ARACHTION posted:

At least with QS, they say they will call an assembly of people “representative of Quebecois society” who will work together to create a new constitution that if iirc will include articles that would create a republic. If I’m being honest about it, they don’t seem too gung ho about it all.

quote:

Indigenous rights are not conditional on public opinion
Opinion: A poll finds that most Canadians believe we apologize too much for residential schools. But it doesn’t matter if Indigenous rights are unpopular—what matters is we change
by Pam Palmater Jun 8, 2018

In 2017, Abacus Data, in partnership with Equal Voice, released the findings of their nationwide survey about Canadians’ views on women in politics. The majority of those surveyed—58 per cent—believed that there are just the right number or too many women in politics—this, despite the fact that women hold only 25 per cent of the seats in the House of Commons, and in provinces like New Brunswick, women make up as little as 16 per cent of the seats.

It’s a galling dissonance, but the premise of the question also feels frankly immaterial to how change is made. How relevant is it that Canadians think this dismal representation of women in government is either enough or too much female representation, when laws and policies in Canada specifically advocate for gender equality and protect against gender discrimination? How much should public opinion matter about whether Canadians agree with gender equality, when it is in fact the law? After all, if women had to wait for all men in Canada to agree with or like women’s equality, we might still be waiting. Women had to agitate for change. It’s never convenient to the comfortable, and discomfort polls poorly—but it’s the only way it happens.

The same thing might also be said about public opinion on Indigenous rights in Canada. The most recent Angus Reid public opinion survey, which polled 2,500 Canadians about their views on Indigenous peoples generally, and Indigenous public policy specifically, exposes a deep divide in opinion. A slight majority (53 per cent) feels that Canada spends too much time apologizing for residential schools and another 53 per cent think Indigenous peoples should integrate into Canadian society and have no special status—even if that means losing Indigenous cultures and traditions. Yet these are the very same attitudes held by former prime ministers and administrators of Indian Affairs that led to assimilatory policies like residential schools.

Therein lies the stark contradiction: Canadians feel we apologize for residential schools too much, and yet exhibit the same racist attitudes for which the apology was made.

Former Prime Minister Stephen Harper made a formal apology in the House of Commons on behalf of all Canadians on June 11, 2008 for the harms done in residential schools. It said, in part: “Two primary objectives of the residential schools system were to remove and isolate children from the influence of their homes, families, traditions and cultures, and to assimilate them into the dominant culture. These objectives were based on the assumption Aboriginal cultures and spiritual beliefs were inferior and unequal. Indeed, some sought, as it was infamously said, ‘to kill the Indian in the child.’ Today, we recognize that this policy of assimilation was wrong, has caused great harm, and has no place in our country.”

In other words, the idea that Indigenous peoples should abandon their own cultures and assimilate into Canadian culture is an idea that “has no place in our country.” Yet, a decade after the apology, half of the Canadians polled still hold these racist views. This is not surprising when many political leaders and media commentators have espoused similar racist views or denied racism exists altogether. Even Angus Reid himself seems to have difficulty accepting the racist undertones of his poll’s findings; he says he does not consider the Canadians who hold these ideas to be “racist,” but instead “hardliners” who don’t think more money is the answer to growing poverty in First Nations. It’s a surprising conclusion given the over-abundance of research and data that shows just the opposite.

In addition to the crippling economic legacy left behind by the colonization of Indigenous lands and resources, broken treaties, and rigid federal control over reserves, Canada’s gross underfunding of First Nation social programs is in fact the major contributor to First Nation poverty today. One need only read any of the auditor general’s reports to show that Canada has been underfunding essential social services like education and housing for decades. Dr. Cindy Blackstock, the head of the First Nation Child and Family Caring Society, won her discrimination case against Canada at the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, which found that Canada’s purposeful and chronic underfunding of child and family services in First Nations was racial discrimination and a direct cause of the over-representation of First Nations children in foster care. This underfunding across all social programs is so comprehensive and so severe, that even if the racially discriminatory funding stopped this year, it would take decades to close the socio-economic gap. This isn’t a matter of public opinion—it’s a fact.

While many Canadians may feel that they are reminded too often about what happened in residential schools, it seems that in fact, they are not reminded enough. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s final report concluded that Canada was guilty of genocide—not just cultural genocide, but physical and biological genocide as well. Canadians should never forget what their country did to Indigenous peoples. Scalping bounties, smallpox blankets, forced sterilizations, and starvation policies were all part of Canada’s genocidal policies towards Indigenous peoples that, in addition to residential schools, have a lasting legacy in First Nations.

Real reconciliation is also about truth and justice. The truth requires never forgetting the rapes, tortures and deaths of thousands of children in residential school, and justice requires putting an end to the racist attitudes that allow these human rights abuses—in the form of foster care—to continue today. The same is true about historic and contemporary violence against Indigenous women and girls.

Reconciliation also requires the end of the idea that the future existence of Indigenous peoples and their identities, languages and cultures are up for debate. We have a right to exist as Mi’kmaw, Mohawk and Cree. We have a right to govern ourselves. We have a right to our lands and resources. We have a right to enjoy our Aboriginal and treaty rights. Our ancestors paid dearly for these rights. All of these rights are protected in Indigenous, Canadian and international laws. These rights form part of Canada’s founding document—the Constitution Act, 1982. Canadians do not get celebrate their own constitutionally protected rights and freedoms without recognizing ours. Our rights are not conditional on public opinion.

It’s long past time that pollsters stop asking Canadians if they like Indigenous peoples or agree with our rights—and start asking them whether they feel like they’ve put Canada’s apology into action.

vyelkin posted:

Macleans has an actually good article about Canadian racism against First Nations.


https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/indigenous-rights-are-not-conditional-on-public-opinion/

Nine of Eight posted:

vyelkin posted:

It’s long past time that pollsters stop asking Canadians if they like Indigenous peoples or agree with our rights—and start asking them whether they feel like they’ve put Canada’s apology into action.

infernal machines posted:

Pipelines and basic human rights, or recognizing an ethnic group's literal right to exist.

Exactly the same thing.

infernal machines posted:

Pipelines and basic human rights, or recognizing an ethnic group's literal right to exist.

Exactly the same thing.

infernal machines posted:

I personally haven't done very much*, nor would I claim to have. But I'm also not saying that we're apologizing too much, or that the apology has been put into action.


*I've worked at arms-length with government relation firms doing consultation with Ontario aboriginal communities.

But your argument appeared to be that public opinion matters in both the case of a pipeline and recognizing aboriginal peoples' right to exist.

PT6A posted:

I don't get the This Is America meme, are they trying to say that metaphorically shooting the PQ's chances in the head is a bad thing? That's what I interpret, but it's an incoherent and bad message unless you're a complete loving moron who would vote for the PQ.

Postess with the Mostest posted:

Sorry, I wasn't calling you out, just expanding their question as I read it. That's what makes it ridiculous. You, a well meaning progressive minded fellow, are going to have the same answer to their poll question as a racist rural and %99.99 of other people. The take I was pointing out is that the government rarely compels us to do a specific thing other than file taxes, it operates by telling us what we can't do and then we have liberty to operate within those constraints on the matters that we opine are most worth caring about.

The other thing I take away from your answer is that you don't feel as though it is your personal responsibility to spend very many calories on applying action to that apology, which isn't any kind of accusation, that's the vast majority who see it as the government's problem to fix.

That was my argument, that neither a government apology or a government pipeline policy would compel a change of opinion let alone obedient action from us. The author said that chronic underfunding was the heart of the problem so presumably we could be pressuring our politicians to tax us more or divert funds from other programs into those social programs so public opinion maybe gives us a glance at why we aren't doing that or what programs we think are more important. I guess that's the real poll question they should be asking to figure out how to get the indigenous social programs higher up people's priority lists.

Nine of Eight posted:

They’re saying that the PQ is the only one of the big 3 parties that has a remote chance of forming government and are the least worst (on some aspects), but that QS sabotages that chance by existing, regardless of how good their leftist credentials are.

bunnyofdoom posted:

Feelin' the Bern!


Highlights: Announcement next week on party name/logo, claims to have raised $90k already. One former MP will run, three CPC MPs said to be considering defection.

vyelkin posted:

yeah the PQ, so good and left-wing that last time they were in office they enacted austerity and tried to pass the Quebec Charter of Values

Helsing posted:

So excited for a racist xenophobic party that might actually attract media attention and prominent support! Based on my meticulous record of watching every West Wing episode ever and my solemn commitment to never learn anything from 2016 I have determined that this can mean only good things for the country.

Like, for fucks sake, even if this does help Trudeau win the next election don't any of you people realize politics occurs on a longer time scale than four years? If I had to choose I would rather Scheer run the country than have a genuine hard right party emerge at exactly the moment in history when hard right parties are rapidly gaining support.

Helsing posted:

Hell, gently caress using Trump as an example, remember when almost everyone in this thread was delighted that Brown got replaced by Ford?

Helsing posted:

Hell, gently caress using Trump as an example, remember when almost everyone in this thread was delighted that Brown got replaced by Ford?

quote:

Published Tuesday, it found 22 per cent of Canadians believe there is a need for a new conservative party federally, and 17 per cent of Canadians are open to voting for a Bernier-led conservative party. While a majority disagreed there is a need or that they would be open to voting for such a party, the apparent willingness of a good chunk of people (and not just those who identify as Conservative-leaning voters) was hailed by Bernier.

[...]

On the weekend Bernier, who broke from Conservative ranks last month, encouraged Conservative party supporters to turn aside their fear that the rise of a new conservative vote vehicle will only result in Justin Trudeau’s Liberals getting re-elected.

“First, the split has already happened,” said Bernier. “Denying it will not make it go away. If what you want is a real alternative to Trudeau, then you should join me and encourage everyone you know to do the same. The faster the shift happens, the less splitting there will be next year.”

He argued the new party would take votes away not only from the Andrew Scheer-led Conservatives, but from Liberals and other parties, and would motivate what he said was the 35 per cent of voters who stay home on election day.

“Gaining new votes will make the difference,” said Bernier. “My new party will be up and running very soon. You will then have a choice: A party with a weak leader and weak ideas. Or a party with a strong leader and strong ideas. If you choose weakness over strength, you will be splitting the vote for a real alternative to Trudeau.”

bunnyofdoom posted:

Personally, I am more hoping that like this shines a light on some of the more egregious poo poo.

Zeeman posted:

https://twitter.com/davidfrum/status/1037352944658722817
ffs

bunnyofdoom posted:

This is more early 90's con split then Trump/Ford.

Duck Rodgers posted:

What has Bernier's position been in the past on abortion, immigration, reconcilliation etc?

Postess with the Mostest posted:

https://twitter.com/MaximeBernier/status/978636578460487681

https://twitter.com/MaximeBernier/status/1032043220614762496

https://twitter.com/Leask/status/834087839310688256