Politically Corrected
When bureaucrats start telling MPs what they can and can't say, what does it mean for democracy?
Terry O'Neill - May 17, 2004
If the tribunal finds the complaints against the MP are substantiated, it could fine him up to $20,000 for the suffering his discrimination has allegedly caused. More significantly, it could order Pankiw to stop sending the same sort of literature to his constituents ever again.
Pankiw's position on native affairs demonstrates his simple, unrefined approach to politics. He believes the country's aboriginal population should enjoy no special rights or privileges, period. No treaty rights. No inherent aboriginal rights. Nothing. He says he is arguing, in essence, against racial discrimination, even if it's the kind of 'progressive' discrimination one finds in things like affirmative action policies, intended to give Indians the support many say they need to take their rightful place in Canadian society and overcome the historic handicaps that burden them.
Pankiw's arguments are delivered with all the grace and refinement of a sledgehammer. But his general position is actually shared by many, more articulate, Canadians. Tanis Fiss, head of the Centre for Aboriginal Policy Change--an arm of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF)--released a report in April advocating the abolition of the Indian Act and the end of the reserve system on the grounds that, "treating one group of Canadians differently is wrong both morally and intellectually." In February a National Post editorial called the Liberal policy of encouraging natives to remain unassimilated on reserves "misguided and unsustainable." The editorialists called for "a leader with the courage to champion a bold policy to assimilate reserve-resident natives into urban Canadian society." It is, in fact, the same position that formed the foundation of the White Paper on Indian Policy, introduced by former prime minister Pierre Trudeau's government in 1969, authored by Jean Chr?tien, who would also later become prime minister. Opposition from native leaders killed the policy.
But while the CTF, the National Post and even Jean Chretien may swim in the same ideological waters as Pankiw, they employ decidedly different strokes. Ever the blustering politician, Pankiw's inflammatory pamphlets were designed to get a reaction. They did.
The two leaflets at issue were mailed to his constituents in November 2002 and May 2003. The first--the "Stop Indian Crime" brochure, not surprisingly lists statistics about native crime and attacks the sentencing provision in the Criminal Code of Canada that instructs judges to consider means other than imprisonment for native offenders, which Pankiw calls a prejudiced and unfair policy. The second pamphlet, with the words "It's clear who the racists are" on the front page labels as "racist" government policies that discriminate in favour of natives and highlights incidents of racism from the native community, including a quote from Saskatchewan Indian leader David Ahenakew about "goddamned immigrants," underneath an old photo of Ahenkew and Trudeau sharing a laugh. (In 2002 Ahenakew was recorded making anti-Semitic remarks to a reporter, and was subsequently charged under a hate speech provision of the Criminal Code. He pleaded not guilty and is scheduled to stand trial in July.)
In addition to the criminal complaint made to the RCMP about the 'Indian crime' brochure, the 'racists' pamphlet also sparked a fruitless criminal hate speech complaint, as well as a probe by the House of Commons' Board of Internal Economy, which examined the possibility Pankiw was misusing his parliamentary funds in its preparation and distribution. The Board decided in June 2003 not to take action.
But shortly after the Saskatchewan government decided not to press criminal charges against the MP, eight people, including John Melenchuk, a M?tis man from Saskatoon, filed complaints about the publication under the Canadian Human Rights Act's rarely-used section 12. The section states, "It is a discriminatory practice to publish...any notice...that expresses or implies discrimination or an intention to discriminate, or incites or is calculated to incite others to discriminate" against members of a long list of protected groups.
Then, in July 2003, Saskatchewan native Richard Ross filed a complaint under the same section, alleging Pankiw's 'racist' pamphlet was discriminatory too. "I believe that Jim Pankiw is targeting me because of my nationality and that is a clear basis for charges to be leveled," Ross said in a written statement. He "should be forced to apologize and resign from office, because he doesn't represent the majority of Canadians. Jim Pankiw should be forced to take a class in university about Indian Studies."
Page 2 of 5
You have an error in your SQL syntax; check the manual that corresponds to your MySQL server version for the right syntax to use near 'Neill' AND ARTICLE_ID!='96' ORDER BY ARTICLE_ID DESC LIMIT 10' a