That’s a lot of words just to say that you resent representative democracy when the representative elected is defending interests of a group you don’t belong; which is the norm in representative democracies.
I guess I have to break the news that the goal of reconciliation is not to achieve “parity for local population increase”. What a weird angle, great-replacement-theory adjacent stuff.
But the ‘foreign interference’ concept is new to me, so it gets the cake for the weirdest shit I’ve read recently. Got too much free time in your hands…
Quite the stretch. Saying that our representatives should be representing the whole constituency, not just a minority groups interests, is the proper position in a democracy you twit. Look at the states right now, and how the republican’s are only representing the republican interests, while literally attacking democrats in places like Minnesota. THAT is what that sort of position leads to. This lady is elected to represent HER ENTIRE constituency, INCLUDING the non FN – just like a non FN person who is elected to the legislation is elected to represent their FN constituents. The color of a representatives skin, and their ethnic background, should absolutely not be allowed to dictate their decisions. If they are permitted to act just in their own race’s interests, and it’s commonly accepted that doing so is ‘ok’, than the majority race would just always elect the majority race, and totally fuck minorities everywhere.
I didn’t say reconciliation is about parity, but commented on equity and parity. Reading is difficult sometimes – the first paragraph touched on democratic representation, the second on reconciliation, and the third on equity/parity. Canada’s DEI is based on exactly what I said – hell, the ability to provide benefit to specific racial groups is based on Canada having a “equality of outcomes” approach (ie. “Equality of aggregate end results”), rather than “equality of opportunity” where things are basically funded as a flat rate irrespective of any racial or demographic based considerations (which was more common in the US). So our government allows you to do something like setup a Grant/Bursary that can only be awarded to “First Nations” people, because they view it as a disadvantaged group that needs assistance – and to be clear, those racially targeted perks are not part of reconciliation, you can do the same for women, or black people, asians, south americans, whoever. You can generally “positively discriminate” in favour of any minority that’s deemed to be at a ‘disadvantage’. We’re not “reconciling” with recent black immigrants when they are given easier access to education and employment, nor are we doing so when the same is done for FN. Like the reason the MMIWG didn’t talk about FN Men at all, was because they were making a case for all their laundry list of investments and policy changes to try and help a demographic group that could be framed easily in a disadvantaged context. It may get pushed under the same reconciliation banner at times, but if a similar report was issued about a different minority in a similarly extreme disadvantaged state, the government would basically be forced to take action based on our Charter’s principles.
Reconciliation is separate, and mostly focuses on self-governance / authority over a region. Yes, it’s another area where there’s a lack of representation for the majority’s interests, but no, it’s not specifically about parity. It’s mostly about sorting out the division of powers between the Canadian government and the First Nations band, with an eye to make that division fair/harmonious. It’s a “nation to nation” discussion, not an “individual needs and benefits programs to help disadvantaged groups” discussion. And again, because it IS a Nation to Nation discussion, it is inappropriate for her to pretend to be acting as an MLA when she’s putting her other Nation’s interests first. She is clearly in a conflict of Interest here by most definitions of the term. She should be abstaining on the vote entirely.
I’ll openly criticize any democratic leader who is putting the interests of the few ahead of the interests of the many / all – and any democratic leader who is only helping out “their” people, at the expense of everyone else. For example, I’ve openly expressed criticism of Harjit Saijan before, because of his clear prejudice when it came to directing Canadian special forces to assist non-Canadian Sikhs, and only targeting that demographic for additional assistance, during Canada’s pull out from Kandahar. CSIS even called it out. Then the Liberals held a press conference declaring it racist to think of Harjit’s actions as racist, because we wouldn’t think him racist if he wasn’t also a Sikh. Like no Shit Trudeau, but by that reasoning White supremacists aren’t racists if they’re white people – it’s an utterly batshit take.
And your approach to this conversation is just asinine. Basically in response to me pointing our things like her clear conflict of interest – like it’s practically a case book example of a conflict of interest, “My husband and I are also leaders on the other side of the negotiating table!”, and the code of ethics she SUPPOSEDLY follows as an MLA – you turn around and essentially imply I’m a racist because I’m not supporting her bullshit / the FN narrative.
That’s a lot of words just to say that you resent representative democracy when the representative elected is defending interests of a group you don’t belong; which is the norm in representative democracies.
I guess I have to break the news that the goal of reconciliation is not to achieve “parity for local population increase”. What a weird angle, great-replacement-theory adjacent stuff.
But the ‘foreign interference’ concept is new to me, so it gets the cake for the weirdest shit I’ve read recently. Got too much free time in your hands…
Quite the stretch. Saying that our representatives should be representing the whole constituency, not just a minority groups interests, is the proper position in a democracy you twit. Look at the states right now, and how the republican’s are only representing the republican interests, while literally attacking democrats in places like Minnesota. THAT is what that sort of position leads to. This lady is elected to represent HER ENTIRE constituency, INCLUDING the non FN – just like a non FN person who is elected to the legislation is elected to represent their FN constituents. The color of a representatives skin, and their ethnic background, should absolutely not be allowed to dictate their decisions. If they are permitted to act just in their own race’s interests, and it’s commonly accepted that doing so is ‘ok’, than the majority race would just always elect the majority race, and totally fuck minorities everywhere.
I didn’t say reconciliation is about parity, but commented on equity and parity. Reading is difficult sometimes – the first paragraph touched on democratic representation, the second on reconciliation, and the third on equity/parity. Canada’s DEI is based on exactly what I said – hell, the ability to provide benefit to specific racial groups is based on Canada having a “equality of outcomes” approach (ie. “Equality of aggregate end results”), rather than “equality of opportunity” where things are basically funded as a flat rate irrespective of any racial or demographic based considerations (which was more common in the US). So our government allows you to do something like setup a Grant/Bursary that can only be awarded to “First Nations” people, because they view it as a disadvantaged group that needs assistance – and to be clear, those racially targeted perks are not part of reconciliation, you can do the same for women, or black people, asians, south americans, whoever. You can generally “positively discriminate” in favour of any minority that’s deemed to be at a ‘disadvantage’. We’re not “reconciling” with recent black immigrants when they are given easier access to education and employment, nor are we doing so when the same is done for FN. Like the reason the MMIWG didn’t talk about FN Men at all, was because they were making a case for all their laundry list of investments and policy changes to try and help a demographic group that could be framed easily in a disadvantaged context. It may get pushed under the same reconciliation banner at times, but if a similar report was issued about a different minority in a similarly extreme disadvantaged state, the government would basically be forced to take action based on our Charter’s principles.
Reconciliation is separate, and mostly focuses on self-governance / authority over a region. Yes, it’s another area where there’s a lack of representation for the majority’s interests, but no, it’s not specifically about parity. It’s mostly about sorting out the division of powers between the Canadian government and the First Nations band, with an eye to make that division fair/harmonious. It’s a “nation to nation” discussion, not an “individual needs and benefits programs to help disadvantaged groups” discussion. And again, because it IS a Nation to Nation discussion, it is inappropriate for her to pretend to be acting as an MLA when she’s putting her other Nation’s interests first. She is clearly in a conflict of Interest here by most definitions of the term. She should be abstaining on the vote entirely.
Wow, an elected official defending First Nations interests really grinds your gears huh. Take care.
I’ll openly criticize any democratic leader who is putting the interests of the few ahead of the interests of the many / all – and any democratic leader who is only helping out “their” people, at the expense of everyone else. For example, I’ve openly expressed criticism of Harjit Saijan before, because of his clear prejudice when it came to directing Canadian special forces to assist non-Canadian Sikhs, and only targeting that demographic for additional assistance, during Canada’s pull out from Kandahar. CSIS even called it out. Then the Liberals held a press conference declaring it racist to think of Harjit’s actions as racist, because we wouldn’t think him racist if he wasn’t also a Sikh. Like no Shit Trudeau, but by that reasoning White supremacists aren’t racists if they’re white people – it’s an utterly batshit take.
And your approach to this conversation is just asinine. Basically in response to me pointing our things like her clear conflict of interest – like it’s practically a case book example of a conflict of interest, “My husband and I are also leaders on the other side of the negotiating table!”, and the code of ethics she SUPPOSEDLY follows as an MLA – you turn around and essentially imply I’m a racist because I’m not supporting her bullshit / the FN narrative.