- The Novelist Anthony Trollope as a Guide and Moral Support for an Unpopular Political Argument.
- I wrote and self-published a book, There Is No Difference, an argument based on the Enlightenment principle of equality under the law- an argument that is seemingly and strangely forbidden entry into the Canadian marketplace of ideas- for the repeal of all laws underlying the existence of Indian reserves and all other special rights and privileges possessed by Canada’s Aboriginal peoples, and for the completion of what I regard as the already well under way process of the social and economic assimilation of Canadian Aboriginals into the mainstream of modern, urban, 21st century Canada. Follow the link below to see what the heck this has to do with the amazing, brilliant, insightful, super-prolific English novelist Anthony Trollope.
Some of the hard truths of science are being challenged by persons who and institutions which put funding and “social justice” considerations ahead of these hard truths. The hard truth that there are only two sexes, male and female, is an example. The hard truth that there is no such thing as distinct Indigenous “blood” is another. (See my article, The Unintentional Racism Underlying the Indigenous Rights Movement, elsewhere on this website.)
The immediately below article, published in the Fall 2020 edition of the Royal Ontario Museum quarterly magazine, shows that this trend, in my opinion, is leaking into and degrading the discipline of archaeology.
My ROM Archaeology letter is the letter I sent to the ROM on February 21st, 2021 taking objection to this. To date I have received no acknowledgment or reply, which I think is a poor show on the part of the Museum, a publicly funded institution which should be encouraging respectful and challenging debate and inquiry.
Canadians are constantly being accused by Indigenous interests of “violating the treaties.” They never say how the treaties are being violated, and our somnolent media never asks. They just say it, and that seems to make it an established fact. It’s clear that no one, not even the Indigenous person or group making the accusation, has actually read the treaties. They should. They make interesting reading. They show that the Indigenous treaty signers made a whole host of treaty promises that no one ever mentions, which could be summed up by the phrase “Be loyal to the Queen and obey her laws,” which promises are continually being broken by Indigenous groups. The article below shows a recent example of this situation. And again, the media reporter of the story discussed below clearly didn’t take the time to read the treaty he was reporting on which treaty was a central element of his story.
And again, like in the ROM situation, I wrote a respectful letter to Ms. Constance MacIntosh, the Dalhousie Law Professor quoted in the article, enclosing a draft of the below article and requesting her view on the substance of it and on this overlooked legal point, (i.e. what is the significance, if any, of these overlooked Indigenous treaty promises?- did any Court case discuss them? Why aren’t they ever brought up?), and like in the ROM situation, so far anyway, have been met with silence. No acknowledgment, no reply. Again, poor show publicly funded institution! The slightest respectful questioning of their Indigenous orthodoxy and they clam up!
It would be in our country’s best interests if these University and ROM academics, and all others in their similar position of power and influence, would shed some of their reflexive defensiveness, expressed too often as outright hostility to people who disagree with them. Would that they had the confidence and open-mindedness to try to live the precept of the French philosopher Montaigne, who wrote:
When I am contradicted it arouses my attention, not my wrath. I move towards the man who contradicts me, he is instructing me. The cause of truth ought to be common to both of us.
The immediately below article is a distillation of chapter 1 of There Is No Difference, and expresses the fundamental reason why I was moved to write the book.
Indigenous advocates constantly assert that Aboriginals had a complete legal system- similar in nature to the Anglo-Canadian system (except for Quebec) that we “settlers” have always been governed by, before we “settlers” came and somehow made it vanish. I disagree. The immediately below article explains why I disagree.
And, as published by Frontier Centre for Public Policy on August 11, 2021:
I wrote the immediately below article and published it here. Then I submitted it to the great online journalistic website, C2C Journal for publication. They saw its importance and agreed to publish it, but in an edited version. See their final, edited version of the same article.
Now, the version edited by C2C Journal, immediately below.
The immediately below-described Blueberry River First Nation legal decision, decided by the Supreme Court of British Columbia in the Summer of 2021, and not appealed by the UNDRIP-drunk B. C. government, exemplifies the incredible hypocrisy of the Blueberry River band, (and any other Indian band that will assuredly take advantage of it and make the same arguments), taking and demanding full advantage of all that modern, Euro-Canadian life has to offer them, and then turning around and saying that that very modernity- that very economic and social progress that Canada has achieved over the past century, again, which Blueberry has solidly benefitted from– (I wonder how much the Canadian taxpayer paid for the Chief’s truck?) is a breach of the federal government’s implied treaty promise to preserve Blueberry’s 19th century hunting, fishing and trapping, roaming way of life forever (!) failing which the federal government, and by extension the Canadian taxpayers, will have to compensate them somehow. So, we continue making the present transfer payments to Blueberry to ensure that they live by modern standards, and now we pay further grants on top of that as “damages” for, by allowing progress to happen, failing to enable them to live in their presumably cherished and preferred old-fashioned manner: simply “off the land”. Another stunningly ill-considered, totally-divorced-from-reality, Crown sovereignty-destroying decision from our hyper-active Courts on Indigenous matters.
768total visits,3visits today