Offended by Offence

Please note:

With respect to Wes Elliott, a mistake has been made.  He is not a negotiator, but is on the negotiating team.  I apologize for the error.

FW 

***

The final program for the New Directions in Aboriginal Policy forum at Mount Royal University on May 5, 2010 has just been completed.  It is posted on the New Directions in Aboriginal Policy Forums page and is cut and pasted below.  The posted program now contains the abstract for the presentation of Wes Elliott  (Six Nations of the Grand River Territory) – “Allies of the Crown: Honouring the Treaties is the Formula for Peace”.  The abstract states that

“The Great Law of Peace contains the principles which the Creator gave to the Houdensaunee people to live in harmony with one another and the land. This foundation formed the oldest confederacy of nations in the world. It is our Constitution. When European contact came, two wampum belts or treaties, were agreed upon: the Two Row and the Silver Covenant Chain. They became the Law of the Land. Today they are still the Law of the Land. They govern the conduct between our nations. They supercede any laws created for so called justice.

In Caledonia, both treaties have been violated. In Brantford, both treaties have been violated. In negotiations, both have been violated.  We have never been conquered. We are the only native nations in Canada that are allies to the Crown. We have our own language, culture and history, but most of all, we uphold our part of the Treaties. The basic understanding of these treaties, the honouring of them, then abiding by them, is the formula for peace”.

We are very pleased that Mr. Elliott has agreed to make this presentation and to critically engage the position of Mark Vandermaas and Gary McHale.  Once again, the forum does not endorse either position; its only goal is to present diverse points of view.  Although many will not agree with the arguments presented, Mount Royal University is a strong supporter of academic freedom and critical inquiry.  It is by being exposed to challenging points of view, in fact, that enables all people to develop intellectually.

***

New Directions in Aboriginal Policy

Free Public Forum at Mount Royal University

Nickle Theatre (Main Building, West Gate)

Calgary, Alberta, May 5, 2010

Sponsored by:

Mount Royal University’s Department of Policy Studies,

Arts Scholarly Events Committee, Office of Provost and Vice-President, Academic,

and the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

8:30-9:00              Coffee

9:00-9:20              Opening Remarks

Sabrina Reed (Associate Dean, Faculty of Arts, Mount Royal University) – Welcome

Frances Widdowson (Mount Royal University) – The Kindly Inquisition Influencing Aboriginal Policy Formulation

9:20-10:00            Keynote Address

Don Sandberg (Frontier Centre for Public Policy) – The State of First Nations in Canada Today

10:00-10:15         Coffee

10:15-12:00         Panel I – Private Property and Native Economic Development (Chair: Kari Roberts)

Tom Flanagan (University of Calgary) – Beyond the Indian Act: Restoring Aboriginal Property Rights

Albert Howard (Independent Researcher) – Field of Dreams: “Building” Aboriginal Economies with Property Ownership

Glenn North Peigan (University of Lethbridge) – The Treaties, Economic Development Funding and Aboriginal Dependency

Joseph Quesnel (Frontier Centre For Public Policy) – The Politics of Cutting Your Losses: Non-viable Reserves and Aboriginal Economic Development 

12:00-1:00            Lunch Break

1:00-2:45              Panel II – Aboriginal Sovereignty, Indigenous Nationalism, and the Rule of Law (Chair: Miriam Carey)

Ron Bourgeault (University of Regina) – The Aboriginal National Question: Colonialism, Self-Determination and the New Right

Wes Elliott (Six Nations of the Grand River Territory) – Allies of the Crown: Honouring the Treaties is the Formula for Peace

Gary McHale (CANACE) – The Face of Aboriginal Sovereignty Versus the Rule of Law in Caledonia

Mark Vandermaas (Caledonia Victims Project) – Listening to Victims: A Fresh Approach to Reconciliation and Healing

2:45-3:00              Coffee

3:00-5:00              Panel III – Traditional Cultural Revitalization and Aboriginal Education (Chair: Jennifer Pettit)

Andrew Hodgkins (University of Alberta) – Bilingual Education in Nunavut: Trojan Horse or Paper Tiger?

Joseph Lane (Independent Researcher, Australia) – Aboriginal Educational Successes in Australia: Mass Tertiary Education and the Development of an Indigenous Academic Class

David Newhouse (Trent University) – Canada Meets the Good Mind

Frances Widdowson (Mount Royal University) – The Good Mind and Critical Thinking: Exploring the Implications of “Indigenous Knowledge” Meeting the Academy

5:00-8:00              Reception (Faculty Centre)

Today, a professor that I know and respect sent me a message telling me that he had signed the Open Letter (now withdrawn on the basis of its libelous statements) because he had “reservations about particular panelists from the militia in Caledonia” due to their methods, which “the open letter captures”.  He then went on to ask: “Are there not others involved in the conflict who bring a more balanced view to the conflict in Ontario? Christie Blachford [sic] for example has written about Caledonia from a critical perspective without advocating vigilantism”.

After Ms. Blatchford was informed about the professor’s query, she provided an email responding stating that she could not attend because she is currently working on a book about Caledonia, and did not have the time to participate.  She also made some comments in response to the professor’s reference to “vigilantism”, and requested that I forward them to him.  After receiving this reply from Blatchford, the professor in question is now reconsidering his original position on the matter, and so I thought that others who signed the petition might be interested in what she has written.  Reprinting Blatchford’s comments is not meant to endorse the ideas of Vandermaas and McHale; Blatchford’s views are only one opinion, and her impressions of McHale and Vandermaas’ could be mistaken or be based on an unrepresentative sample of the evidence available.  It is only to suggest that until the voice of McHale and Vandermaas are heard we will not be able to develop an informed opinion on the Caledonia conflict, and the appearance of these speakers should not be “protested” on the basis of questionable allegations.

In Blatchford’s words:

“…[the professor] writes that I have written critically about Caledona “without advocating vigilantism” — the clear implication that Mr. McHale and Mr. Vandermaas have done so. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I have attended three recent rallies in Caledonia, two of them organized by Mr. McHale, both of which were cancelled when self-styled anti-racists from Toronto showed up to out-shout the group. Mr. McHale sensibly cancelled the rallies both time. He always urges his supporters to be polite, respectful, civil, and peaceful. (In fact, he also asks people not to swear, which would exclude me, I confess.) In the course of researching my book, I have also reviewed video footage of earlier rallies in Caledonia and at Queen’s Park that were organized by Gary and Merlyn Kinrade; the footage of the rally at the Legislature is actually touching, because they were all dressed up, in suit and tie, and their remarks were as respectful as their attire.

On the one occasion that I know of where a Six Nations member, Clyde Powless, showed up and asked to speak at a Mr. McHale rally, he was greeted politely by Mr. McHale and allowed his turn at the microphone to say his piece. It was but a couple of weeks later at another rally that Mr. Powless assaulted Mr. McHale (he pleaded guilty to this offence in 2008). This was typical and telling — on the few occasions there has been violence at a McHale rally, it was not committed by him or his supporters, but rather by those who wish to deny him the right to speak.

While I grant you that the Caledoniawakeupcall website looks a little cartoonish, it is a well-documented (with original court files, newspaper stories, etc) site, and the cartoonish aspect does not accurately reflect the serious nature of the organizers.

I’ve come to know Mr. McHale quite well, Mr. Kinrade and Mr. Vandermaas a little, and have found them always to be fierce advocates only of freedom of speech and non-violent civil disobedience. I think it is just a little ironic that at a time when George Galloway’s supporters (including university professors) are arguing he should be allowed to enter Canada and speak — and I agree with them and have said so publicly — another professor is advocating censoring Gary McHale et al.” (Personal communication from Christie Blatchford, April 28, 2010).

Please note:

With respect to Wes Elliott, a mistake has been made.  He is not a negotiator, but is on the negotiating team.  I apologize for the error.

FW 

***

It has just been finalized that a new participant has been added to the “Aboriginal Sovereignty, Indigenous Nationalism, and the Rule of Law” Panel.  Wes Elliott, from the Six Nations of the Grand River Territory, contacted me and said that he wanted to balance our panel and criticize the views of Mark Vandermaas and Gary McHale.  Mr. Elliott agreed that debating the issue was important so that a greater understanding of current circumstances could be developed.  He informed me that, as a negotiator for Six Nations, he has the background to be able to propose solutions to the current crisis.

This is a great development in the forum.  As I mentioned earlier, proponents of indigenous sovereignty should make their case as to why this road offers a better future for aboriginal people and aboriginal-non-aboriginal relations than the argument being made by those opposed to what they refer to as “race-based” policing – that enforcing the rule of law is an esssential element of ensuring peaceful relations between aboriginal and non-aboriginal people and within aboriginal communities themselves.

Once again, the point of the forum is not to promote one point of view or another.  It is to allow diverse, and even conflicting, opinions to be expressed so that real debate can take place on aboriginal policy formulation.  By looking at different points of view, and analyzing the logic and evidence that is used to support them, we can all develop a greater understanding of this difficult and complex policy area.

It is also important to recognize that Mount Royal University is a leader in the promotion of critical inquiry and the protection of academic freedom; it is doubtful that such a debate could take place at any other university in Canada.  Hopefully the forum will provide a model whereby other controversial issues can be discussed in a collegial fashion.

On April 23, 2010, the “Solidarity with Six Nations” posted an open letter “protesting the presence of anti-native ‘militia’ leaders” at the New Directions in Aboriginal Policy Forum at Mount Royal University on May 5, 2010.  The open letter contains a link to a petition with a few hundred signatures.

The open letter is notable for three reasons.  The first is the misinformation that it contains.  Neither Gary McHale (CANACE), nor Mark Vandermaas (Caledonia Victims Project), is a member of any “militia”.  Also, it is erroneously implied that McHale and Vandermaas were the perpetrators of the violence that occurred in Caledonia.  It is noted that “Mr. McHale was from 2007 to 2010 banned from entering Caledonia due to bail conditions stemming from the eruption of violence…”, but it is not mentioned that it was Six Nations residents who were the perpetrators; McHale and Vandermaas were the victims. If you are curious as to why it was a victim of violence, rather than the perpetrators, who was banned from the community, you are not alone.  Welcome to the bizarre world of “culturally sensitive” policing.

Secondly, there is the constant accusation of racism without one shred of evidence being presented.  The spurious linkage of McHale and Vandermaas to white supremacists is made on the basis that “Paul Fromm, a high profile white supremacist leader, best known for his support of holocaust denier Ernest Zundel, has actively publicized McHale and his events on the neo-nazi website Stormfront. Fromm has been photographed at McHale led events, as have other members of neo-Nazi organizations such as the London, Ontario ‘Northern Alliance’ group”.  But this is the result of the mistaken logic that “my enemy’s enemy is my friend”.  Obviously, white supremacists would oppose movements for indigenous sovereignty, as the latter often assert the cultural (racial?) superiority of those who are not “White” (because of the alleged aboriginal ”spiritual relationship to the land” and their “covenant with the Creator”).  This, however, is unrelated to McHale and Vandermaas’ criticsm of indigenous sovereignty, which is NOT racially motivated; it is rooted in the LIBERAL value of equality  under the law – something that tribal societies, with their kinship orientation, resist.

This distinction between liberalism and racism is lost on “Solidarity with Six Nations”.  They even imply that my views are tainted by racist assumptions when I argue that “current demands for ‘aboriginal nationalism’ and ‘sovereignty’, because they connect land to ancestry, have more in common with the ideology of Nazi Germany than left-wing ideas”.  So, to point out instances of racist viewpoints is to be racist?  And what about the content of my argument?  Is the attempt by some Mohawks to maintain “cultural purity” by evicting non-Mohawks from their land, and the comments by Chief Wayne Roan of the Ermineskin Band that “the moose and elk do not mate, that is the natural law …Our elders have always said Cree should marry Cree to preserve the culture and way of life” (Disrobing the Aboriginal Industry, p. 107), similar to the doctrines that were expressed in Nazi Germany?  If there are any doubts, these ideas should be compared with some of the more pernicious statements in Mein Kampf.

“Solidary with Six Nations” argues that “we believe that the inclusion of McHale and Vandermaas in a discussion on Aboriginal Policy will serve to normalize racism, aggression, appropriation, and citizen-led militias as tools to solve localized conflicts over Indigenous lands, whereas what is needed is a recognition of Indigenous land rights, nation to nation negotiations and the peaceful settlement of land claims”.  But how can this be determined?  Why is it believed that “recognition of Indigenous land rights, nation to nation negotiations and the peaceful settlement of land claims” is “what is needed”?  How can we know that this will achieve “peace and justice in Caledonia and Six Nations”?  The plea for “nation to nation” negotiations, for example, is based on the erroneous assumption that groups of a few hundred people with no economic base or capacity to assert statehood are “nations” – a fabrication that cannot be challenged because of the Aboriginal Industry’s control over current policy discussions. 

This brings me to the third, and most important, point – that the petition is an outrageous attack on freedom of inquiry within the university.  The same people who correctly opposed the attempts to muzzle speech during Israeli Apartheid Week are now, in an unprincipled fashion, trying to prevent challenging viewpoints being expressed about Caledonia and Ipperwash.  While the analysis of McHale and Vandermaas might be mistaken, none of us has perfect information or a monopoloy on truth.  Therefore, actual scholars should promote the free exchange of ideas to determine how best to proceed with this very complicated and difficult policy area.  Instead of promoting censorship and engaging in unwarranted smear campaigns, advocates for indigenous sovereignty should make their case on the basis of logic and evidence.  With all the accusations of “racism”, “hate”, “white supremacy”, etc., rational thinkers who might question some of the nonsense that masquerades as scholarship on aboriginal policy are likely to keep silent, impoverishing our capacity to more fully understand aboriginal-non-aboriginal relations and to make informed efforts to achieve social justice today.

The final version of the New Directions in Aboriginal Policy Forum program is now available on the New Directions in Aboriginal Policy Forums page on this blog (it is also cut and pasted below).  Work that has been undertaken by the various presenters also has been posted on that page.  One new development is that there has been an agreement between David Newhouse and myself to hold an exchange on incorporating “indigenous knowledge” into the academy in Panel III (“Traditional Cultural Revitalization and Aboriginal Education”).  This exchange will concern Newhouse’s article “Ganigonhi:oh: The Good Mind Meets the Academy”, Canadian Journal of Native Education, 31(1), 2008, pp. 184-197.  Another addition is Glenn North Peigan, who, along with Albert Howard, will be responding to Tom Flanagan’s views on aboriginal property rights.

FW

***

New Directions in Aboriginal Policy 

Free Public Forum at Mount Royal University

Nickle Theatre (Main Building, West Gate)

Calgary, Alberta, May 5, 2010

Sponsored by:

Mount Royal University’s Department of Policy Studies,

Faculty of Arts Scholarly Events Committee,

and the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

8:30-9:00              Coffee

9:00-9:20              Opening Remarks

 Frances Widdowson (Mount Royal University) – The Kindly Inquisition Influencing Aboriginal Policy Formulation

 9:20-10:00            Keynote Address

 Don Sandberg (Frontier Centre for Public Policy) – The State of First Nations in Canada Today

 10:00-10:15         Coffee

 10:15-12:00         Panel I – Private Property and Native Economic Development (Chair: Kari Roberts)

 Tom Flanagan (University of Calgary) – Beyond the Indian Act: Restoring Aboriginal Property Rights

Albert Howard (Independent Researcher) – Field of Dreams: “Building” Aboriginal Economies with Property Ownership

Glenn North Peigan (University of Lethbridge) – The Treaties, Economic Development Funding and Aboriginal Dependency

Joseph Quesnel (Frontier Centre For Public Policy) – The Politics of Cutting Your Losses: Non-viable Reserves and Aboriginal Economic Development

12:00-1:00            Lunch Break

1:00-2:45              Panel II – Aboriginal Sovereignty, Indigenous Nationalism, and the Rule of Law (Chair: Miriam Carey)

Ron Bourgeault (University of Regina) – The Aboriginal National Question: Colonialism, Self-Determination and the New Right

Gary McHale (CANACE) – The Face of Aboriginal Sovereignty Versus the Rule of Law in Caledonia

Mark Vandermaas (Caledonia Victims Project) – Listening to Victims: A Fresh Approach to Reconciliation and Healing 

2:45-3:00              Coffee

3:00-5:00              Panel III – Traditional Cultural Revitalization and Aboriginal Education (Chair: Jennifer Pettit)

Andrew Hodgkins (University of Alberta) – Bilingual Education in Nunavut: Trojan Horse or Paper Tiger?

Joseph Lane (Independent Researcher, Australia) – Aboriginal Educational Successes in Australia: Mass Tertiary Education and the Development of an Indigenous Academic Class

David Newhouse (Trent University) – Canada Meets the Good Mind

Frances Widdowson (Mount Royal University) – The Good Mind and Critical Thinking: Exploring the Implications of “Indigenous Knowledge” Meeting the Academy

5:00-8:00              Reception (Faculty Centre)

As today is Easter, and we are being encouraged to celebrate the absurd notion of the resurrection of a mythical Supreme Being (chocolate eggs and bunnies are a recent addition so as to offer a more enticing bribe to the young), supplications at the Vatican are being prominently covered.  The usual deference of the media towards religious propaganda, however, is being tempered by allegations that Pope Benedict (then Cardinal Ratzinger) obstructed justice by attempting to cover up the sexual abuse of boys by catholic priests.  In a letter to bishops in 2001, Benedict ordered that sexual abuse allegations be “subject to pontifical secret”, a breach of which could result in excommunication.  The letter also demanded that initial investigations of abuse should be sent to Ratzinger’s office, which could choose to divert them to church tribunals where the “functions of judge, promoter of justice, notary and legal representative can validly be performed for these cases only by priests” (www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/apr/24/children.childprotection)

The most recent scandal involves documents that emerged in March 2010 showing that a secret canonical trial that could have resulted in Rev. Lawrence C. Murphy’s dismissal was halted after Murphy wrote a letter personally appealing to Ratzinger.  Murphy is alleged to have molested as many as 200 boys, but he was never disciplined by the church; instead he was transferred to another diocese where he spent 24 years interacting with children.  Although several American bishops raised the alarm about Murphy, correspondence shows that the highest priority of officials was in ensuring that the church was protected from scandal (www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/world/europe/25vatican.html).  Benedict is also facing other criticisms that he did not alert civilian authorities about priests involved in sexual abuse when he was an archbishop in Germany.

These circumstances have led to a great deal of soul seaching within the catholic church.  One of the most common responses, however, is to defend the church, claiming that the entire institution should not be judged on the basis of the actions of a few mouldy wafers.  On CBC Newsworld today, for example, Neil MacCarthy, a representative of the Archdiocese of Toronto, compared paedophile priests to police officers, teachers and lawyers who abuse the public trust. 

Arguments like those of MacCarthy show the extent of denial that exists in the catholic church.  They ignore the systematic climate of secrecy and contempt for state authority that exists within the institution.  It is apparent that the power wielded by the Vatican continues to enable church officials to envision themselves as being above the law.  There is also the question of the extent to which Catholicism itself contributes to paedophilia within the institution.  Unlike police officers, teachers and lawyers, the catholic church dictates that priests must be celibate.  This stipulation ensures that the priesthood is likely to attract a higher proportion of sexual deviancy than would be present in the wider population. 

One positive result of the growing scandal is that the power of the catholic church is weakening.  The enormous power of the Vatican in global affairs is increasingly coming under scrutiny.  But there still needs to be a recognition that the current ”crisis” is not accidental; it is rooted in the irrationality and deference that superstition, Catholic or otherwise, demands.

The draft program for the forum is available on the New Directions in Aboriginal Policy Forums page.   This program will likely change a little after additional information is received.  It is hoped that this program will be completed by the end of next week.  I am still attempting to find additional aboriginal academics and activists to present perspectives on aboriginal sovereignty and indigenous “ways of knowing”.  The hope is to have as wide a range of viewpoints as is possible presented at the forum.

FW

***

New Directions in Aboriginal Policy

Free Public Forum at Mount Royal University

Nickle Theatre (Main Building, West Gate)

Calgary, Alberta, May 5, 2010

Sponsored by:

Mount Royal University’s Department of Policy Studies,

Faculty of Arts Scholarly Events Committee,

and the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

8:30-9:00              Coffee

9:00-9:20              Opening Remarks

Frances Widdowson (Mount Royal University) – The Kindly Inquisition Influencing Aboriginal Policy Formulation

9:20-10:00            Keynote Address

 Don Sandberg (Frontier Centre for Public Policy) – The State of First Nations in Canada Today

10:00-10:15         Coffee

10:15-12:00         Panel I – Private property and native economic development

Tom Flanagan (University of Calgary) – Beyond the Indian Act: Restoring Aboriginal Property Rights

Joseph Quesnel (Frontier Centre For Public Policy) – The Politics of Cutting your Losses: Non-viable Reserves and Aboriginal Economic Development

Albert Howard (Independent Researcher, Canada) – Field of Dreams: “Building” Aboriginal Economies

12:00-1:00            Lunch Break

1:00-3:00              Panel II – Aboriginal sovereignty, indigenous nationalism, and the rule of law 

Gary McHale (CANACE) and Mark Vandermaas (Caledonia Victims Project) – TBA

Ron Bourgeault (University of Regina) – TBA 

3:00-3:15              Coffee Break 

3:15-5:00              Panel III – Indigenous “ways of knowing”, critical thinking and education

Andrew Hodgkins (University of Alberta) – Bilingual Education in Nunavut: Trojan Horse or Paper Tiger?

Joseph Lane (Independent Researcher, Australia) – Indigenous Education in Australia: Standard Tertiary Programs and the Development of an Indigenous Academic Class

David Newhouse (Trent University) – TBA

5:00-8:00              Reception (Faculty Centre)

The Ann Coulter episode in Canada has been quite instructive.  Coulter, a right-wing provocateur, was invited to speak at the University of Ottawa.  Some insulting remarks made previously by the media commentator led Francois Houle, the vice-president academic and provost, to send a letter that warned Coulter to use “restraint, respect and consideration” in her speech.  As a result of Coulter’s publicization of the incident, crowds of people – both protesters and people wanting to hear her speak – arrived at the university, which made it necessary to cancel the speech out of concerns that the venue was too small.

Fortunately, the balance of opinion on the matter is highly critical of Francois Houle.  Perhaps we are finally turning the corner in this country, and realizing that “words that wound” do not constitute “violence”.

There are two important matters that should be underlined with respect to Houle’s letter.  The first is the problem with trying to encourage “restraint” and “respect” in public discourse.  These qualities are already constraining speech to the point that honest discussion about sensitive topics is non-existent.  Self-censorship prevails out of fear that one might “offend” some group or other.  As a result, we have a very limited understanding of the causes of a number of problems currently facing us as a species.  More specifically, we need to discuss how certain cultural features (learned behaviour) have negative social implications, but this is inhibited when criticism of culture is equated with “hate”.

Secondly, the Coulter episode raises questions about the problems of “hate speech” laws more generally.  As has been pointed out by a number of commentators, Canada already has laws that prohibit the incitement of crime and violence.  Section 13.1 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, however, is an addition to these basic protections, and can be used to clamp down on speech that is controversially truthful.  Alan Borovoy, general counsel for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, gives the example of Hitler’s Willing Executioners, a book by a Harvard historian that alleges the complicity of German civilians in the Holocaust.  The thesis of this book, argues Borovoy, is arguably “likely to expose” German people to contempt.  This has led Borovoy to ask: “To what extent might it then become an offence to tell the truth about the Holocaust? And that’s the thing about these sections. Intent is not a requirement, and truth and reasonable belief in the truth is no defence” ( http://www.nationalpost.com/story-printer.html?id=391873).  

There needs to be an acknowledgement that demands for “restraint” and “respect” and prohibitions against “hate speech” are being used by people who want to prevent frank discussion about inconvenient truths that threaten vested interests.  Although most of the commentary provided by Ann Coulter – recommending that an Islamic person take a camel instead of an airplane, for example - is insulting and adds little to intelligent debate, it is impossible to predetermine whether or not this will be the case.  It is much better to allow people like Coulter to speak and then criticize, and even ridicule, the innane comments that might emerge, then judge, before the fact, what speech is socially acceptable.