on with First Nations and the Aboriginal Affairs Department.  I find it difficult to understand how a chamber of sober, second thought would want to lend credence to such motivations.  

Secondly, passage of this Act would further inflame the passions and motivation of the Idle No More movement and other initiatives underway by Aboriginal movements.  If I am correct, as one who fully supports Idle No More, I suppose I should really welcome the passage of this Act. But my better judgement would urge you not to add fuel to the fire.  I believe the issues that Idle No More and others are dealing with are sufficient to ensure that this movement will continue until its demands regarding land and water and First Nations sovereignty and the Treaties are met.  Aboriginal people need some indication that the Government of Canada, even if only the Senate, is treating them with respect and dignity, not further disdain and superiority.  

Thirdly, Canada must come to terms with the historical and legally established fact that First Nations never did concede sovereignty in their own territory.  Truthfulness (transparency) and accountability are character traits within the indigenous world view, not matters that can be legislated.  It is, as it were, a law written on the heart, and not a piece of paper or written document that will bring truth speaking and accountability about.  To impose a law would be counterproductive, and probably achieve the opposite of transparency and accountability.  To wit, note the difficulty that the House of Commons, and more recently the Senate, has in ensuring accountability, despite the accountability act that Steven Harper brought in.  The Parliamentary Budget Officer has to go to court to ensure he gets the information required to do his job, same thing goes for the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and MP's refuse to let the Auditor General give an accounting on their salaries.  In fact, I am making two points here: 1) clean up your own act first before you go pointing the finger at others; and 2) you have no right to tell First Nations about standards of accountability and transparency, not only because the House and Senate and corporate CEO's are not doing it, but more importantly, because that is First Nations business, not yours.  Nothing in the Royal Proclamation of 1763 or the historic Treaties says anything about First Nations giving up their sovereignty or their capacity to govern themselves.  

Fourthly, there is nothing in the Indian Act (racist as it is) and regulations of the Aboriginal Affairs Department that prevents departmental officials from doing what Bill C-27 proposes to do.  In view of the controls that AANDD has, this proposed Act is redundant.  It is not necessary.  Why should special legislation be passed when AANDD can already do what the legislation wants to authorize?  I have some answers for that question but I don't think you would want to hear them.  

Finally, I have worked with First Nations and other Aboriginal organizations for almost 30 years, and I have a very good sense how onerous and oppressive current controls by AANDD are on a FN government.  They also create a double standard.  To impose further controls and paperwork upon the staff and government officials of a FN Band would in many cases be impossible to bear.  If this Act is passed, it should be accompanied with a whole lot of new money to help pay for the bureaucracy it would create.  Furthermore, many FN's are spawning businesses or economic development initiatives which, if they had to publish what this Act is demanding, would put these businesses at a distinct economic disadvantage in a very competitive world.  Once again, by voting in favour of this Act, you would be imposing a double standard.  Non-Aboriginal business have no such standard of accountability, and many of the big corporations are engaged in activities for which they should also be held criminally accountable.  Once again, clean up our own house first.  A good example is the best teacher. 

How did we get to this place?

I just signed a petition asking the Governor-General of Canada to use his reserve powers to force the resignation of Steven Harper as Prime Minister.  At first I was reluctant because I know it probably won't achieve the outcome.  Besides, he is just a puppet of the corporations that currently control the Government of Canada.  To wait for an election seems pointless to me for a number of reasons: 1) democracy is broken in Canada, thanks in part to the first past the post system; 2) with the damage Harper has done over the past two years with a so-called majority government, this country cannot bear another 2 or 3 years of the same and even worse; 3) a corporate state such as ours is politically and morally blind; if its back is not broken, it will exercise its influence over whatever party is in power (except possibly the Greens); and, 4) with only 60% of eligible Canadian voters exercising their right, it is quite probable that Steven Harper could get another majority with only 23-24% of that vote.

After taking a long walk in the Saskatchewan winter snow, taking all this into consideration, I signed the petition after all.  As a pacifist, regardless how dire, dismal and treacherous the circumstances, I must always choose hope even when the situation appears as desperate as ours.  Besides, I have always lived my life on the basis of principles, not pragmatics (maybe that's why I have so much time to do all this writing).  The principle involved here is that we must fully exploit all peaceful, non-violent means to deal with the despot in Ottawa, even if they don't work.  Should the situation deteriorate, the resistance to the corporate state will stay strong and vibrant knowing we exercised all the democratic and civil rights and means available.  By no means, however, does this rule out civil disobedience to unjust laws.

But the big question I keep asking myself is, how did we get ourselves into such a mess that we have to resort to drastic measures such as petitions to get the Prime Minister to resign. What happened in Canada that a minority Tea Party-like movement has actually seized the reigns of government?

As citizens, we have been subjected to shutting down Parliament to prevent cooperation among parties representing the majority, criminals, scam-artists and racists being hired by the PM as senior advisers and other positions, wholesale destruction of the environment, denial of climate change and firing of scientists who are there to protect the environment, allowing undemocratic interests such as oil, energy and mining corporations to dictate policy, subverting democracy with deception, suppression and robocalls, appointment of Senators of unsound character and questionable ability, termination and undermining of Treaties with the original Nations residing in Canada, defamation of decent and civil-minded leaders of the democratically elected opposition to the government, abandoning our peace-keeping approach and engaging in wars with combat and destructive weaponry, putting health of Canadians at risk by cutting food inspectors and reducing labelling, getting rid of CIDA and having mining companies operating overseas engaged in oppressive activities deliver foreign aid, subverting democratic debate with Omnibus Bills, even considering buying a high-tech bomber such as the F-35 and then lying about how much it costs, declaring environmentalists as dangerous radicals, officially investigating Cindy Blackstock on the level of a terrorist simply because she advocates on behalf of Aboriginal children, undermining the attempts of the Parliamentary Budget Officer to bring about accountability in Parliament, etc., etc., etc.  Cumulatively, this makes the sponsorship scandal which brought down the Liberals seem like peanuts. And yet far too many Canadians are content to sit there and take it.  Thank God for Idle No More.

To answer the question of how we got here, I believe one of the key factors, though not the only one, has to do with rage and fear.  People have fear about what they don't know about and are enraged when they only have partial facts.  Throw in a bit of pseudo-morality which you want to impose on the whole society into that emotional powder keg of rage and fear, and what you have is a very destructive force.  In the U.S., they call this the Tea Party, but in Canada we have the conservative-reform-alliance party. Now, I still operate under the assumption that the majority of people in Canada are decent, progressive and reasonably informed citizens (possibly an illusion).  Yet in Ottawa we have a government that does not represent this majority.  So what happened?

I put much of the blame on the media.  Preposterous and outlandish views sell.  So when Preston Manning came along giving vent to a certain type of grassroots people in Western Canada and rural Ontario who were feeling left out and ignored by "central" Canada, instead of dismissing them as bizarre, eccentric or even "radical", as is so often done in the media, they paid attention to this movement and thus reform and alliance movement became accommodated by the mainstream.  It is important to note that when the Greens came along, the mainstream media never gave them the kind of attention given to Reform and Alliance.  Perhaps the Greens are too reasonable and sensible, and that, of course, won't sell newspapers or get advertisers for the TV news shows.  Or perhaps Green policies may actually do something about the environment, or poverty or encouraging First Nations to be Nations. Goodness gracious! We can't have that!

The problem is that before they fully took over the government, corporate influences had to control the media first - which they have done. So by abandoning investigative reporting, feeding people half-truths and ignoring certain questions entirely, reinforcing certain stereotypes, and featuring highly opinionated pundits and commentators of a certain ideological stripe, the media ensures that a significant portion of the voting public does not have the facts people require to make informed choices in a democracy.  Who fills the vacuum? Why, the corporate interests, of course.

Maybe its because I used to be a reporter and editor, or because I have run for public office several times but the words of Leonard Cohen in "Anthem" keep ringing in my ear:
"I can't run no more 
with that lawless crowd while the killers in high places say their prayers out loud. But they've summoned, they've summoned up a thundercloud
and they're going to hear from me."
That is why I am going to continue to "ring the bells that still can ring" and "forget my perfect offering." Why?
Because, "there is a crack in everything, that's how the light gets in."

Indigenous Culture and the Blindness of Capitalism

In the January 25, 2013 edition of HuffPost Politics (Canada), you will find a blog by Diane Weber Bederman entitled, "The Left's Betrayal of the First Nations".  It is a classic example of how certain destructive forces in our society are attempting to totally distort and deceive the public about positive, Aboriginally driven movements such as Idle No More.  Although the views contained in this article are without any merit and warrant our contempt, I include the link to this article for two reasons: 1) it is an education in itself in that it demonstrates the flim flam and incomprehension of Conservative attacks; and 2) HuffPost censors refused to print my rebuttal to Bederman's blog in their comment section.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/diane-bederman/idle-no-more-left_b_2546243.html?utm_hp_ref=tw

Based on her article, this author does not have a clue about either indigenous world views or left wing ideology. She defines neither, and instead uses a Tea Party-like peppergun approach to villify anyone who questions capitalism, colonialism, globalization or simply stands up for and with Aboriginal Peoples in their quest for justice and fairness. I'm sure Paul Martin, our former PM and a successful capitalist, now devoting his energies to Aboriginal causes, would be amused to find himself in the company of left wing ideologues.  According to Bederman, if you are concerned about socio-economic conditions of Aboriginal people and try to exercise some some responsibility for those conditions, you stand in the way of capitalism and are betraying Aboriginal people.  And you are a "left-wing fundamentalist" (which is sort of like military intelligence, or more accurately, cognitive dissonance).

First of all, Bederman's assumption that traditional indigenous culture is so weak and primitive that it is open to manipulation by either the left or the right has to be thoroughly and completely denounced.  She is presenting a pseudo-analysis that is entirely based on the Eurocentric notions which are at the heart of the malaise we find ourselves in with settler/immigrant and Aboriginal relations.  Idle No More, and certainly traditional indigenous perspectives, are neither left or right, nor are they centrist.  Aboriginal world views belong to a totally different paradigm as to how to understand life, the earth, society, relationships or even what we know or don't know.  For instance, First Nations culture does not distinguish between the planet and the people that live on Earth.  Neither do many environmentalists, as Bederman suggests.

It is true that there have been many well-meaning attempts to do something about unacceptable socio-economic conditions of Aboriginal Peoples by those who may be reasonably considered as "left" leaning or actual self-confessed left-wing activists.  Many projects and programs have been initiated but they have not been sustained nor have the multitude of these attempts made a marked improvement in the socio-economic conditions being addressed. Just as their right-wing counterparts, many on the left have failed to understand the strength and essence of indigenous culture.  I could write a longer essay on the disconnect between the left and traditional Aboriginal culture, which makes the Bederman blog all the more specious.

But where the strength and uniqueness of indigenous culture is seen most starkly is in its resilience in the face of the most concerted onslaught of obliteration imaginable at the hands of capitalists and colonialists. And they have not quit - we do not yet live in a post-colonialist age as clearly demonstrated by the hunger strike of Chief Theresa Spence and the growing Idle No More movement. Indigenous culture is still here and growing despite centuries of attempts by capitalism and colonialism to assimilate, acculturate, decimate, isolate, alienate or annihilate.  Despite my critique of the left in relation to Aboriginal issues, they were just trying to clean up the mess created by capitalism, colonialism and globalism.  Capitalism has not worked, and never will work, within the context of indigenous culture.  

There are many more critiques that could be made about the Bederman blog but it is ironic that she ends her vitriol with a reference to the play, "Waiting for Godot", suggesting that Aboriginal people will be trapped in the past if she and her lot can't drive a wedge between Aboriginal people and anti-capitalists.  The men who were waiting for Godot were visited by a slave-trader, Pozzo, and his slave whom he had singing and dancing for the men waiting.  The next day the same slave-trader again came by the two men waiting for Godot but this time the slave-trader was blind.  Seems like Pozzo is still with us.

Signs of the Times: Idle No More: The Media Doesn't Get It

Signs of the Times: Idle No More: The Media Doesn't Get It

Idle No More: The Media Doesn't Get It

The mainstream corporate media just don’t get it.  After watching the coverage of #Idle No More, #J11 and Chief Theresa Spence’s hunger strike, it is clear that a major obstacle to getting our message across to mainstream society is the media itself.  I must admit that I am not an avid media watcher: I don’t read any printed newspapers or magazines (except alternative ones), the only news I watch is CBC News Network and the The National, and occasionally I may check out CTV and Global just to see what spin they are putting to a story I am interested in.  However, I do listen to CBC Radio daily (no ads) and I get my print news online from alternative sources. Lately, I have been considering not watching any TV news at all. 

However, lately, during the life of Idle No More, I have been making exceptions to my rule of ignoring mainstream media, only to be affirmed that my mainstream media boycott is a wise course of action.  Don’t get me wrong – I used to be a reporter, editor, even started my own magazine which ran for five years (no ads).  Furthermore, I believe we need a strong and vibrant media in order to have a healthy democracy.  I may even be a bit old-school in favouring the role of print and radio media, and looking somewhat askance at social media.  So I am not some raving anti-media fanatic. 

I am in favour of informed decision-making, intelligence, critical or big-picture analysis, investigative journalism and thought-provoking articles.  But that is not what you get with any of the mainstream media (individual exceptions, of course), and based on some of the columns Huff Post has been publishing lately, it looks like they want to be mainstream as well.  By the way, I do not include Fox News or the Toronto Sun as part of any kind of media (further comment about that would be a waste of time).

So what don’t the media get.  With respect to Idle No More, the media does not understand anything to do with Nation to Nation relationship, honouring and restoring the historic Treaties, the history and ongoing practice of colonialism in Canada or sovereignty of First Nations.  These are big picture items that require a fundamental power shift in how Canada is run.  To understand the emergence and popularity of Idle No More, to understand why so many chiefs boycotted the Harper-AFN meeting, and to understand why Chief Spence took the drastic step of going on a hunger strike, you have to deal with the very issues the media doesn’t get. 

Instead what the media asks for is a list of specific demands on the part of Idle No More.  The media would be much happier if Idle No More spokespersons said: “We want more and better housing;” “We want programs to fight diabetes or improve health indicators;” “We want jobs;” “We want economic development programs;” “We want more suicide intervention or addiction programs.”  This would fit much more conveniently into the dominant media narrative (and public stereotype) about Aboriginal people: that they are an impoverished, unhealthy people living in terrible conditions.  In other words, they are inferior.  Based on this, the media can then package and sell a story much easier because it fits with what a significant segment of the public expects or assumes about “Indians”. 

Another reason media asks for specific demands such as those listed above is because they have an orientation to what is possible and practical, what is deliverable, to their notion of reality.  So asking for repeal of Bills that have already passed through Parliament and approved by Senate, or restoring a Nation to Nation relationship, or having the Crown (through Governor-General) present at a meeting with government and First Nations is a non-deliverable according to Harper, and the media has largely bought into that.  If it’s not practical or realistic, the media will dismiss it, and do so with a lot of condescension.  This is very similar to how the American media got sucked into Bush’s notion that reality is whatever he made it out to be. 

One other factor to be mindful of with the media is that they have a notion about what they call balance or objectivity.  This is the way the media notion of balance works: if we find someone who says “A” then we have to find someone who says “Z”, and then the viewer can decide for herself and probably land up somewhere around “M”.  Then the media thinks it has done its job and brought balance.  But what if the media quotes someone who is saying “M”, or even saying “C” and it is actually the truth.  Doesn’t matter.  Then they go off the other end of the scale and find someone who is saying “ZZ”, simply to reach what they think of as balance.  Case in point?  The Lang-O’Leary Report on CBC.  Amanda Lang is a little right of centre in her economic perspective so they go and find someone like Terry O’Leary who is way off the scale (ZZZ), and they think they have balance.  Whether it’s intended or not, this is also a very effective divide and conquer technique. 

Idle No More is about honouring the Earth and about a transformational change where First Nations are in charge of their own destiny.  As soon as a movement for fundamental change yields to the seduction of providing specific demands, the system wins. Then the government can talk about these demands for years to come, in the meantime allowing their corporate masters to continue the ongoing destruction, and finally providing a watered down settlement that doesn't change anything, take it or leave it. Such an outcome would only reinforce the power of the corporate state and allow it to play the benevolent benefactor role which keeps First Nations and Metis people in submission and dependant. The principle of ending corporate and colonial rule and shifting power to the people must be remain the focus of Idle No More.

Beyond J11

J11 is now history!  Prior to J11, there were great expectations, some skepticism (myself included, see lsawatsky.blogspot.com, Jan. 4, 2013) and demands were made.  Chief Theresa Spence’s hunger strike deserves a significant portion of the credit for getting the Harper Government to agree to the meeting on J11, and the #IdleNoMore (INM) movement deserves the rest of the credit.  Forcing Harper to have a meeting on First Nations issues is a noteworthy accomplishment and I wholeheartedly applaud both Chief Spence and INM for achieving this. 

Despite misgivings on my part, it is necessary to recognize and respect the attempts on National Chief Shawn Atleo’s part to get consensus of First Nations Chiefs and even for going to the meeting to tell Harper face to face what the Chiefs and INM are demanding.  The option to not attend was also a reasonable and respectable choice but Grand Chief Atleo did what he was elected to do within the colonized framework of First Nations governance under the Indian Act.  

But what were the expectations and demands of Chief Spence and INM prior to J11?  Chief Spence wanted

• A meeting with Harper, the Governor-General and the Ontario Premier all present
• Discussion on the implementation of the Treaties, the nation to nation relationship between First Nations and Canada, and the constitutionally protected rights as a sovereign nation. 

Contrary to mainstream media reports, the INM has been very clear about their expectations:

• Withdrawal of sections of both Omnibus bills that affect First Nations
• Protection of land, water and air, and resource sharing
• Implementation of historic treaties on a nation-to-nation basis
• Self-determination for First Nations, the original inhabitants, as full-fledged Nations
• Support for Chief Theresa Spence and her demands. 

I ask forgiveness from Chief Spence and the INM if I have failed to word these expectations appropriately or missed some key demands. 

What has become clear one day after J11 is that none of these expectations or demands have been met: 

• Harper designed the meeting so that Chief Spence would have to boycott the meeting, if for no other reason than to retain her integrity.  As predicted, Harper still has not met with Chief Spence, nor will he. 
• The Governor-General was not part of the meeting of Harper and First Nations Chiefs
• The Government clearly refused to rescind anything in the Omnibus bills
• There was no assurance about environmental protection, resource-sharing or sovereignty for First Nations
• Despite the agreement to discuss Treaty relationships, Harper and First Nations are on a completely different page when they use the word “treaty”.  In fact, they are in a different book. 

If Harper agreed to modernize the historic, numbered Treaties on J11, what he has in mind is a similar template as is currently being used by the Government of Canada in making treaties with First Nations in B.C., most of whom do not have Treaties.  Essentially what the treaty-making process in B.C. amounts to is extinguishment of indigenous rights – termination.  Already in the first such settlement with the Nishga in B.C. 10 years ago, they are soon running out of the money they settled for and are now put in a position where they have to sell land on the reserve to non-native buyers.  This suits the Harper government and their corporate bosses just fine. 

Many of the initial signers of the historic Treaties were held hostage simply because they did not understand the language or importance placed on the written word by John A. MacDonald and his cronies, nor did MacDonald or his cronies understand the importance First Nations placed on oral tradition.  If the First Nations leaders stay true to their position that the historic Treaties are sacred and based on true Nation to Nation relations, then I am convinced these discussions with the Harper government will come to nothing. 

So what does the rejection of all key demands of IdleNoMore and Chief Spence mean for the future?  For INM, it clearly means that this movement will have a long life because considerable public pressure will have to be exercised to bring about the fundamental transformational change required to achieve its aims.  For Chief Spence, the prognosis is not so good.  The Harper government is in power for another two years, and I do not see any possibility of the corporations that control Harper letting him off the hook and allowing him to do the humanly and morally sensible thing, whether Chief Theresa Spence is with us or not.  If the choice between the existence of the Harper government and meeting Chief Spence’s demands were up to me, I would choose Theresa Spence in a heartbeat. 

What we need is transformation of the whole way of doing things in Canada: true and sincere Nation to Nation relations with First Nations, Metis and Inuit, but also economically, politically, democratically, ecologically and culturally for the rest of us.  The Nation to Nation transformation (see my next blog) must happen immediately, not only for the sake of historical justice but also for Chief Spence’s life.  And frankly, I for one, cannot wait another 2-3 years until the next charade of an election either.