Sage Advice or Cultural Warfare?

Writing in Maclean's Magazine, Andrew Coyne comments on Michael Ignatieff's recent suggestion that Prime Minister Stephen Harper should re-appoint Governor General Michaelle Jean, and draws a sobering conclusion:

Ignatieff may only be doing so as a culture war tactic. And Coyne is not amused.

Speaking about why he thought Jean should be reappointed, Ignatieff emphasized that Jean is a francophone, a woman, and is black.

"As a francophone woman who overcame great obstacles to get where she is today, and as the first black Canadian appointed as governor general, I can’t imagine a better role model for young Canadians, particularly young girls," Ignatieff announced.

"Michaëlle Jean has served her country with distinction and honour,” Ignatieff added. "She deserves our thanks and our gratitude."

Ignatieff, of course, is right that Jean has served Canada with distinction adn honour. But in his emphasis of her gender, and ethnic and lingual background, Coyne detects the lingering stench of Frank Graves.

"In mounting this highly public lobby for her to be retained, the Liberals have chosen to emphasize her demographic credentials: as a woman, black, francophone and immigrant," Coyne writes. "These were in large part why she was appointed, of course, and perhaps that’s fair enough, though some of us grumped at her signal lack of other qualifications to the job. But to invoke these in the debate over whether she should be reappointed is deliberately to suggest that the government’s decision to replace her is an insult to these groups — making whoever replaces her, should they happen to be white or male or some other genetically incorrect makeup, the embodiment of that insult. That’ll do wonders for his or her legitimacy."

Frank Graves, of course, is the pollster who advised the Liberal party to "invoke a culture war. Cosmopolitanism versus parochialism, secularism versus moralism, Obama versus Palin, tolerance versus racism and homophobia".

In emphasizing Jean's demographic qualities, Coyne infers that Ignatieff is using the appointment of the Governor General as a political tactic in just such a culture war.

He also condemns the act as an unprecedented attempt to politicize the appointment of a Governor General.

"It’s always a political appointment, to a greater or lesser extent," Coyne admits. "But it has not previously been a point of partisan controversy, and on such calculatedly divisive lines. The appointment is entirely within the purview of the prime minister, and as long as that power was not abused via a manifestly unsuitable appointment, opposition parties have always gone along with it."

Prime Minister Harper could, of course, cut Ignatieff's efforts off at the knees by perhaps appointing someone like Herb Carnegie to the office of Governor General, provided that the 91 year-old former Quebec Aces star -- whose dreams of playing in the NHL were curtailed by racism -- wouldn't have his health curtailed by the travel.

Like Jean, Carnegie is black. He was born to parents who had immigrated to Canada from Jamaica.

Moreover, appointing Carnegie as the Governor General would not only impart to this great Canadian the respect he deserves, but would also give Stephen Harper the opportunity to appoint Michaelle Jean to a post more suiting her talents -- such as Canada's Ambassador to France.

A younger candidate -- like 65-year-old Phil Fontaine -- could be just as well-suited to a possible appointment. Fontaine, an Aboriginal leader, is also a survivor of the residential school system.

Needless to say, if Michael Ignatieff is really using the appointment of the next Governor General to invoke a culture war, Prime Minister Harper should be able to do him one better no matter how Ignatieff may try to exploit the process.

For Whom Might Fontaine Run?

Retiring Assembly of First Nations chief may run for Parliament

Phil Fontaine's retirement as the National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations may be the precursor to a run for Parliament, CTV reports.

Apparently, the Liberal party has asked Fontaine to consider running for them in the next election.

Yet interestingly enough, it may be within the Conservative party that Fontaine may find the most productive home. Certainly, his most productive achievements as National Chief of the AFN were negotiated with Stephen Harper's Conservative government.

In 2005, Fontaine and then-Indian Affairs Minister negotiated the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement, a settlement worth $1.9 billion to victims of the Residential School system and their families.

In 2007, Fontaine and Prentice again collaborated on a land claims plan that would allocate $250 million per annum over ten years to settle many outstanding claims. The plan also introduced a new independent tribunal to rule on these cases.

Last but certainly not least, Fontaine was present when Prime Minister Harper finally delivered the long-overdue apology for the abuses in Canadian Residential Schools.

This isn't to say that Fontaine's relationship with the Conservative government has been nothing but smooth sailing. Fontaine has noted that the cancellation of the Kelowna Accord was greatly disappointing to him.

Conservative MP Pierre Poilievre also sparked a brush fire between the two with some ill-timed remarks last year -- although the outrage surrounding his comments was largely manufactured, and really reflected the dominance of political paternalism toward Aboriginals in the face of the need to reevaluate Canadian policies toward Aboriginal Affairs.

Within the Conservative party Fontaine could forge a potent partnership with Senator Patrick Brazeau -- whose tenure as a Senator has, to date, been productive if not untroubled -- in order to find new ways to help the government help meet the needs of Canadian aboriginals, both on- and off-reserve.

Of course this is all just speculation. While it remains unknown whether the Conservative party has made any attempts to recruit Fontaine -- although they will if they are wise -- it also remains to be seen whether or not Fontaine will run for office at all.

First Nations, Opposition Parties Oppose Human Rights Bill

30 years apparently not enough for native bands to prepare for Charter

30 years is an awful long time. Need proof?

In 1977, Star Wars was viewed as a cinematic masterpiece in terms of its visual effects. In 2007, Star Wars has long been a cultural icon, although we would consider such effects laughable at best (although they were landmarks of the time).

In 1977, Elvis Presley died at age 42. In 2007, Las Vegas is crawling with impersonators.

In 1977, the dominant political issue on the global stage was still nuclear weapons. In 2007, it seems to be a toss-up between terrorism and global warming.

See? 30 years is an awful long time.

So how is it that Canada's native bands have needed 30 years to "prepare" for the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? According to Phil Fontaine, national chief of the Assembly of First Nations, "People in First Nations Communities need time to prepare."

At issue in this instance is a Conservative party bill that would finally remove First Nations' bands immunity from the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, a measure that was supposed to be temporary.

30 years isn't just an awful long time in general--it's an awful long time for a temporary and ill-defined human rights exemption to still be in effect.

The Conservatives have recalled parliament's 12-member all-party aboriginal affairs committee, in order to discuss the Conservative party bill.

Strangely, the opposition parties, all of which are allegedly in favour of human rights, are not happy with the recall, and are noted to be less-than-happy with the bill itself. In fact, they've all promised to block it.

"We are strong supporters of human rights," says Fontaine, "But our people still haven't been properly consulted by the federal government about the proposed legislation."

The opposition parties have repeated Fontaine's claims almost verbatim. Yet, the most important questions are thus: how is the removal of a temporary clause of the Canadian Human Rights Act (again, after 30 years) a "rushed process"? What have Canada's native bands been doing for 30 years while they were supposed to be preparing for being responsible for the human rights of their members? And since when do Canadians need to be consulted regarding their own rights?

In the end, however, the Liberal party may be forced to swallow its own rhetoric in order to oppose this extremely necessary bill. When the Liberal party voted against the renewal of the anti-terror act, they sited the act's sunset clauses as a convenient excuse to do so.

"Canadians want ... a leader able to fight terrorism with determination and to be there to protect their rights with determination," Liberal leader Stephane Dion insisted.

If opposing the renewal of the anti-terror powers sunsetted was about rights, why will Stephane Dion not now stand up for the civil and human rights of aboriginal Canadians?

It's extremely unlikely that the average aboriginal in Canada doesn't want their human rights recognized. What is apparent is that political elites within the aborignal bands (elders and chiefs) don't want the human rights of aboriginal Canadians recognized.

In this sense, the opposition parties are choosing the support of aboriginal elites over the rights of aboriginals. Given this, it becomes impossible to accept the assertion of these parties that they universally support human rights. It simply isn't so; they may support human rights, but obviously not when it could be politically inconvenient for them.

This will long prove to be a black eye for the human rights record of Canada's opposition parties, and one they are making a willfull choice to wear. The shame that will go with it should prove inescapable.