Outrage Over Racist Remarks by Kitchener, Ontario man

[Hatred of Aborignals]

Outrage Continues Over the Racist Remarks by a Kitchener, Ontario man

May 18, 2007

You will recall that a few weeks back we looked at comments made by Mr. Bob Verdun, who had posted on a Barbados web site, slamming Aboriginal Canadians.
http://www.nationnews.com/editorial/297343495418739.php


Now, I have received additional material that shows Verdun has been making these types of racist comments in Canada.

In October 2006 his opinion was published in a Stratford, Ontario newspaper.

Here is a .jpg file of the clipping.
http://www.turtleisland.org/news/verdun.jpg

(NOTE: The underlining and annotations in the news clipping are by a local teacher who sent it to me )


Also, note how another online service has taken my original piece and "stylized" it for their own purposes.
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/1 ... ns#c183046

- - - - - - -
The following is a response to Bob Verdun's racist rant earlier this year in an online perspective that has parked outrage because of its obvious anti-native sentiments.


Published on: 5/18/07
(This is a He Said, She Said piece)

BY LORRAINE A. REKMANS

True


Canada’s original inhabitants were on the continent when the immigrants arrived. They signed treaties with the newcomers. The original inhabitants have many names to identify various nations of people. We are not one homogeneous group that could be defined by one politically correct term. Canadians face a lot of problems stemming from turning their backs on our original agreements

True: We are not immigrants. We refuse the label of immigrant. This is our land. Turtle Island was not vacant when the immigrants arrived.

We did not come from Asia. We did note that the immigrants were hairy.


True, our suffering can be linked to the policies and approaches of the immigrants. I don’t know that we were competing for suffering. We may have had a monopoly in this case. Exposing our people to small pox was blatant in some cases and not “inadvertent”.
Indigenous Peoples’ systems of land management were sustainable and based in principles of respect. The three fires confederacy had signed the Great Law of Peace in the 1500’s while the African slave trade was alive well into the late 1800’s.

There is no harmony in nature. The trick is to strive always and constantly for balance. The northern climates of Canada did not support agricultural pursuits. Survival by subsistence living is not “simple”. We did not simply survive by killing wildlife. To live from the land requires great skill and knowledge.

Where art is concerned. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. And besides how did the issue of art factor into this discussion?


Indigenous people are glad Canadians recognize the value of all peoples. Canadians need not be deemed fools for being culturally sensitive. Please do not be embarrassed for demonstrating compassion.



True: Our mortality rates are very high ad our life expectancy is short. We may not be able to take much more of this “kindness.”

Aboriginal land claims are settled through the very long and onerous process of negotiations and are not,” allowances”. They are in come cases treaty land entitlements and are based in law and complex land designations that have taken place of a long period of time.
By the way isn’t “subsidised” an American spelling of the word “subsidized”?

The federal government holds treaty responsibilities to provide funding for education. These programs are over-rated and under funded. Many Aboriginal people are under-represented in the school system.


No one can really say why this Aboriginal person left his job with you. But we can assume it may be your dislike for Aboriginal people that put him off.

We cannot predict that reparations will fail when they have not even yet begun.

We are dying in record numbers. That is a tremendous motivation for change.

True: We are poor and our health is suffering.


We are over represented in jails. Do you think the jails are full now?

Aboriginal people want to work in partnership with Canadians. The original relationship we had with the immigrants was an economic trade relationship.
* Lorraine A. Rekmans is a non-Asian Ojibway; former editor who lives in Canada. Email lorraine.rekmans@sympatico.ca

- - - - - - -

Press Release
April 20, 2007

Call to Action! Native People and Social Justice Minded People Speak out Now! Stop the Racism NOW!
Bob Verdun’s op-ed article, "The Human Race: Reparation repercussions" in the Barbados is racist hate speech that must be pulled off the internet. It is published by the newspaper The Nation, here is the link: http://www.nationnews.com/editorial/297343495418739.php

Natives and concerned people, speak out!

How can you help?

By writing a letter to the Editor at the Nation and a letter to Verdun and by emailing their advertisers. Demand that they pull the hate off their site and print an apology to Native people. Request that advertisers stop doing business with this publication. You can also forward to friends...the more people that find out about this and speak out, the better. If we are going to fight racism, we all need to be proactive.

Verdun's email: bobverdun@rogers.com, The Nation's email: nationnews@sunbeach.net

Here are some points that can be made in correspondence to The Nation:

Verdun states that Aboriginal people are ten times more likely to be incarcerated than other Canadians, this is false. According to the Correctional Service of Canada statistics, while the incarceration rates somewhat higher than other Canadians, it isn’t ten times the amount.

One thing that must be pointed out is that poverty is often associated with higher crime rates in communities. Aboriginal people are the poorest segment in Canadian society, the only people who are poorer are new immigrants who are refugees.

For further information on incarceration rates for Aboriginal people, go here: http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/prgrm/cor ... 10_e.shtml.

As for questioning where Natives come from, that isn’t up for debate. We ARE indigenous peoples.

The UN acknowledges that Native people in Canada are in Indigenous peoples. The Constitution of Canada entrenches Aboriginal rights. As well, Charles C. Mann has recently authored a book entitled 1491, New Revelations about the Americas Before Columbus in which he states that Native people have been in North America for 50,000-60,000 years while Europe has only been inhabited for 10,000 years.

There are many theories where Natives in North American came from but none have been proven, and therefore they are merely theories. When white settlers attempt to argue that Natives are not Indigenous, they are trying to delegitimize Native rights. But as you can read below, Aboriginal rights are entrenched in Canadian law.

References to Aboriginal Rights in the Constitution Act, 1982.
PART I
Section 25 of the Charter of Rights:
25. The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any aboriginal, treaty or other rights or freedoms that pertain to the aboriginal peoples of Canada including
(a) any rights or freedoms that have been recognized by the Royal Proclamation of October 7, 1763; and
(b) any rights or freedoms that may be acquired by the aboriginal peoples of Canada by way of land claims settlement.
PART II
RIGHTS OF THE ABORIGINAL PEOPLES OF CANADA
35. (1) The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.
(2) In this Act, "aboriginal peoples of Canada" includes the Indian, Inuit, and Metis peoples of Canada.
(3) For greater certainty, in subsection (1) "treaty rights" includes rights that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired.
(4) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the aboriginal and treaty rights referred to in subsection (1) are guaranteed equally to male and female persons.
35.1 The government of Canada and the provincial governments are committed to the principal that, before any amendment is made to Class 24 of section 91 of the "Constitution Act, 1867", to section 25 of this Act or to this Part,
(a) a constitutional conference that includes in its agenda an item relating to the proposed amendment, composed of the Prime Minister of Canada and the first ministers of the provinces, will be convened by the Prime Minister of Canada; and
(b) the Prime Minister of Canada will invite representatives of the aboriginal peoples of Canada to participate in the discussions on that item.
Native rights as are part of Canadian law. Many Native peoples signed treaties with Canada as nation to nation. Canada has repeatedly broken treaties, this is also well-documented. In these cases, Natives have had to take Canada to court, but for a long time Natives were not allowed to hire lawyers or fight any cases in Canadian court. As well, we were not given citizenship rights afforded to other Canadians, we couldn’t vote and were restricted in many others areas like economic development.

In order to regulate Native people, the Canadian government created laws.There is legislation in Canada called “The Indian Act” which has regulated all aspects of Native lives. There is no “White man Act” which regulates all aspects of White peoples’ lives. For your information, the Apartheid System in South Africa which has been seen as the world as oppressive and racist, was modeled after the Indian Act in Canada. This Act also set up the Reservation system.

Another complaint that racists like Bob Verdun makes is that Natives are “allowed” to sell cigarettes and have casinos. These are rights for Natives, rights not privileges as part of self government and sovereignty. Why doesn’t Verdun complain about the casinos owned by non-Natives in places like Niagara Falls and other areas? Are those special rights given to others?

Verdun also stated that Natives are lazy and lack ambition. This is an allegation that isn’t based in any statistical evidence. How do you measure laziness? This is a negative, hateful stereotype made up to vilify Natives. All Canadians have access to welfare, Employment Insurance and other social services. This is a part of Canadian society. They are programs afforded to all. Natives do not receive any more than anyone else in these programs. If he had said Blacks are lazy and don’t want to work, or Jews are lazy and don’t want to work, would that be acceptable to your publication? Would you print that?
Verdun mentions how lands are being given to Natives, they are not being given to Natives. It is Native land that is being returned to the rightful owners.

This is very difficult for many to grasp. Native people didn’t all surrender lands. Now it is being returned, as it should be. My people have recently signed a self government deal with Canada, we hadn’t signed our lands to anyone, to us it is still our lands. Look up Nunatsiavut, it is our territory, it means “our beautiful land” in Inuktitut, our language. It is our traditional and we are glad to have reclaimed it. We have more control over our lives now that we have self government. In fact, all Inuit in Canada now have self government. We have hopes that all Natives in Canada gain self government.

Canada has committed genocide against Natives. . Genocide is defined by the University of Hawaii as:
…an international crime for which individuals, no matter how high in authority, may be indicted, tried, and punished by the International Criminal Court (ICC). According to Article 6 of the ICC Statute, This crime involves, any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

EuroCanadians have committed some acts against Native people through laws such as the Indian Act and policies like the policy to assimilate Natives with the Residential School system. As well, the Federal Government through the “Sixties Scoop,” sought to destroy Native cultures by taking Native children. These children were sent all over the world. The goal was to make Natives into white Christians. These acts may be applied to the definition of genocide noted above, because the goal was to destroy Natives. So, these early ideas about Natives clearly impacted the ways that EuroCanadians have setup laws and policies regarding Natives.

Canada hasn’t paid “reparations” to Natives for these crimes against humanity. The previous Liberal Government had penned a deal with Native leaders to address SOME of the crimes, but this deal hasn’t been honoured, nor was that deal in any way explained as reparations.

Verdun’s writing is particularly harmful because the main audience is in Barbados, the people of Barbados probably do not have access to correct information about the impacts of colonialism in Canada on Indigenous peoples.

For further information, contact: Mitzi @ mitsukmitsuk@yahoo.com or Gary @ nativesoul@knet.ca

- - - - - - -

Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007
Subject: Support for Aboriginal peoples

Dear Editor:

It has come to my attention that there is much controversy concerning the remarks of Bob Verdun's comments on Aboriginal people. First of all, where does Bob Verdun get the authority to judge our people?

Is he one of us or did he live with us?

Even though many of our people are suffering and still healing from losses, there are also many of us who live off and on reserve who cannot be catagorized into sterotypical images of Mr. Verdun's comments. Every race has their problems.

On reserve people deserve what they've earned, after all they've lost a lot. Compared to how the native people used to live and own their own countries, dealing with losses have left nations still trying to heal.

Because of the Aboriginal peoples of the world, the environment would not have been savored as long as it has.. They/we were the Keepers of the Earth. Now they stuggle to live with all the environmental changes.

I hope Mr. Verdun will retract his comments as he realizes that not all of us are like his descriptions.

Sincerely,

Valerie T. Mainville
Anishinabe.
Vmainvillem@aol.com

- - - - - - -

Canadian politician uses international online news service to deliver racist remarks against Aboriginal Canadians . . .

News and Comment
by Tehaliwaskenhas
Bob Kennedy, Oneida
Copyright
Turtle Island Native Network
http://www.turtleisland.org

April 15, 2007

I hung up the phone on Bob Verdun today. Who is he? A resident of Kitchener, Ontario whose web site says he is "Running for election as Regional Chairman".

As for why I hung up the phone - I contacted him to confirm he was the author of an online article for a news service The Nation Newspaper (it promotes itself as Barbados' Leading Newspaper) that had sickening, disparaging remarks about First Nations people in Canada.
http://www.nationnews.com/editorial/297343495418739.php

When I read his words, I was immediately outraged (it triggered rage inside me from my anger) and then sick to my stomach. So once he confirmed he wrote the comments, I could not have further contact with him.

So what did he say that has me so hot under the collar?

An example, "Canada allows them to claim vast tracks of land for their exclusive use, but it's never enough. Canada allows them to live a totally subsidised life on their reserves, never having to work if they choose not to . . . No amount of land, no amount of money, and no special privileges will ever satisfy people who are not motivated to advance themselves using their own ambition and ability".

Surely someone seeking a position of such authority as a Regional Chair, wouldn't make public such outrageous comments.

Why don't we just ignore him? Let it go?

As someone who favours freedom of speech I always ask how far do we allow people to go in their rants? The answer is simple (in law anyway, I believe) in Canada there are hate laws on the books. People who go too far, are guilty of hate crimes.

For me personally I believe this would-be politician has done that . . . gone too far and has tossed his hate crime in my face, and against all Aboriginal Canadians.

OKAY, so he wrote it for an online publication in Barbados. (Where he spends a lot of time) Doesn't that make a difference?

No! The information freely flows, as if geography is non-existant. In this case, Bob Verdun's material is easily disseminated through the search engines, and so presto! Here it is.

"Despite all the opportunities and handouts, the "natives" are the poorest, least educated, and most unhealthy residents of Canada.

They are ten times more likely to be in jail for criminal activity than the average Canadian – and that does not include vast numbers of criminals who go unpunished because of special treatment on their private reserves (the ultimate gated communities!)."

You judge for yourself if it warrants our concern, and action. Speaking of action, we know that if we contact him it is not (Please!) to lash out with the same kind of hate he excudes through his words. Please do not play his game of hate. Well thought-out responses to his material may educate the man ( naive as I still am).

By the way, it didn't take much sleuthing to track him down. It was obvious he wanted people to know who he was. His e-mail address of bobverdun@rogers.com was a big clue.

A quick search revealed his own web site
http://www.bobverdun.com

I read his information, and contacted him by phone and that was that.

It seems to me that Bob Verdun is one of those people the Ontario Provincial Police Commissioner worries about openly . . . the ones who incite others toward anti-native words, then actions.

The Criminal Code of Canada, Section 319 includes, "Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.Wilful promotion of hatred (2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction."

I believe Mr. Verdun's words are deliberate words of hatred aimed directly at Aboriginal Canadians.

More about Hate Crimes. . .
http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.c ... hatecrimes

(There is a specific section on Aboriginal people, as well as recommendations for change)

- - - - - - -

April 19, 2007

NOTE: The following is from writer Dan David, who looked into this story after Turtle Island Native Network brought it to the attention of Aboriginal journalists via e-mail
( aboriginaljournalists@yahoogroups.com )

- - -

During more than 25 years in Canadian journalism, I find it hard to recall when I have come across anything as odious, ignorant, or insulting to
intelligence on a newspaper page as that thing you published recently by Bob Verdun about Aboriginal peoples in Canada.

I read it on your web site. (THE HUMAN RACE: Reparation repercussions, April 15, 2007, http://www.nationnews.com/editorial/297343495418739.php)

Why did you allow this hateful material to be published in the first place?

Why do you allow it to continue?

I refuse to dignify it here, either by calling it an op-ed column since it resembles hate mail more than fact-based journalism. I also refuse to include any part of it here. Anyone who bothers to inflict it upon themselves should ask: What if this were about me or the stereotypes about my group instead?

The print and online operations for Nation News are based in St. Michael, and are billed as “Barbados’ Leading Newspaper,” The online version, though, is available everywhere via the Internet.

Verdun signs his racialist rant thus: “Bob Verdun is a Canadian; a former editor who resides in Barbados.” Confusing things, Verdun provides a Canadian email address. A quick check shows Verdun as a belligerent, failed publisher of small-time newspapers in southern Ontario’s Kitchener area, a loser in elections for Waterloo regional council, and a nag to boards of
directors of Canadian businesses. He has been sued for defamation by a senior executive at a major bank – something almost unheard of in Canadian banking circles.

All of which implies someone not unlike the neighbourhood crackpot on street corners yelling unintelligible insults at passersby. But Verdun has much less credibility.

Please remove that hateful material from your website, and consider in the future whether such material violates journalistic codes -- not to mention laws against spreading hate in Canada and elsewhere. I hope some of the recipients of this email letter pursue the same questions in their official capacities and offices.

---------------------------------------------------------
Dan David 613-920-7572 mobile
Tyendinaga Mohawk Territory, Ontario
shmohawk@hotmail.com
---------------------------------------------------------

cc: Kitchener Waterloo Record (letters@therecord.com)
Aboriginal Journalists Association
(aboriginaljournalists@yahoogroups.com)
Canadian Association of Black Journalists (info@cabj.ca)
Black Business & Professional Association (bbpa@bellnet.ca)
Share Newspaper (share@interlog.com)
Windspeaker Native Newspaper (pbarnsley@ammsa.com)
Assembly of First Nations - Office of the National Chief (npine@afn.ca)
Andrew Telegdi, MP-Kitchener-Waterloo (Telegdi.A@parl.gc.ca)
Daryl Kramp, MP-Prince Edward Hastings (Kramp.d@parl.gc.ca)
Elisabeth Witner, MLA-Kitchener-Waterloo (elizabeth.witner@pc.ola.org)
Ernie Parsons, MLA-Prince Edward-Hastings
(eparsons,mpp.co@liberal.ola.org)
Canadian Journalists for Free Expression (cjfe@cjfe.org)
Bob Verdun (bobverdun@rogers.com)

- - - - - - -

Forwarded Message



Subject: Freedom of speech

Dan David's tirade just proved my point. The "natives" don't get it. Canada is entirely a nation of immigrants in which no one should have any special status. That is my considered opinion, and I have a right to express it -- and will continue to do so.

I believe that a pile of rough rocks is an embarrassement when it is presented as the symbol of Canada hosting the Winter Olympics -- and I will continue to say so.

I was born in Canada. No one is any more a "native" than I am. Remember our national anthem: "O Canada! My home and native land."

Canada has become the envy of the world because of the generous manner in which successive waves of immigrants have adapted and then welcomed those who follow. But, there are still too many members of a particular 4% minority who want to sabotage the entire concept of a nation of equals.

Their whining demands for endless handouts are only hurting themselves. They should look around at all the people who have come to this country with absolutely nothing, and have prospered on their own efforts and merit.

This "failed" newspaper publisher is a winner of Canada's highest honour in media, the Michener Award for Meritorious Public Service in Journalism. My campaign for shareholder rights and improved corporate governance was endorsed by the Supreme Court of Canada, and has achieved major reforms over the past 15 years.

Mr. David is one of many irate "natives" who have responded to an article of which they know nothing of its context. While he has refrained from the obscenities and the fascist calls for vengeance that have characterized many of his associates' responses, they are all enemies of democracy because of the extremes to which they will go to try to silence critics of their self-destructive privileges.

I am in Canada at the moment. I travel freely between Barbados and Canada, and would be happy to address anyone's legitimate, rationally-expressed complaints in front of any appropriate body, including the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

Barbados enjoys a more vigorous form of free speech than Canada does. I can hardly wait for another big group of whiners in Canada to discover that homosexuality is still illegal in Barbados, and that the vast majority of Barbadians consider it a sin -- and so publicly! Talk about odious, ignorant, and insulting!! What is the world coming to when people dare to hold opinions that are not considered politically correct by various elite, entitlement-oriented special-interest groups in Canada!!!

Bob Verdun

From: Robert Verdun <bobverdun@rogers.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 13:53:40 -0400 (EDT)
To: Dan David <shmohawk@hotmail.com>, <nationnews@sunbeach.net>
Cc: <letters@therecord.com>,
"aboriginaljournalists@yahoogroups.com"<aboriginaljournalists@yahoogroups.co
m>, <info@cabj.ca>, <bbpa@bellnet.ca>, <pbarnsley@ammsa.com>,
<share@interlog.com>, <canadianjour@magma.ca>, <cjfe@cjfe.org>,
<npine@afn.ca>, <Telegdi.A@parl.gc.ca>, <Kramp.D@parl.gc.ca>,
<elizabeth.witmer@pc.ola.org>, <eparsons.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org>,
<bobverdun@rogers.com>

[Fight Hate Crimes]

McGuinty Government To Provide $1.35 Million To Community Groups

TORONTO, July 4, 2007

The McGuinty government is providing $1.35 million to fund new projects to help address hate crimes, Attorney General Michael Bryant announced today.

"Our government has zero tolerance for hate crimes," said Bryant. "This new grant program responds to several recommendations of the Hate Crimes Community Working Group, which we established to suggest ways to improve the response to these crimes. We are now calling for grant proposals from agencies and organizations so they can get started on this important work."

The government will fund four kinds of community-based initiatives under this program:

- Projects to enhance community resources and/or address gaps in services to victims of hate crimes

- A hate crime forum to strengthen networks and share information among victims groups, educators and members of the criminal justice system

- A website for victims containing provincewide information about hate crimes and victim services

- Templates for community-based victim impact statements, for use in court.

Applications for the grants are being accepted by the Ontario Victim Services Secretariat of the Ministry of the Attorney General until August 24, 2007.

Projects will need to be completed by March 31, 2008. Application forms are available on the ministry's website.

All incorporated, not-for-profit organizations with the expertise to successfully complete the projects are eligible to apply. These include: community-based social and human services agencies, victim services providers, victim advocacy organizations, police services, schools, First Nations, Aboriginal not-for-profit organizations and Métis Nation of Ontario Charter Communities.

Applications will be evaluated by a review committee, to include community members from different parts of the province, a staff member from the Ontario Victim Services Secretariat and a representative from the Office for Victims of Crime, an agency that advises the Attorney General on ways to ensure that the principles set out in the Victims' Bill of Rights are followed.

"This is a unique opportunity for our government to make a real difference in the lives of victims of hate crimes," said Monte Kwinter, Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. "We look forward to working with community organizations to better protect Ontarians and to build safe and tolerant communities."

"Many communities are enthusiastic about developing these projects to counter and prevent hate crime in Ontario," said Dr. Karen Mock, chair of the Hate Crimes Community Working Group. "I am pleased about the potential of these projects to help victims of hate crimes and that results will be widely shared when the projects are complete, to further build the capacity for community response."

"Our government will continue to uphold the rights of all people in Ontario to live with dignity and respect and in safety," said Bryant. "In helping communities targeted by those who hate, we are helping to build a better future for our children."

[Racist Ryerson Rag]

Racist article in Summer edition of Ryerson Review of Journalism magazine
August 2007 . . . http://www.turtleisland.org/news/racist.jpg
- - -

June 2008 response from Joe Rayment sent to Turtle Island Native Network . . .

I haven't been sure how to respond to this. I'll start by apologizing to anyone my article offended. Offending the aboriginal community, or any part of it, was the opposite of my intention. I was trying to do good.

It was targeted at Canadian journalists who produce what amounts to caricatures of aboriginal people through limited reporting that tends to resort to stereotypes. I did it satirically because I didn't think anyone would respond to a front-of-book piece that simply said "stop racist journalism," if only because I don't think many of them would consider their work racist. If you press them, most would probably be able to justify it by saying they're reporting hard facts—how it ends up racist is complicated and I think in most cases unintentional.

This article's genesis is in some interviews I did at Toronto's Council Fire Centre. Some of the organizers and volunteers I spoke to complained of the media's coverage of the community—the things the newspapers focused on and spun and the many things they just ignored.

Said straight, coverage of aboriginals is quite limited in the mainstream press. When aboriginals or aboriginal-related stories do make front pages it's often a land dispute or protest, which editorialists weigh in on without sensitivity to the history or people it affects.

In a study of coverage (I believe around Ipperwash), John Miller found that papers relied quite heavily on these editorials, minimizing actual news coverage. Miller quipped that one columnists in the study wrote a condemning editorial while he was vacationing inn a different country. The implication of which is the columnist was nowhere near the actual events—he just resorted to an opinion he'd held previously.

While researching for this article I had fairly lengthy interviews with John Miller (author of "Ipperwash and the Media: Case Study of How an Aboriginal Confrontation was Covered" and creator of Canada's first course in media diversity. Also, a professor of mine), Peter Edwards (author of One Dead Indian: The Premier, the Police, and the Ipperwash Crisis, which was later adapted for television), Carol Tator (co-author of Racial Profiling in Canada: Challenging the Myth of "A Few Bad Apples"), and Augie Fleras (co-author of Unequal Relations: An Introduction to Race, Ethnic, and Aboriginal Dynamics in Canada as well as The "Nations Within": Aboriginal-State Relations in Canada, the United States, and New Zealand).

A break down of the article's intention:

The title is a reference to the Canadian Press style guide, which is standard text for any Canadian journalist (the RRJ's readership). It offers muddled advice on what language to use. Under sensitive subjects it says, "...3. Use Indian with discretion. Some people object to it because it originated with the European explorers' misconception that they had landed in India. Others, especially status Indians, prefer it to be used. 4. Use native advisedly. Aboriginal and First Nations are more specific and are preferred by many in the community. 5. Where reasonable, prefer the actual name of the community..." (page 19). Rule five seems reasonable, but they've thrown in exceptions/generalities first, confusing the eventual point. In rule six CP warns, "The word tribe in its original sense was reserved for primitive peoples. Some natives"—using the word they've just advised against—"use it casually and it need not be entirely avoided. But community, people, nation, band, language group are alternatives." I looked over this during my interview with John Miller—he said it looked like they didn't know what their own policy was.

"1. Try not to write about aboriginals. Your readers are white: They don't care": A lot of the caricatured image that the media produces is due to under-coverage of aboriginal communities, which encourages singular images of many communities represented as one. I meant for this to be taken satirically; stated outright, it's indefensible. I can't think of an editor who would justify the lack of coverage in these simple terms, even if it is (at least partially) the thinking. That's what I was trying to highlight.

"2. When you write about aboriginals, keep it to the editorial pages where you can let rip the outraged tone": with Ipperwash and similar situations, newspapers did exactly this. This rule was based primarily on my interview with John Miller and, similar to step 1, was intended to highlight a fault in coverage.

"3. Only resort to hard news stories if a barricade is involved and then, for the love of God, stay back. These are unreasonable men": when papers do cover aboriginal communities it is (or was historically) negative, often to do with a land rights protest. Reporters then tend to get police comment while minimizing or leaving out comment from the protesters. The portrayal can end up looking like a stereotype taken from films.

"4. If a non-barricade story comes up: You are a wonderful person for highlighting their successes, really going above and beyond. But remember, they're beating the odds. Remind your reader of the barricades, the statistics on alcoholism and other failures": positive coverage often comes with a condescending tone. Beyond that, positive news can be undercut if reporters frame it with negative aspects of they've come to associate with the community (through selective coverage, ingrained stereotypes or otherwise).

"5. If you're not sure what to call the people you're covering refer to the "sensitive subjects" section of the CP Stylebook: Aboriginal Peoples, First Nations, indigenous people or aboriginal. Use native advisedly. Use Indian with discretion": I referred to this above.

"6. Never assign aboriginals to cover aboriginal issues. They're biased": A 2004 survey of 37 major Canadian daily newspapers found 4 aboriginal reporters (of 1076 reporters). In 2004 that number went down to 1 (of 1185 reporters—less than 0.1%). Aboriginals are under-represented in newsrooms. Editors are traditionally hesitant to put reporters on stories that involve their "communities" for fear of bias. (I believe I based this on a specific anecdote involving one of the major land disputes.) (The study I refer to is available here: http://www.diversitywatch.ryerson.ca/ho ... report.htm.)

Finally, "NOTE: Inspired by Granta's "Six Simple Rules for Writing about Africa" as seen in Brick literary journal": There was some debate among editors if they should put in a note saying "This is satirical." They decided on this as a compromise. The thinking was that our readership (which is almost exclusively journalists) would probably know either Granta or Brick, both progressive literary journals. Either that or the absurd title, added to this article's equally absurd title, would tip people off.

Granta's ad included "Always treat Africa as if it were one country. Don't get bogged down with precise descriptions" and "Adopt a sad, I-expected-so-much tone. Establish early on that your liberalism is impeccable and how much you love Africa."

I've gone into such detail less to defend the piece—it will condemn or defend itself—than to establish that I didn't throw it off lightly and that my intention, at least, was anti-racist. I'm sorry if what resulted offended anyone.

If you'd like to ask me anything or give me any suggestions please contact me at joe@joerayment.com

Take care,
joe rayment.
- - -

An AFN note . . .

The racist and not in the least bit humorous article by Ryerson senior editor Joe Rayment, is on page 11 of the current edition of the Ryerson Review of Journalism magazine.

The Assembly of First Nations will be asking for a retraction and formal apology.

The HEADLINE: Idiot's Guide to Covering Indians, Natives, First Nation. (Indians, Natives are crossed out)

THE TEXT:
1. Try not write about aboriginals. Your readers are white: They don't care.

2. When you write about aboriginals, keep it to the editorial pages where you can let rip the outraged tone.

3. Only resort to hard news stories if a barricade is involved and then, for the love of God, stay back. These are unreasonable men.

4. If a non-barricade story comes up: You are a wonderful person for highlighting their successes, really going above and beyond. But remember, they're beating the odds. Remind your reader of the barricades, the statistics on alcoholism and other failures.

5. If you're not sure what to call the people you're covering refer to the "sensitive subjects" section of the CP Stylebook: Aboriginal Peoples, First Nations, indigenous people or aboriginal. Use native advisedly. Use Indian with discretion.

6. Never assign aboriginals to cover aboriginal issues. They're biased.

NOTE: Inspired by Granta's "Six Simple Rules for Writing about Africa" as seen in Brick literary journal.

- Joe Rayment


Bryan Hendry
A/Director of Communications
Assembly of First Nations
Tel: 613-241-6789 ext 229
Cell: 613-293-6106
Fax: 613-241-5808
bhendry@afn.ca