Vancouver Courier
for October 21, 1998

First, briefly, a word on the special commercial fishery contemplated by Nisga’a. It’s said this is justified in law because section 35 of the Constitution preserves aboriginal rights.

What is or is not an inherent aboriginal right is an ongoing legal question but the alleged right to an aboriginal commercial fishery was settled by the Supreme Court of Canada a few years ago in the Sparrow case. The court held that while there was an aboriginal right to fish for food and ceremonial purposes a right to a commercial fishery only existed if the band alleging it could demonstrate it traditionally operated one. The government of Canada, for reasons no one can explain, decided that the Sparrow decision did confirm an inherent aboriginal right to a commercial fishery – though it did precisely the opposite - and promptly established one. This they justified in full-page ads across the country using Sparrow, the decision that made their policy unlawful, as justification! An example of "new speak" which would make George Orwell’s government in 1984 green with envy.

A second case, Gladstone, also went to the Supreme Court of Canada and decided that in that particular case there was indeed an ancient aboriginal commercial fishery to rely upon. That case has been distorted by Nisga’a Treaty supporters as support an inherent aboriginal right to a commercial fishery. It does nothing of the sort. It simply said that under the Sparrow rule that in this particular case a traditional commercial fishery had in fact been demonstrated. It was not a salmon fishery, incidentally.

There is not only no justification for an aboriginal commercial fishery for Nisga’a, it is against the law of the land.

Let’s talk about Terry Malewski and his grievous sins according to Jean Chretien. You know the story – Mr Malewski, the dogged CBC reporter covering the APEC affair, corresponded by email with one of the protesters, Craig Jones and, amongst other things, referred to the government as the "forces of darkness." This, says the Prime Minister through a lackey, shows unacceptable bias and Mr Malewski must be dealt with severely. The CBC has taken him off the case.

This story would never have broken had it not been for Mr Malewski. Read Susan Delacourt’s compelling article in last Saturday’s Globe and Mail. The mainstream media treated the protests and the police brutality as "meanwhile" stories – stories that were relatively unimportant. It was Mr Malewski who demonstrated that here were young people beaten up by the police and sprayed with pepper for holding up signs saying "democracy" and "free speech." Thanks to him, that story has dominated the news for a month while it was merely a "meanwhile" until then.

Where were the rest of the media? Where they always are, kissing the Prime Minister’s backside and polishing his self cultivated avuncular image. The clubby relationship between those who are supposed to report on him and the Prime Minister is legendary. Criticisms, when they rarely appear, are always within the carefully circumscribed though unwritten rules of appropriate behaviour. Jean Chretien has got away with murder and even now, is only beginning to be portrayed for what he is – a despot who brutally suppresses all points of view but his own.

So where did Mr Malewski go wrong?

In corresponding privately with one of the complainants? Good grief, private contacts between reporter and subjects of public controversy is as old as news reporting itself. You cannot read a single book about senior correspondents without immediately noting how many private conversations they had with people they were covering and how they often gave advice to them. And who the hell is the prime minister, who personally directed the RCMP, to criticize a reporter, who having covered the story from the start, has developed a tad more sympathy for Craig Jones that the three policemen who brutally assaulted him?

Forces of darkness? Well, why not? Mr Malewski is no stranger to scenes of brutality and called it as he saw it. And as many other Canadians saw it.

Should Mr Malewski as the reporter covering the story have sent emails to Mr Jones during that coverage?

Perhaps not, but is it such a great sin? Did Mr Malewski’s sympathy for Mr Jones alter the story? Would there have been no brutality had Mr Malewski not sent some emails? Would the pictures have changed? Of course not – the story spoke for itself.

Did he distort his reporting? I’ve heard no suggestion from the Prime Minister’s office that the brutality, captured on film, did not happen – have you?

Terry Malewski may have sinned against the revered and utterly ignored rules of journalism but compared to the obsequious treatment by the despot Chretien by the national media his sin is inconsequential.

The question is not why Terry Malewski did what he did but why the national media, joined at the hip to the Ottawa establishment, missed one of the most important stories of the year.