Pankiw and Ahenakew sitting in a tree...

To begin with, this is a quote from an article: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090306.wsask0306/BNStory/National/home
“Daniel Poulin, a lawyer for the human rights commission, said since the pamphlets aren't subject to the act, the panel was unable to consider whether Mr. Pankiw's statements were objectionable.”
Jim Pankiw- what gets me is how racism-discrimination is such a hard thing to understand. Certainly it is related to oppression, and that is why advantaged people have such a hard time understanding it. If you attack an already oppressed group of people, you are irresponsible. It is akin to the lowest of blows, it is nothing more that dirty fighting. Moreover, how do you use equality against an already disadvantaged people? Seems to me the constitution got it right. Need I remind you Section 15(2) states: “Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantage individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race...”
The only reasoning I can come up as to why equality is used is because it is all about keeping the disadvantaged out. Yet this country was built with advantages, it is therefore hard to see how not allowing advantages to others is against the status quo. I would also think the constitution has a higher ideal/principle than some emotional opposition. Imagine if equality started at the inception of this country, there would be no reserves and the First Nations people would not be controlled and dominated by some legislation.

Now in terms of Ahenakew: To begin with, I believe that the views espoused by Ahenakew clearly came from a different source other than from himself. In fact Ahenakew’s words sound like they are merely repeated, and so the depth of his attitude remains in question. Ahenakew appears if anything to be a middleman; the crime comes from those who held such deep attitudes of hatred to the Jews. This hatred for Jewish people had to of come from those who interacted with them on a personal level. And because of that it is hard to see Ahenakew as being a hard-lined racist, against Jewish people. Unfortunately Ahenakew spoke, he got caught, and as a result the real perpetrators are getting away. If anyone should be indicted it should be those who hold such deep attitudes of hatred.

Here is a quote from a blog, “ i don’t share ahenekew’s position one bit, but as far as i know he never encouraged anyone to harm a jewish person, and he was (once) charged with promoting hatred for simply answering a question truthfully. the ku klux klan is known to act violently against blacks. Jews and homosexuals yet they are allowed to hold meetings, in national parks no less.” http://www.breakfastmeat.com/2006/06/ahenekew-vs-kkkcanada-vs-usa.html

By using a situation that involves a venerable and emotional old man, is nothing more than exploitation. Ahenakew will never get forgiveness from the general public, but unlike the colonial way his forgiveness does not depend on them.
Complaining about how the justice system is serving a minority is also another attempt at manipulating the facts; I then have to ask should justice serve only the dominant majority. Will society be better by denying justice to an already disadvantaged people? Yet it seems the rising sentiment of the majority is nothing more than, riding roughshod over the minority and their disadvantages.
Race is a small factor, yet some people make it a big factor. It is these people who are the ones who cause problems in our society; they are the ones who need to be reprimanded. They are the ones who bring the rifts in our society.
So in the end it is always about Natives, First Nations, aboriginals, it is sensationalism- too bad cause natives really are sensational.
If there is anything I do believe it is that the Ahenakew and Pankiw cases tend bring out the racist views.
Moreover, the most disturbing thing about the Ahenakew and Pankiw case is the anti-native sentiments that seem to follow and are expressed.
Hopefully there will be an outcry over Pankiw as there was for Ahenakew.
Ekosi

Talk show hosts, Ahenakew, and Saskatchewan politics

More things to say....
This controversy (the Ahenakew debacle) is doing more harm, and it is discouraging that people cannot see this. Like I said it is too bad if anything it is more related to one person who is offended at some past things. This talk show host obviously cannot see past his bitterness. Now native people have to reap the havoc, and they have to be disciplined. To me it is about that hegemony that is so deeply ingrained in Canadian politics. Just the response from everyone other than natives themselves is a prime example. It has been said, “take away the funding,” I even think people have gone as far as making derogatory remarks about the chiefs; this is certainly getting out of hand. At some point there has to be some respect for native people particularly how they want to deal with things. Now after positioning himself in derogatory sentiments, there is no turning back, no means of retracting such statements: The damage is done and until a public apology is given for instigating spite against our First Nations people or we will continue to roll in Saskatchewan’s argil. Lastly, I still firmly believe that good things await native people: And that they will be up and reaching new heights, and justice will surely reign.

A National Day

It seems to me it is not just about having a voice as it is, being able to dictate ones direction. Clearly native people are overly burdened by specifically what mainstream thinks of them, and this has lots to do with how they moreover function. If they are treated like children; who are unable to be responsible for themselves, then how could they achieve any sucess? This whole historical thing about how they were unable to function properly, and then dictate how they operate is a far cry from "good governance." The recent issue of Ahenakew is a prime example of mainstream coming in and dictating how they should deal with things. It is certainly hard for most people in mainstream to see that the native side in particular that their latest initiative is about forgiveness. (The Ahenakew case)
If anyone is oppressed in society, it is the native people. You have to have some form of political ability to be able to make a statement that is far reaching and somewhat effective; plainly said, native peoples attitudes and opinions are very different from say the majority. I would think quite obviously that the majority's voice will do more damage in the negative sense, and as a result there is no reverse discrimination or hypocracy when it come to oppressed people having an opinion, in fact if anything it is all about hegemony in action via the majority. And quite certainly using equality to bully an opinion onto a minority is wrong. This whole circumstance is about the age old story of native bashing in mainstream, why don't people just put together a national day of native bashing and get it over with, since it is still a cultural thing. Where are the good down-to-home people who will stand up for an already oprressed people. Justice is never advanced by discrimination, be it ever so subversive. Native people have to develop some political authority or they will always succumb to an opinion that does not resinate with them. Natives have to stick together, and maybe one day, they will see justice rise up; and moreover there will be a lifting up society's down-trodden.