Vancouver Courier
for July 22, 1998

Last weekend Stephen Hume, in the Vancouver Sun, flung down the gauntlet. To question the self government provisions in the proposed Nisga'a settlement makes you a white supremacist, a racist. At best, you're guilty by association with all that scary Nazi stuff on the Internet.

The remarks were directed at Gordon Campbell but clearly implicate all of us who have serious questions.

But Hume is even slicker. He also accuses Campbell of being against native self government which, if true, is startling since hitherto his party has supported it.

Campbell and the Liberals can defend themselves. But I have that sense of deja vu. The tactic of the dreamy eyed, conscience stricken, "higher purpose persons", in Denny Boyd's wonderful phrase, is the same as it was during Charlottetown - bring contempt and hatred upon your opposition by, in the case of Charlottetown, calling them traitors and in this case calling them racists - Nazi jackbooted racists to boot, if only by strong and steady implication.

I wish to record in this column what I feel and let the public judge if I'm a racist.

I've always favoured native self government but have also consistently drawn attention to the basic rules of democracy which mandate representation for all. That's because I'm a democrat. Though not much of a political philosopher I've read and have re-read the exchange between Edmund Burke, the Conservative, and Tom Paine, the firebrand, concerning the French Revolution and I'm a Paine man all the way. I believe in the will of the people - that the people not only have the right to directly decide the great issues but also the right to be dead wrong from time to time. That's democracy.

I support the great principle of the American Revolution - no taxation without representation. I believe in equality, no matter what a person looks like or thinks. I abhor racism with every fibre in my body and have the lash marks from Doug Collins to prove it.

I'm also a realist. I understand that even the greatest of democratic states must undertake dramatic protection of minorities - not just groups which have lost an election but those who by choice, circumstance or both choose to live outside the so-called "mainstream." This is part of democracy, which is more than just charts in a political science text book. I recognize, in short, that native land claims present huge challenges and will require innovative solutions to bring a workable compromise between the workings of pure democracy and the rights of cohesive minorities with legally sanctioned rights.

The problem posed by Mr Campbell which got Stephen Hume's knickers in such a knot is this - if we create within the dual administration system we now have - the provincial and federal governments - a special category of administration which, unlike the municipality is not a creature of statute, how do we make that fair for all who live within this new "nation so formed?" Or for those who may wish to open a business there .. or hike, camp or fish there?

It's said the point is barren because there are only 190 non natives within the Nisga'a territory. But what of that 190? And what if their numbers increase dramatically over the years?

Two critical points. One, these arrangements are for all intents and purposes, unchangeable. Two, the Nisga'a settlement will be the template for all other settlements and there is another side of the coin - in Westbank, for example, non natives outnumber natives by 7000 to 500.

This issue should have been debated, publicly, from the beginning. I have no doubt that there is a solution. Just as it's wrong to deny 190 non natives full rights in Nisga'a it would be ludicrous to have the Westbank government selected by the non native majority. What has happened is denial. The problem doesn't exist and if it does it's only because "racists" like Gordon Campbell, Gordon Gibson and Rafe Mair have yapped about it.

Defence arguments abound. This is like a condominium, it is said. The Indians are the owners and the non natives the renters. Except this isn't a condo - it's British Columbia where no matter where you live or the status of your shelter you get to vote on how your tax money is spent. Glen Clark, a master at distractive irrelevancies, says that because non natives will pay their taxes to the provincial government everything is fine. Really? Does that mean that when the Band Council refuses to fix the pothole in front of my place, or give me better schools, or collect my garbage better I write to the Premier who'll immediately pop over and fix things?

Having been called a traitor by a prime minister I guess I can live with "racist" but wouldn't it nice if we could, for once debate issues first and decide them later by the will of the people, free from vile invective and innuendo from those who always think they know best?