Warrior Life Studios

Pam Palmater

Tag: propaganda

  • Human Rights Museum or Harper Propaganda Show?: Genocide in Canada Denied

    Canada has a dark history – one which begins long before Confederation in 1867. The state of Canada, which was previously a British colony, was only made possible by the theft of Indigenous lands and resources, and the genocide of Indigenous peoples. While some government officials will admit that some of their laws and policies may have resulted in assimilation, you will never hear any of them speak of their elimination policies which resulted in genocide. What is the difference between assimilation and elimination? Assimilation is when one group (usually the colonizing settler government) tries to force another group (Indigenous peoples) to abandon their culture, language, values, traditions, practices and beliefs for those of the colonizer. Policies like residential schools, resulted in the disruption and loss of Indigenous language and culture. This can and has resulted in inter-generational trauma in many Indigenous families, communities and Nations. Elimination policies are much more direct. The scalping bounties issued in the Atlantic region for the scalps of Mi’kmaw men, women and children were meant to physically eliminate Mi’kmaw peoples. The distribution of smallpox blankets to Indigenous peoples were meant to physically eliminate Indigenous peoples through the ourposeful spread of a deadly disease. Similarly, the forced sterilization of Indigenous women in Canada without their knowledge and consent was also meant to eliminate any future population of Indigenous peoples. These are what have been called elimination policies. Some will debate whether the residential school policy was a policy of assimilation or elimination, but I argue that it was both. The physical abuse for practicing one’s culture is a form of forced assimilation; whereas the starvation, torture and medical experiments conducted on the children which resulted in upwards of 40% of the children dying, is elimination. Whether it is assimilation or elimination, all of the acts fit under the definition of genocide as noted in the UN Convention Against Genocide.

    Article 2

    In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

    http://www.hrweb.org/legal/genocide.html

    If you look at any of the criteria, Canada has committed acts under each which can be defined as genocide. The colonizing governments have: (a) purposely killed Indigenous peoples (smallpox blankets, residential schools, scalping bounties, starlight tours); http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2013/02/18/residential-schools-student-deaths.html (b) have caused serious bodily harm (residential school torture, deaths and beatings in police custody, medical experiments in residential schools and in First Nation communities); http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/hungry-aboriginal-kids-adults-were-subject-of-nutritional-experiments-paper/article13246564/ (c) deliberately inflicted conditions meant to bring about death and illness (chronic under-funding of essential human needs like water, sanitation, housing, and food); http://pi.library.yorku.ca/ojs/index.php/crsp/article/viewFile/35220/32057 (d) prevented births (forced sterilization of Indigenous women); http://www.naho.ca/documents/naho/english/publications/DP_womens_health.pdf (e) transferred children our of Indigenous communities (residential schools, massive 60’s scoop where kids taken and adopted into non-Indigenous families,  current policy of child apprehensions); http://www.originscanada.org/the-stolen-generation/ Thus, if the new Canadian Museum for Human Rights will not use the term genocide to describe what Canada has done to Indigenous peoples in Canada, then its own credibility will be called into question. A few staff members at the museum do not have the right decide how history will be presented. The grisly facts about Canada’s treatment of Indigenous peoples is something that must be recognized and accepted if there is any hope of moving forward in a good way or at least in a way which does not repeat the atrocities of the past. One does not have to look too far to find the real reason why the museum will not use the word genocide – it is Crown corporation, i.e., an arm of the government. The museum staff are quoted as saying: “as a Crown corporation, it’s important the museum’s terminology align with that of the federal government”.This Harper government’s modus operandi is to control information, silence opposition and present propaganda instead of open, accountable fact-based reports. http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/cmhr-rejects-genocide-for-native-policies-217061321.html While the museum appears to be relying on the fact that Canada has refused to acknowledge that its policies against Indigenous peoples were genocide, they should also note that those governments and politicians who have committed genocide in other parts of the world never admitted their illegal activity either. Canada will never admit wrong-doing unless and until it is brought to justice. Even Canada’s watered-down residential schools apology was quickly followed by a denial that any cultural genocide took place. http://aptn.ca/pages/news/2011/10/27/residential-schools-saganashduncan-apologize/ There is little point in even opening this museum if its only purpose is to act as a propaganda machine for the federal government. We can expect little more than government-approved pictures, displays, and histories if even the terminology are going to be censored. Why waste all that money, when one could simply log on to the Harper government website and read the propaganda directly? The continued denial of genocide in Canada, against the weight of much academic research and evidence, shows that Canada (the government) has no real interest in moving forward in a respectful relationship with Indigenous peoples. In fact, all of Harper’s actions to date indicate a desire to go back in time and resurrect old assimilation policies. Perhaps this is the real reason why Harper does not want the museum to educate Canadians about the truth? http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/pamela-palmater/2012/09/harpers-manifesto-erasing-canadas-indigenous-communities

  • Right-Wing Post: The Fight for Integrity in the Media

    I am writing today to set the record straight about the most recent edition of the Right-Wing Post. John Ivison of the National Post called me this week and asked for an interview. He needed it urgently to fill meet his timeline for this past Saturday, July 14. While I was on the road and meeting with Chiefs, I agreed to take half an hour to assist him with his story. Apparently, that was an exercise in futility since he did not print a word I said. The story he wrote is entitled: “The fight for the soul of the AFN” and can be found at this link: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/07/14/john-ivison-the-fight-for-the-soul-of-the-afn/ You’ll notice that the first paragraph is an indication of his lack of knowledge about what actually transpired before, during and after what was called the “Crown-First Nation Gathering” (CFNG). First of all, the meeting was promised for many years and did not transpire until the crisis in Attawapiskat First Nation captured the media’s attention and stayed in the media. The ONLY reason why Harper stayed at the meeting was due to the unrelenting criticism that he would only stay for the speech – not because of any pressure by National Chief Atleo – in fact, everyone but Atleo criticized Harper for his planned early exit. Secondly, there was no “new” money given to First Nations for anything. In fact, after the CFNG, many Aboriginal organizations received funding cuts so severe, some had to close their doors. These funding cuts included cuts to the AFN. Any money that has been identified for emergencies like Attawapiskat or water has been taken from other programs and services for First Nations. The former Auditor General clearly highlighted in her reports how Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) has a habit of reporting one thing and doing another. Harper has long stated there will be no new money for First Nations – only “efficiencies”. Getting back to Ivison’s article, I spent a great deal of time explaining to him my concerns, their origins and why I am running. Although I can’t speak for what is going on in his head, he obviously did not like or understand my answers as he chose to take quotes from my old blogs to make his story sound more dramatic. To back up his right-wing slant on the story, he used the Frontier Centre for Public Policy – a right-wing think tank that can be counted on to support just about anything Harper. The right-wing contingency in Canada has openly supported Atleo – from Conservative Senator Patrick Brazeau to many of the extremely right-wing media outlets like the Sun. My issue has never been whether they support Atleo, to each his own. My concern has always been their refusal to use facts in their “news” reporting and for their opinions. Anyone can have random opinions about anything, but when these commentators refuse to base it on facts, then it is hardly be considered analysis worthy of reading. These guys are very clever, they can find ways to belittle or minimize individuals without saying it directly. Notice how they constantly refer to Atleo as having a Masters degree, but never refer to my 4 university degrees or address me as “Dr” instead of “Miss”? They refuse to capitalize the word “aboriginal” as if we are somehow less than other groups like “French” or “German”. The fact that they even use the word “aboriginal” refuses to acknowledge my nationality as “Mi’kmaw” which is found in all of my websites, brochures and how I actually defined myself during our interview. Even the quote he assigns to me is Ivison’s quote – he is the one who asked me about the “extremely cordial” relations between Atleo and Harper where I explained that my issue is NOT with having a good relationship. In fact, I support respectful and mutually beneficial relations with Ottawa – but he never quoted my actual words. I specifically said that the idea is not to settle for just any relationship with Canada – but that I wanted one that was based on respect. This means Harper has to put some good faith on the table. Ivison went on to challenge me saying how could I speak about respect for Canada when I refer to Harper as the devil. I told him that he needed to read my entire set of blogs to understand what I am referring to – Harper’s aggressive assimilatory agenda towards First Nations and his blatant disregard for democracy and fundamental rights and freedoms valued by Canadians. I am not the only one who feels this way – at this point I believe most Canadians can see what is happening, especially since the two undemocratic omnibus bills: Bill C-10 and Bill C-38, show how Harper has replaced the voices of Canadians with his own agenda in a very dictatorial manner. In addition, I never called Atleo a “devil”. That is categorically false. The conversation was strictly related to Harper’s assimilatory agenda. Atleo may be leading the AFN in the wrong direction in my opinion, but I have said all along this is not about Atleo as a person. I have met him several times and he seems to be very nice. I think most people who have met him consider him to be an extremely nice guy. After all, he is working at the AFN to better the lives of First Nations. It is not his personality that concerns me, it’s his making deals with Harper without a corresponding mandate from the chiefs to do so, that concerns me. But this isn’t just my analysis. Chief Wallace Fox of Onion Lake First Nation in Saskatchewan wrote a letter to Atleo on July 10, 2012 specifically telling Atleo that “there is no place for you to have your own agenda” and he went on to cite “countless examples of AFN acting without any authority from the Chiefs”. Chief Fox was very specific that this was not a personal issue, but instead highlighted the “danger” of he AFN “collaborating” with Harper to push the 1969 White Paper assimilation policy. Chief Fox is not the only one who feels this way. Many chiefs across the country can see the writing on the wall. These are the facts of what is happening here and Ivison ignored all of those to print a propaganda piece for Atleo. If you read Ivison’s entire piece you will understand exactly what the rest of us are talking about. Ivison quotes Atleo as describing himself as the head of the AFN engaged in “nation to nation” relations with Canada. This is precisely the problem – AFN is NOT a Nation, it’s not a treaty holder or land owner, nor is it not a national government. Atleo cannot engage in Nation to Nation relations – only we as Indigenous Nations can do that. Only Treaty 1, Treaty 6, or Mi’kmaq, Maliseet or Anishinabek, etc can speak for their Nations. This is the fundamental issue here that Ivison and all the right-wing media ignores. Ivison also failed to quote our conversation related to funding. He tried to get me to admit that my whole solution is more tax-payer’s money. I explained to him that all the wealth in this country is made from First Nations lands and resources. Every single government, business or industry is 100% reliant on the ongoing theft of our lands and resources. It is a fundamental mischaracterization to say that band funding comes from tax-payers. If tax-payers have an issue with paying taxes – that is between them and their governments – we did not create capitalist forms of government. Our issue is that this country’s wealth is 100% reliant on our land and resources. When we demand a small fraction of that wealth back, we are accused of being dependent. The only government dependent here are the federal and provincial governments who could not sustain themselves without out our lands and resources. We, as First Nations, fund every single program, service, benefit, and government in this country NOT the other way around. I also explained that at a bare minimum, First Nation government transfer payments, should at least be on par with provincial governments. Right now we are chronically underfunded and the extreme poverty is the result. This does not include the additional rights we have in relation to our lands and resources from our treaties and constitutional protections. When I spoke to Ivison I explained all of this in great detail – but he obviously didn’t like what he heard as he printed his own version. I also gave him my ideas about how our governments can sustain themselves, but he felt no need to share any of that. Instead he boils it all down to gender and quotes an unnamed AFN watcher saying that chiefs will never vote for a woman. At each step the right-wing faction in Canada insult our chiefs. We have more female Chiefs and band councillors in Canada than the federal parliament has female MPs. If only reporters stuck to the facts, then we would not have all this negative stereotypes dominating the media. Our chiefs are smart, many are deeply spiritual and most are in this to better the lives of our people. I believe in the collective wisdom of our people – they decided to who to put in as Chief, they decide the traditional or hereditary leaders and when the chiefs vote they will decide who will have their back for the next three years. This race was never about gender – it has always been about inspiring hope in our people and laying out a vision for the next three years. For me, this means being brave enough to stand up and admit when we are off track so we can turn this ship back around. The right-wing media will do their best to maintain the status quo – because everyone else benefits from it but us. But we have the ability to see past their propaganda and lack of facts – we can do this. We have a momentum going now to get things back on track and we will set things right. We just have to stay focused on our sovereignty, our lands and treaties and our people and we can’t go wrong. The choice at this election is not radical versus moderate or male versus female – the choice is status quo or taking a chance on fundamental change. The status quo is killing our people, I don’t think we have much to lose by taking a chance on turning things around.

  • UPDATE – TVO's The Agenda Botches Show on Caledonia

    Please be advised – this personal opinion blog is not for the feint of heart. The opinions I express on my website, blog, Tweets and FB updates are my own and my right to express my personal opinion is one of our most valued rights and freedoms in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As I have explained on previous blogs, my personal opinion does NOT constitute legal advice nor should it be relied on as such. Generally, I like watching TVO’s The Agenda with Steve Paiken. I find it far more engaging than the regular media and the host is willing to ask the hard questions. While they are definitely no APTN, the shows on Indigenous issues that I have seen and/or participated in, have been fairly balanced in covering Indigenous perspectives. Their producer, Mark Brosens is generally good about researching the issues and seeking different perspectives. Last night’s show on the situation in Caledonia however, was a striking failure in responsible journalism and a huge disappointment to many viewers. I am not a journalist, nor do I profess any expertise in the area. My knowledge comes from what I have learned, studied and observed. As a lawyer, professor and author, I do have a good idea about what makes good writing and how to cover an issue responsibly. That is not to say that each article must be a research study into all causes and effects, but a minimal context must be laid out for readers. I think I am as capable as anyone in assessing the quality or lack thereof of various issues covered in the media. Last night’s episode of The Agenda not only fell into the trap of considering an issue in a one-sided way, they blamed potential invitees to the show for TVO’s own lack of organization and planning. Steve Paiken, the host, explained last night that the show was envisioned as a round table on the issue of Caledonia that was supposed to have someone from the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP), someone from Ontario’s Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs (OMMA), Blatchford herself, someone from Six Nations and maybe others (presumably subject matter experts like a lawyer or academic who works on these issues). Instead of saying, we screwed up and didn’t get the show together on time, Paiken publicly blamed the invitees and portrayed them as if they didn’t want to debate Blatchford. This of course played into Blatchford’s overinflated ego who quickly agreed. Paiken made it seem as if no one would face Blatchford and I can attest to the fact that this is simply not the case. Contrary to popular belief, many of us Indigenous lawyers, academics, politicians and community members work for a living and have schedules which do not lend well to last-minute arrangements. In a producer’s blog written by Mark Brosens, he explained that he tried to contact the OPP and OMMA who turned down his invitation. I could have predicted that one given all of the legal implications, court cases, and outstanding land claims in Caledonia. Rightly or wrongly, I think there was slim to no chance of getting provincial representatives to speak about Caledonia. That did not, however, prohibit Brosens from contacting experts in political science to come and speak about the policy and political issues from a provincial stand point or from getting an expert in policing issues. Brosens also mentions that he tried to get people from Six Nations to participate in the show but was unsuccessful. He says he tried to get the Chiefs of Ontario to come on the show, but admits (as an aside) that he did not give them much notice. Then the issue which I can speak to personally, is that he says that he tried academics but they ALL “either agreed with Blatchford, or were unavailable, or were camera shy”. That is simply not true. Brosens contacted me as an “expert” in the area and to get my insight on the book and the subject generally. While he did not ask, I specifically offered that if he needed anyone at the last minute to appear on the show, I would do so, as I felt very passionately that TVO should deal with the subject in balanced way. The overall theme of Brosen’s blog was that people were unwilling to go up against Blatchford which is simply not accurate. This is not about Blatchford. It is clearly a production issue. TVO tried to pull this show together at the last minute, they failed to do so, but instead of doing something else, they went ahead with the show anyway and blamed the invited participants for the lack of quality in the show. That is simply not the kind of integrity we expect from TVO. What I found most distasteful about the show was that Paiken turned TVO’s failure into a sensational question which portrayed Blatchford as some kind of expert on Caledonia whom everyone fears. Compounding what was already a poorly produced segment, was that Paiken was overly conciliatory to Blatchford and did not ask any real hard questions of her. He allowed her to portray or imply that Six Nations and Mohawks were terrorists and did not call her on the gross analogy to the terrorist acts of 9-11. While one might like to blame the alarmist tone of the show on their SOLE guest Blatchford, TVO was unfortunately, an equal participant. First of all, the segment was framed as one on “lawlessness” which is sensationalism as its best as well as inaccurate. The fact that TVO paired the Caledonia segment with one on policing and the recent death of a police officer also lent a certain frame to the subject. They couldn’t have set up the segment any worse than had Blatchford done it herself. After improperly introducing the subject of Caledonia and Six Nations as “Grand River of Six Nations”, TVO let Blatchford set the context to the dispute. She did not start with the granting of the Haldimand Tract to the Six Nations, but started with the date of the occupation. As if one day, a bunch of bored Mohawks just got together and decided to protest for fun and from there “its as if the devil threw a party and invited all his friends”. I thought the days of comparing Indigenous people to pagans and heathens were over? Is it really a critical part of understanding the Caledonia situation to repeat degrading quotes about unresolved land claims? Aside from the inherent problems with her book, which I will save for a future blog, the things Blatchford said on the show were, in my personal opinion, inaccurate, alarmist and racist. When I use the term racist, I don’t do so lightly, nor do I use the term as an emotional reaction to something I don’t like. I do so based on what I have read, heard, seen and considered on the issue. There are endless media sources calling her a racist. She has also publicly had to deny being a racist which shows many smarter people than I have made the same conclusion. With regards to the show, her more problematic comments went largely unchallenged by Paiken and include: (1) she says she is not an expert on the subject (which begs the question of how informed her book is or even why she was on the show); (2) that it was an “illegal” protest (but no discussion of the general right to assembly, constitutionally protected Aboriginal and treaty rights, Aboriginal title rights, land claims, etc); (3) the issue was not a land claim and that it was simply a matter of Chief Montour wanting more compensation (which ignores the long history and details of the claim); (4) it should all be blamed on one “entrepreneurial Mohawk” named Joseph Brant who sold the land for his own benefit (again ignoring all the legal and historical records); (5) Calls those who were trying to mediate and negotiate the matter “BS negotiators”; (really? was she on the inside at the negotiations to make that kind of assessment?); (6) Gary McHale was harassed by police and suffered terribly (ignore the fact he was a non-resident of Caledonia, had no interest in the dispute but to deliberately instigate violence)*; and (7) Accused traditional band members of Six Nations of going around intimidating other band members to support the protest (more unsubstantiated claims or perhaps I missed all the convictions of traditional band members in the media???). Paiken, (ironically given TVO’s one-dimensional take on the issue) asked Blatchford why she only dealt with one side of the issue. In defending herself, she characterized Caledonia as “ground zero” after comparing her book Helpless to the work she did at ground zero in New York with the terrorist attack on the twin towers. She explained that when she wrote about ground zero in New York, she didn’t write about the perspective of the terrorists and their claims, so why would she do that here in Caledonia? Some viewers who contacted me after the show felt that this was a form of inciting hatred. Like the Flanagan’s, Gibson’s, and Widdowson’s of the world, we often overlook their right-wing rantings as those of ignorant people who were never taught any better. Perhaps this is what Paiken thought when he sat quietly and accepted Blatchford’s terrorist analogy of the Caledonia situation without calling her on it. However, inviting the public to view First Nations as terrorists on their own lands risks relegating them back to their former colonial-imposed status as “non-humans” deserved of whatever indignities committed against them by the far-from-Helpless majority population who simply want all their land and resources. While there is no changing the views of committed right-wingers like Blatchford, TVO has a responsibility to the public to do their shows with integrity or don’t do them at all. This blog may mean that I never get invited to TVO’s The Agenda again (which would be unfortunate as I like the show and the people) but I would not be true to myself if I did not call TVO on their disaster. Everyone makes mistakes, but it is how you address those mistakes that count. The true test of integrity is whether one is honest about their role in the mistake and owns up to it. TVO – you have some owning up to do. * UPDATE – Shortly after posting this blog, I received an e-mail from Gary McHale threatening to sue me for defamation and demanded an apology. The e-mail is reproduced below and you will notice that he does not deny anything I wrote in my blog: “It has come to my attention that you have decided to defame me on your website. You have posted the following: (6) Gary McHale was harassed by police and suffered terribly (ignore the fact that he was a non-resident of Caledonia, had no interest in the dispute but to deliberately instigate violence) I hope you can prove that I ‘deliberately’ (interesting that you know my motives) ‘instigate violence’. I have six weeks to serve you legal notice but I would hope you would post an apology instead of continuing to violate the law – as a lawyer/professor I would think you would respect the law more. Gary McHale” (garymchale@mountaincable.net) As this is a personal opinion blog and I have never done litigation, I can’t offer the public any advice on the law with regards to either bringing or defending defamation claims. What I can do is share some of the information that is readily available on the internet. For legal advice, I suggest you contact a lawyer if you have any questions. Defamation of character has been defined as the written (libel) or oral (slander) damaging of one’s “good reputation”. Some of you may be thinking – good reputation??? There are several ways in which such a claim may be defended, but one of those defences is referred to as “Fair Comment”. I found the following definition online: “Citizens are entitled to make fair comment on matters of public interest without fear of defamation claims. A good example of this is a letter to the editor on a matter of public concern. The author of the remarks may even go so far as to PRESUME MOTIVES on the part of the person who’s actions are being criticized provided only that the imputation of motives is reasonable under the circumstances. The rule of thumb is that the fair comment must reflect an honestly held opinion based on proven fact and not motivated by malice.” (emphasis added) (Duhaime Law) My honestly-held, personal belief, and opinion about which I wrote this blog is based on countless books, articles, media, and internet sources, some of which I will highlight here for your interest: (1) “What does Canada, Ontario or whoever the fools were who hired Gary McHale to INSTIGATE violence think of his colossal failure?” (emphasis added) (frostyamerindian); (2) “McHale WANTED violence… He brought in skinheads, KKK and other professional instigators and mercenaries from both Canada and the U.S.” (emphasis added)(frostyamerindian); (3) “former politician, David Peterson… called McHale and his gang a ‘bunch of wackos’.” (Mohawk Nation News); (4) Gary McHale is “NOT from Caledonia” (emphasis added). (Ryan Paul); (5) Vigilante militia group set up by “an associate of anti-native sovereignty activist Gary McHale” and “Neo-Nazi groups have long participated in McHale’s various protests“. (peaceculture.org); (6) “Gary McHale … claims FN and 6 Nations are terrorists.” (rabble.ca); (7) OPP Commissioner Julian Fantino explained that: “I want every avenue explored by which we can now bring McHale into court seeking a court order to prevent him from continuing his agenda of INCITING PEOPLE TO VIOLENCE in Caledonia.” (emphasis added) (CBC news); (8) OPP Commissioner Fantino further stated: “We should be able to prove to court that McHale’s forays into Caledonia have been PLANNED and executed for PURPOSES of breaching the peace which today also resulted in VIOLENCE. We can’t allow this vicious cycle to continue…”. (emphasis added) (CBC news). Regarding his “reputation”, McHale posts many negative comments about himself on his own website and could hardly claim he has any remaining reputation that could possibly be tarnished by my blog. I would post examples, but I prefer to keep my blogs profanity-free out of respect for the younger folks who read my blogs and cite them in their school work. 🙂 My father always told me that only narcissists think that the whole world revolves around them and that most “protests” are simply desperate attempts to get attention. I have had rare occassion to consider his specific advice, but can see now what he meant. This of course presents the dilemma of whether to respond and give the narcisist his desperately-desired attention or not respond and risk the public believing the hateful misinformation. I still wrestle with this dilemma. Despite this brief update meant to address some petty non-sense, I would ask that readers please focus on the original message of my blog being about TVO and how they might learn from their mistake with this show and perhaps make an effort to do better the next time.