Vancouver Courier
for July 26, 1998

Following last Wednesday's column the proposed Nisga'a Treaty has been released, albeit by the leader of the opposition not Premier Clark or Chief Joseph Gosnell. And it is the outrage at this "premature" release which has now got me outraged.

Let me put it bluntly - why the hell shouldn't the public have access to this document?

I've written, editorialized and now written a book on the lack of real freedom in this land and many have laughed off my arguments. But since the disgraceful RCMP behaviour during the APEC Conference last Fall, where people were beaten up by cops for carrying signs saying "peace" and "democracy" and since we watched every last Liberal MP vote against the Hepatitis "C" motion, people are realizing that there is tolerated speech not free speech in this country.

You don't have to jail people in order to suppress free speech you need only publicly pillory them, not for their views but their suggested motives. The classic tactic is distort their argument, toss in some utterly irrelevant slogans, then claim that the object of your disapproval is a person of unsavoury reputation.

Arguments made by two leading citizens have led to this tactic. Both Gordon Gibson, in his Toronto Globe and Mail articles, and Gordon Campbell have demanded that the Nisga'a Treaty be put to public referendum. For their troubles they have been portrayed as racists which, on their respective records, is preposterous.

What is that they (and I as well) are demanding?

That a decision which will dramatically alter the social contract, forevermore, must be approved by the people.

Good Grief! What a revolutionary thought! Admit the people to the discussion and decision making process? Where will it all end?

There are two factors at play here.

First, there's a huge guilt overlay involved. And right it is that we should feel guilty. We did terrible things to natives - especially children. We have demeaned, cheated and marginalized them. It's neither a defence nor an excuse to say that other people in other lands were worse or that those were the norms at the time. We did a great wrong and it must be remedied, insofar as it's possible to do so.

The question is, does one Initiate the process by confessing error and then getting on with it or does one bear this guilt trip throughout the proceedings and, like the mate caught straying, make whatever promises are demanded as the price of forgiveness? Apparently it's the latter.

(This observation - the Nisga'a have been very well represented. If it takes knowing and exploiting the weaknesses of your opponent to be a skilled negotiator then the Nisga'a ones are in the first rank.)

Here we have here an agreement which will be "constitutionalized", without any information of consequence given the public, negotiated, and now going to the Legislature - with public debate to follow! This is Meech Lake! And what Charlottetown would have been without B.C.'s law requiring a referendum prior to approval of a constitutional amendment.

I'm waiting patiently, but evidently in vain, for one intellectual argument against a referendum. I've received the guilt argument. And the fears of those who wish to profit from the deal politically who say, in ill disguised code language, that they're afraid a referendum would fail. But to the proposition I put, namely that whenever a profound and permanent change to the social contract is contemplated there must be express public approval, I've heard no principled argument. That's because there isn't one.

The main argument seems to be that the public is too damned stupid to understand the complexities of this issue and will therefore make a mistake.

That's what they said about Meech and Charlottetown but who of you would change your vote from "no" to "yes', given an opportunity? The public, given suitable public debate, is quite able to make intelligent decisions.

But to make this argument stick it must also be argued that, on the other hand, our elites usually get it right. Does anyone care to back that argument up with evidence?

Despite serious reservations in two key areas - the absence of rights to non natives and the constitutionalizing of a new level of government - I'd probably vote yes. But, dammit, along with all of you, I'm entitled to know all the issues, hear all the evidence, and cast a secret ballot!

The legislature does not represent the people's views. And a "free vote" means nothing as every NDP MLA knows it's vote "yes", or else.

In the 200 years of philosophical debate started by Edmund Burke and Tom Paine on the matter of peoples' rights in a society calling itself free, I stand with Tom Paine.

Let the people speak. Otherwise we're back where we started 200 years ago with natives - deciding what's good for people without their advice and consent.

And the problem will never go away.