Imagine you are stuck in traffic. By the side of a road is a billboard that changes it’s message every five minutes. You glance over at it and read this:
“Some claim. One race in Canada should not have to work for a living. That this race should receive millions in funding without accountability. That the elite of this race should be allowed to defraud their regular people. How can anyone support this? How can anyone slam Conservatives for not supporting this like the NDP/Liberals?”
How would you feel? Would it make you angry? Would it make you happy? Would you wonder how a message like that – containing three of five common racist assertions against First Nations peoples, got put up on a billboard for thousands to see?
The billboard is by the side of a road, and the person who has written that has done nothing to warrent the eyeballs that are staring at it. They didn’t pay for the space, they haven’t had their comment fact checked for accuracy. They haven’t even signed their name. It appears that no one even cares if it is hate speech.
And then what if a headline on the billboard declared “Join the Conversation!” and had an ad attached to it? Would you feel like there was a conversation to be had? Would you wonder who was profiting?
This is exactly what comments sections on newspaper web site are.
The above is an actual comment from an anonymous poster that has been allowed to stand in an article about how the Conservative government refuses to make legislative changes to Bill C-45, which is what the Idle No More movement has been protesting.
As a practitioner of real conversation, it drives me crazy that the Globe and Mail among other outlets invites us to “Join the Conversation.” What happens on newspaper websites is not a conversation. It is shrill hit and run racism, unsubstantiated opinion, outright lies and conjecture. It is often targeted personally (the comments against Teresa Spence and Shawn Atleo in recent weeks have been shocking) and it cheapens the idea of conversation and free speech and poisons the environment of public service for those who wish to enter it.
The fact that newspaper comments sections are moderated matters not at all. I don’t believe newspapers are doing society any favours by allowing this kind of discourse to happen.
I am not advocating for a restriction on free speech. What bothers me about this is that anonymous posters are using the reputation of newspaper to get views on their comments. These posters have done nothing to warrant thousands of people reading their vitriol. So why do newspapers cultivate market share, and then allow this stuff to stand? Money? The longer you linger on a page – and outrage is a cheap thrill – the better the bottom line. Pandering to the basest forms of rhetoric works for papers. No matter how much newspapers disclaim the opinions in their comments sections, the fact is that by providing thousands of readers per comment the are enabling hate speech and giving it a wider audience than it would get on its own.
But this stuff absolutely destroys the calibre of public discourse. Those of us that are part of Idle No More or who have been advocates for progressive solutions to First Nations issues spend all of our time addressing myths and not creating substantial proposals for change. And when we do table substantial proposals for change, we are met with contempt by mainstream society and policy makers, who often repeat the lines that are propagated in comments sections.
So here’s what needs to happen. Let free speech thrive in it’s own free market of ideas. Newspapers should close down their comments sections and invite people to join the conversation by creating their own blogs where they can publish their opinions as much as they like. If the opinions have merit, they will get a following. People can invite comments on their own posts. If newspapers want to actually foster conversation, they should convene large World Cafes where human beings can meet each other face to face and share their opinions without hiding behind anonymous pseudonyms.
in the absence of that, newspapers surely must see that they are complicit in the falling standards of civic discourse. Has it come to this, that the only stream of revenue for newspapers is link baiting and outrage? Responsible journalists write the articles and anonymous Canadians provide the juicy violation of media laws that bring in the page views and therefore the revenue. I wonder if anyone has the steel to change this.
Share:
I have a confession. I advise people never to read the comments on newspaper websites. But I do read them. I can’t take my eyes off them. They are a train wreck of logic and hate and contemptuous entitlement.
Lately however, especially the comments on stories about First Nations, they seem entirely predictable. In fact they seem almost too predictable. Every article on the Globe and Mail website for example contains hundreds of comments, a huge majority of which repeat some basic themes:
- Nothing should change until First Nations are accountable for their money
- First Nations get a free ride
- The chiefs are corrupt and bad fiscal managers.
- Treaty rights are a joke: there should be one law for all
- The sooner Aboriginals merge with the rest of us the better.
So let me address these in brief, one by one.
First Nations are accountable. In fact the Auditor-General of Canada said that First Nations are TOO accountable. Too much is spent reporting on funds and not enough time is spent actually using them. But just because you can’t be bothered to look up the financial statements from publicly funded governments does not mean they are not accountable.
First Nations do not get a free ride. All governments receive tax dollars for services. First Nations are no different. And on top of that, First Nations are eligible for special programs and services because of the nature of the treaty relationship and the entrenchment of Aboriginal and treaty rights in the Constitution. But this is not a free ride. This is the result of agreements that asked First Nations to trade away rights to land FOREVER in exchange for some farm tools a few dollars, some new clothes, a reserve owned by the Queen and a school. That isn’t exactly a free ride. If someone invited you to a similar deal, would you take it?
Chiefs are not any more corrupt that anyone else. People are people . When people commit crimes they go to jail and do the time for it. Many, many, federal, provincial and municipal politicians are criminally corrupt as well. There is no greater number of Aboriginal politicians in jail for corruption. Also, there is no federal or provincial government that is not in debt. Having said that, in December 2011, only 12 out of 633 First Nations were in the equivalent of bankruptcy protection. This means that, according to the federal government’s own policies, and based on overly onerous reporting requirements, 98.2% of First Nations are run fine.
In Canada there is one law for all. That law is the Constitution. It protects treaty rights and Aboriginal rights. It also protects free speech, privacy, freedom of assembly and so on. It also allows for laws to be made that are different for different groups of people in order to ameliorate conditions that lead groups of people to have social disadvantages. Anyone who argues that First Nations are not currently disadvantaged in Canadian society has simply not done the research.
Aboriginal people have merged with Canada. And the mechanism for doing so was treaties. And where treaties don’t exist, outstanding issues of Aboriginal rights and title still exist and Canadians and First Nations are compelled to figure this question out. The problem for assimilationists is that they don’t like the terms of this merger. Well it’s too late for that. When the ancestors of settlers arrived in this country they inherited the treaty benefits accorded to all Canadians, which allowed them to own land, start businesses, reap the resources, poison the waters, and profit profit profit. Obviously settlers aren’t giving their benefits back, and clearly First Nations aren’t getting exclusive title over the land back. We are merged. And this is Canada. And it benefits settlers enormously.
The comments I am seeing online have a strange hollow ring to them. They parrot these objections ad infinitum and you see these lines everywhere. No one is really thinking about what they are saying, just reacting. Perhaps in some cases there are coordinated communications strategies to keep repeating these lines over and over until they seem true. But they aren’t true. You might have opinions, you might have a view of the world and how you want it to work, you might have an agenda, but it’s probably not what is really going on.
Straw man arguing has risen to the level of hollow social contempt. It seems funny now. But where it seems real, try a few of these alternate views on and see if you can have an actual conversation.
Share:
Five years ago I wrote about a speech from former Governor General Adrienne Clarkson who pointed out that all Canadians are treaty people.
Now more than ever I want to underscore that fact. Idle No More is drawing attention to the fact that Canada has been founded on a relationship, a relationship that has been set out many times in treaties. Treaty rights are so foundational to the existence of this country that they are enshrined and protected in the Constitution of Canada.
A lot of recent rhetoric from settler Canadians in the last few months has focused on the benefits that flow to First Nations as a result of treaties. But we haven’t had the conversation about the benefits that flow the other way.
Under Canadian law, Aboriginal title exists in places where there are no treaties. This is the case for most of British Columbia, although no First Nation has yet made the case under Canadian Law that they hold title. But the concept is simple and it is clear. Without the consent to enter into a different kind of relationship between First Nations and Canada, Aboriginal title exists. Where Aboriginal title is proven to exist, it has massive implications for Crown land ownership.
Over the past few hundred years, the Crown and later the Crown in right of Canada acted upon the Royal Proclamation of 1763 and pushed its claims further westward making treaties as it went to cement and clarify the relationship with First Nations. This process continues today in BC. In effect this meant that, in exchange for a few benefits flowing to First Nations, the Crown gained control of lands and resources such that it was able to issue title, permits and licenses for use of land. If you own land privately or you lease it or you have a permit to operate on Crown land or you extract resources from the land, you are a treaty beneficiary. You are a treaty person.
Some of the most ridculous opposition to treaty rights comes from people who believe that First Nations should not receive special benefits or have their treaty rights enshrined in the Constitution. This is the same Constitution, by the way, that guarantees the freedom for people to make ridiculous speeches about First Nations. Most who opposed to treaty rights would have a fit if their free speech rights were taken away, but the rights have exactly the same weight in Canadian law: the are protected in the Constitution.
Opposition that is littering comments sections around the web essentially comes down to this: we should tear up the treaties and just have indigenous people assimilate into Canadian society. But this is a ridiculous position. If we tear up treaties, then the contracts are broken and the ownership of the land reverts to First Nations.
If people want to restart the relationship, fine. I’m sure that First Nations will be more than happy to return the billions of dollars of benefits for the trillions of dollars of land value. Then we can start negotiations again. What would you pay now for the right to own private land, or the right to earn a living extracting resources? Trust me, setller governments got the bargain of the millenium. Never has so much been given away for so little, the billions that flow to First Nations every year are a small portion of the trillions that are earned off of formerly Aboriginal-owned lands..
Every Canadian is a treaty person. Every Canadian benefits from treaties made with First Nations, and every Canadian has responsibilities under those treaties as well. First Nations have rights and under treaty have responsibilities too. Idle No More is simply about respecting that we have a relationship and that we all have to live up to it. It is very difficult to do so when huge numbers of your “partners” don’t even acknowledge that they have made a bargain that benefits them.
So allies, make this point to your friends and those who don’t understand the relationship. Ask them where they think the right to own land comes from? It comes from treaties. If they don’t believe you, point them to the Delgamuukw court ruling which says that Aboriginal title cannot be single handedly extinguished by the Crown. It’s simple. When you realize how much you have gained through the power of a longstanding and honourable relationship, you should be thankful. If you still resent the benefits and rights that First Nations enjoy under this relationship, then offer back your land and your ability to make a living and feed yourself and keep your hard earned tax dollars. You cannot be a Canadian without inheriting the legacy of treaty makers. You cannot have the benefits without the responsibilities. This country would never have existed without these agreements and that is why they are protected.
Such a small price to pay for such a huge benefit. Why not celebrate and honour the agreements that make Canada possible?
Share:
Since 1986 I have been working for our communities across Canada. I have met every national chief since George Easmus and am on a first name basis with two of them. I have worked in probably more than fifty communities but have hosted meetings with citizens of almost every First Nation in Canada. Much of my work is geared towards making things better, and in my life time I have seen improvements.
#IdleNoMore is one of the coolest things I have ever seen in my 26 years of working in our communities. It is a grassroots voicing of many concerns and issues, but it focuses on one thing: honour. If you have been wondering what First Nations want, let me break it down for you, because it is nothing new. The ask is for a simple honoring of existing agreements, studies and plans. To make it easy, here is a five point plan for radically changing First Nations communities for the better without doing anything new:
- Implement existing treaties. The Crown made treaties with First Nations starting in the 1700s specifically to manage the relationship between governments. It is a simple matter to continue to implement these treaties as they are existing commitments that both sides can continue to live by. Existing treaty process are simple contemporary ways to work the relationship. Sme First Nations have chosen this path of reconciliation and they should feel free to continue to have that right to invite Canada to a legally binding relationship.
- Update and implement the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples findings. When RCAP was created in 1992 it was in response to the way in which Canada had handled the 1990 Oka crises. It was an acknowledgement of the realities facing indigenous communities and it asked for and listened to thousands of hours of testimony about current conditions and possible solutions. It represented the best and brightest thinking of its time, and it proscribed hundreds of recommendations that would have changed things for the better. Thirty years later, only some of those recommendations have seen the light of day, and they have been half hearted implementations at that.
- Revisit and implement the Kelowna Accord. In 2005 there was an unprecedented process that brought together First Nations leadership, provincial premiers, territorial leaders and the prime minister to reach consensus on a ten year program to seriously and collaboratively address the health, education and social needs of our communities. As one of his first acts in taking office, Stephen Harper scuttled the deal citing the $4 billion price take as too high. It was merely a fraction of what he was eventually willing to spend on fa handful of fighter jets, but it represented an historic opportunity to seriously make a dent in the socio-economic gaps between indigenous and non indigenous people in this country. By the way BC went ahead and implemented many of the Kelowna principles on their own and although there was so much they could do as a province without the Feds involved, they have made bigger strides than any other province since 2005.
- implement the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Canada was one of the last countries in the world to ratify this declaration, but ratify it they did in 2010. All it takes now if for the federal government to work with first nations communities to create theologies that would ensure that indigenous rights are protected and responsibilities are implemented by rights holders, such as governments and social institutions.
- implement Canadian law with respect to consultation with First Nations on legislation that may infringe rights. Aboriginal law is very complicated, but the Supreme Court of Canada has been very clear about the processes that governments must follow to adequately consult with First Nations on issues in which rights might be infringed. Whenever the federal government fails to do this, court cases generally go against them. So a cheap solution would be to engage in a consistent, honorable, legal and high level consultation protocol. If such a process had been followed with respect to the current government’s omnibus bills, #IdleNoMore would never have started.
In my lifetime I have witnessed the entrenchment of Aboriginal rights into our constitution and that many major initiatives that never got off the drawing board. My generation did what we could and now the young ones are saying “it’s our turn.”. And they are rightly saying that we haven’t done enough in the last thirty years. And they are speaking from a place of resourcefulness, connection and creativity that is totally different from what we had in the 1980s.
So Canada, make it easy on yourself. Just complete the good things we started together. Let’s just try that. Nothing new, nothing complicated, nothing we haven’t talked about doing before. But this time, let’s commit.
Share:
Very few of us have our hands on the real levers of power. We lack the money and influence to write policy, create tax codes, move resources around or start and stop wars. Most of us spend almost all of our time going along with the macro trends of the world. We might hate the implications of a fossil fuel economy, but everything we do is firmly embedded within it. We might despise colonization, but we know that we are alos guilty of it in many small ways,
The reason challenges like that are difficult to resolve is that we are embedded within them. We are a part of them and the problem is not like something outside of ourselves that we apply force to. Instead it is like a virus or a mycellium, extending it’s tendrils deep into our lives. We are far more the product of the problems we wish to solve than we are the solutions we long to develop.
Social change is littered with ideas like “taking things to scale” which implies that if you just work hard enough, the things you will do will become popular and viral and will take over the world. We can have a sustainable future if “we just practice simple things and then take them to scale.” The problem with this reasoning is that the field in which we are embedded, that which enables us to practice small changes is heavily immune to change. Our economy, our energy systems, our governments are designed to be incredibly stable. They can withstand all kinds of threats and massive changes, This is a GOOD THING. I would hate to have the energy system that powers my life to be fickle enough to be transformed by every good idea that comes along about sustainable power generation. So that is the irony. In the western world, the stability that we rely on to be able to “make change” is exactly that which we desire to change.
We are embedded in the system. We ARE the system. That which we desire to change is US. You want a peaceful world, because you are not a fully peaceful person – violence has seeped into your life, and you understand the implications of it. This is also a GOOD THING. Because, as my friend Adam Kahane keeps quoting from time to time “if you are not a part of the problem, you cannot be part of the solution.” Real change in stable societies like Canada comes only from catastrophic failure. That may be on our horizon, but I call you a liar if it’s something you desire. It will not be pretty. Living on the west coast of Canada, I sometimes think about it because a massive earthquake will strike here – possibly in my lifetime – and it will change everything instantly and massively and forever. So, while climate change and economic collapse are probabilities, earthquakes are certainties.
So let’s forget about prototyping new things and “taking them to scale.” But let’s not forget about prototyping new things. Because one of the big lessons from the living systems world view is that change happens in an evolutionary way. It happens deep within the system and it requires two resources we all have – creativity and time. It does not require hope. Living systems do not hope. They just change.
Years ago I was inspired by Michael Dowd’s ideas captured in “Thank God for Evolution” in which he talks about mutations as the vehicle of change in evolving systems. Of course this is a widespread thought, but it was quite liberating to me when I first discovered it because it compels us to use our own creativity to make change. Practicing something different, as some small level, is not a useless endeavour. There is no way to know what will happen when you mutate the system. And so that is a reason for practicing. That is why I love Occupy and #IdleNoMore and other social gathering practices. They are creative mutations of the status quo. And they are undertaken without any expectation of massive change. Instead they seed little openings, the vast majority of which don’t go anywhere. In an evolutionary system, mutations may introduce new levels of adaptability, but they might alos kill off the organism. But to survive and evolve, an organism needs to mutate. Remaining the same is also suicidal, because everything else is mutating and changing, and you will lose your fitness if you don’t also change.
So the second resource we all have is time. if you are beholden to making change along a strategic critical pathway, especially in a complex living system, you will suffer terrible delusions. Very few of us have that kind of time. The kind of time we do have is the time to let whatever we do work or fail. To orient yourself to this kind of time, you need to practice something with no expectation of it’s success. The moment you cling to a desired result is the moment suffering creeps into your work, and the moment you begin to lose resilience. Adaptability is reliant on creative imaginations working resourcefully.
So changing from within has something to do with all of this. Watching #IdleNoMore is to witness a celebratory mutation in the system of colonization. It is impossible to say if it will have the desired results that people project upon it. But of course it will “work.” We need to sit and watch it work as a mutation in a living system. And the bonus is that we get to round dance while we do it!