CKNW Editorial
for March 26, 2001

The egregiously negligent mutterings of Dr Hedy Fry, MP, have not only caused a great deal of hurt and harm, they have played the racist card just when we least need it. Both Prince George, and now we learn Kamloops, have been accused of overt racism. Both are communities that have much to be proud of in their first class attempts to be tolerant, law abiding places to live. Dr Fry, in her half hearted apology, has left a very bitter taste indeed. I was in Prince George when the story broke and the mood ranged from white hot anger to incredulity … how could an MP make such a remark about their home?

But think on this. Suppose there had been some half wit who burned a cross on a lawn in some community. Perhaps even in Vancouver Center, Ms Fry’s constituency. Would that be any evidence at all that the community was intolerant?

The Southern United States of days gone by wasn’t an intolerant, bigoted place because people burned crosses and lynched people … it was an intolerant and bigoted place because people burned crosses and lynched people and the authorities did nothing … and the people were indifferent.

It is not surprising, of course, that Dr Fry has been permitted to get away with her remarks, How, possibly, could Prime Minister Jean Chretien expect his underlings to have higher standards than he has for himself? Mr Chretien doesn’t usually show any shortage of hypocrisy but for him, of all people, to censure or penalize Ms Fry would be two-faced to a degree that would cause even him to blush.

This playing of the race card has become all too common in our community. We are embarked upon an undertaking of settling native land claims which will have profound effects forever more. Once these deals are "constitutionalized" they will be utterly unchangeable. This means that we must have the widest possible public involvement and debate. And people must feel free to make their points without fear that they will be shouted down with hollers that they are bigots from noisy harridans like Hedy Fry.

Nisga’a, which I contend was a bad deal, was a piece of cake compared to what we are about to undertake. It’s a long way from large populations, has very few non natives on the lands, and has had a long history of negotiation. It still managed to come up with a backdoor constitutional amendment, a race based fishery and a denial of basic rights to non natives. What’s to happen when these negotiations get into the Greater Vancouver area?

Are governments, which represent us, not to care about who claims to be the leadership of bands with whom they are dealing? Are they never to inquire how it is that the same family compact has represented itself as the governing clique for generations … even though many rank and file natives want those questions asked and answers given? Are there to be no questions as to the clear mismanagement of funds that has taken place with some bands? How do you give "independence" to the small unto tiny bands involved? What do you do when there may be large numbers of non natives living on the lands – deny them all rights because of their race, namely non Indian? What do you do when, as is certain to happen, bands or nations do not become as self sufficient as we now all, through rose-coloured glasses, believe they will? What about the rights of women on many lands that are run by male dominated oligarchies?

What about settlements where, as in Vancouver, land is not available? Are there not financial limits we must impose simply because we cannot begin to afford compensation on the basis of present market value?

These questions – and many others - will be raised by decent people as well as, tendentiously, by true racists. Are the questions not to be asked … are the issues not to be raised … because they are also asked by bad people?

These are tough times and there are tough decisions to be made. And, as I mentioned a moment ago, these are decisions which truly will be carved in stone for all time to come. This is no time to be shouting people down because their legitimate questions are often also asked by those of bad faith.

I have always favoured fair settlement of all these issues. But I don’t believe that this means that fair settlement is whatever natives think is fair. There are realities. There is a large non native population that have time honoured rights too. Compensation cannot be perfect.

I can imagine natives recoiling at hearing that, because they say, having once owned all the land, any surrender of a hectare by us is a compromise. But that argument is unsustainable unless you say that non natives have no rights. We do – and they must be recognized and respected.

At this time we need a population that is informed and, yes, prepared to be outspoken. Indeed, just as outspoken as are native leaders.

What we don’t need are the utterances of an MP who holds herself out to be the voice of tolerance when in fact she is just a unhelpful, to say the least, flatulent windbag.