babble-intro-img
babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.

First Nations / Prime Minister January 11, 2013 meeting

sknguy II
Offline
Joined: Apr 20 2009

This is a seperate topic from the Idle No More thread.

The AFN has set a time for a news conference to take place today at 2:00p ET, ahead of tomorrow's meeting First Nation's / Prime Minister's meeting with this Communique.

The United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, James Anaya, had issued a statement on January 8th, 2013 supporting the need for "meaningful dialogue" through this meeting.

Many have publicly expressed their expectations for this meeting and are too many to reference. Suffice it to say they are expressions of everything from hopeful to scepticism.

It also turns out the Governor General will be holding a meeting with First Nations after all, but only after the January 11th meeting as explained in this article. And to complicate things even more, the PM will only be attending portion of the meeting.

Quote:
“It is disappointing that the Prime Minister has not committed to attending the full three hours of this meeting,” said the AFN in the document.

The group said it was attempting to secure a meeting with a smaller delegation, including Harper, for a more focused discussion later in the day.

The PM just couldn't afford the three hours that were planned?


Comments

sknguy II
Offline
Joined: Apr 20 2009

There's a lot of mistrust among the parties to this meeting. And it does look like many Chiefs will be boycotting it by withdrawing their involvement with the planning processes that were held today by the AFN, as indicated in this APTN story. Can’t locate Shawn Atleo’s evening news conference, but this story indicates that he is continuing to work towards unifying the Chiefs. But I think the chances of this are slim, but we'll see. One of the big stumbling blocks for this process arose right out of the gate when the GG referred to a possible meeting as a political one, undermining any notion that the intent was based upon principles.

I didn't appreciate Flanigan's gloating attitude about the First Nations' disunity, or particulalry in his mockery of Chief Spence's fasting when he was on Evan Solomon's Power and Politics show this evening. But, I guess one should have expected nothing less from him. Will this be another monumental opportunity squandered by politics? Guess we'll see tomorrow.

But the fact remains that there's a lot of mistrust for the PM. And that, I think, is the main obstical for the AFN's unity. Really dissappointed in Nelinak's appropriation of the INM movement with this threat:

Quote:
...Derek Nepinak said the Idle No More movement has enough people to "bring the Canadian economy to its knees."

The quote is from this CBC story that explains a bit of the day as well. I knew that unity on the matter of simply opening a dialogue with Harper would be tough to acheive. There is a lot of sentiment that this formula's been tried before, and a fear that we'll end up with all the same proplems under new names.

There was a lot of frustration about what hasn't happened since last years "monumental" meeting. Will we need to do like American Idol and try to reinvent our superlatives year after year in describing these opportunities? With all that went on, really got tired of trying to focus on what was actually happening... and going to happen tomorrow.


6079_Smith_W
Online
Joined: Jun 10 2010

Things are so in flux that CBC has a live twitter feed running on it:

(see link, above)

This from kady o'malley, earlier this eve:

I get the sense PMO was sort of hoping for a half-day closed-door chat followed by a vague but positive joint statement.


NDPP
Online
Joined: Dec 28 2008

January 10, 2013

Terry Nelson Writes to Stephen Harper

http://rightojibwe.blogspot.ca/2013/01/terry-nelson-writes-to-stephen-ha...

"...Blockades will occur on January 16th if you do not succeed tomorrow. Bloodshed will occur, make no mistake. The level of hatred that one third of white Canada has against indigenous people is real and if you cannot manage this situation, you will go down in history as the Prime Minister that turned Canada from the most peaceful country in the world to another Yugoslavia.

The Americans are not going to let this continue without some security for trade. The time to dismantle the Indian Act is now..."

 

Atleo To Take Chiefs' Case to Harper in 11th Hour Attempt to Salvage Friday's Meeting

http://aptn.ca/pages/news/2013/01/11/atleo-to-take-chiefs-case-to-harper...

"No longer will the prime minister dictate to us. If we have to shut down this economy, then we will,' said Onion Lake Cree Nation Chief Wallace Fox, whose community is part of Treaty 6 in Saskatchewan. 'We need to stand united, we heard that all day, no more, Harper no more, idle no more.'

Serpent River First Nation Chief Isadore Day said First Nations had reached a 'moment of truth' and there was no going back. 'Prophecy said there would a time on Turtle Island when our people would rise up,' said Day, in an interview with APTN National News. 'We will fight to raise our nations out of the ashes. We are being relied on to protect our land, our children, and our treaties..."


6079_Smith_W
Online
Joined: Jun 10 2010

I'm not sure why Nelson is speculating about others shedding blood or what the Americans are going to do, or balkanizing the country or Harper's legacy. Racist sentiments, and the possibility of those things exists no matter what today's outcome is. 

What I heard from a speaker downtown last night is a reminder that this affects all people, and that it is important that we remain peaceful and united. I pay more attention to that than claims that a decision has to be made based on fear of how the worst are going to react.

 


sknguy II
Offline
Joined: Apr 20 2009

6079_Smith_W wrote:

This from kady o'malley, earlier this eve:

 I get the sense PMO was sort of hoping for a half-day closed-door chat followed by a vague but positive joint statement.

This probably would've clarifed a few things somewhat. Maybe it was communicated before? Guess we'll know more today. For my part, I think it's only important to get the expectations out in the open... not necessarily a positive joint statement. But something clear.

6079_Smith_W wrote:
...What I heard from a speaker downtown last night is a reminder that this affects all people, and that it is important that we remain peaceful and united. I pay more attention to that than claims that a decision has to be made based on fear of how the worst are going to react.

Well, it probably is best that INM just keep doing its thing. I just wish more people, including our politicians, would use INM more as an opportunity to listen, and not just react to the movement. Hopefully that'll come with time.


Serviam6
Offline
Joined: Nov 7 2012

6079_Smith_W wrote:

I'm not sure why Nelson is speculating about others shedding blood or what the Americans are going to do, or balkanizing the country or Harper's legacy. Racist sentiments, and the possibility of those things exists no matter what today's outcome is. 

What I heard from a speaker downtown last night is a reminder that this affects all people, and that it is important that we remain peaceful and united. I pay more attention to that than claims that a decision has to be made based on fear of how the worst are going to react.

 

I'm trying to read more and post less on this topic but saying there will be bloodshed and referencing mass rape and murder?  Aren't we trying to get away from that?


RevolutionPlease
Offline
Joined: Oct 15 2007

Serviam6 wrote:

I'm trying to read more and post less on this topic but saying there will be bloodshed and referencing mass rape and murder?  Aren't we trying to get away from that?

 

Well, Canada did close the residential schools recently and the RCMP recently admitted some faults. So perhaps Canada is trying Serviam6. There's still much work for Canada to do though to get away from it.


kropotkin1951
Online
Joined: Jun 6 2002

You may not understand but this Chief knows his community understands.


Unionist
Online
Joined: Dec 11 2005

RevolutionPlease wrote:

Serviam6 wrote:

I'm trying to read more and post less on this topic but saying there will be bloodshed and referencing mass rape and murder?  Aren't we trying to get away from that?

 

Well, Canada did close the residential schools recently and the RCMP recently admitted some faults. So perhaps Canada is trying Serviam6. There's still much work for Canada to do though to get away from it.

Lovely, RP! Thank you.

 


kropotkin1951
Online
Joined: Jun 6 2002

The level of hatred that one third of white Canada has against indigenous people is real.  This is merely a statement of fact. The rock throwing mob pelting FN's vehicles during the Oka crisis should not be forgotten.  Time for white people to make sure their neighbours don't become violent and that starts with calling out racists as they opine on what to do with those F'ing Indians.

I have nothing to offer the FN's people except my support no matter what direction this takes. This Harper government is not beyond arresting peaceful protestors and this could get ugly.  The RCAP came about because the grassroots across the country rose up in response to absurdities like a golf course expansion taking precedence over FN's claim to a burial ground. That generation of young activists from Oka and Gustafsen Lake are still alive and they are being joined by the 20 some year old people who were born in the early '90's. The FN's community spent a lot of time and energy to reach out to Canadians and the recommendations are the fruit of that labour.

Canada had a chance to do it right but instead of introducing the most important RCAP recommendations subsequent governments have ignored it.  Harper on the other hand is actually not just refusing to acknowledge rights he is actively trying to unilaterally extinguish them.  He must be stopped and that means the we are going to see a lot of economic disruption and that will fuel our societies inherent racism that says what's the fuss we stole that land ages ago so just get over it.


6079_Smith_W
Online
Joined: Jun 10 2010

@ RevolutionPlease

 

Sure. I don't think anyone should ignore violence in Canadian society, and I don't have any problem with Nelson saying that it might happen again.

I just don't see the connection between his speculation and the outcome of this meeting. Fact is, it's not going to end racism or violence, and there are enough cases in which progressive social change has resulted in a greater backlash.

If we thought violence might result from a favourable outcome is that a reason for not going through with this meeting?

I just don't feel that the threat of violence is good justification for doing or not doing anything, especially a matter like this which depends on greater understanding, and personally, I am taking my lead from other counsel.

 

 


onlinediscountanvils
Offline
Joined: Jun 7 2012
sknguy II
Offline
Joined: Apr 20 2009

Was following the CBC news tweets from those tagging along with the INM march. Coon Come was the only one actually seen entering the Langevin building for the meeting. Can only assume that others, including Atleo, had arrived previously, 12:30ish ET? Some of the tweets noted that there were Manitoba Chiefs in among the INM marchers.


RevolutionPlease
Offline
Joined: Oct 15 2007

@6079

 

Where did I indicate I supported anything Nelson said? I was responding to a bit of hyperbole by our friend Serviam6 who is trying to understand why our First Nation allies are as frustrated as they are.


Unionist
Online
Joined: Dec 11 2005

Terry Nelson is entitled, I suppose, to speak on behalf of the First Nation that he represents. He does seem to provide a handy foil for anyone who wants to diminish Indigenous struggles, however.

And I hailed RP's comment precisely because he focused the discussion back where it belongs - on the ongoing and unresolved violence of the colonial state against Indigenous peoples, and not on the imaginary dangers of chaos and bedlam about to be inflicted upon "us" by the victims.

 


6079_Smith_W
Online
Joined: Jun 10 2010

@ RP

I responded to you in part because I was the first one to raise a the question about Nelson's letter, and as near as I can see neither my point nor Serviam's questioned or denied the existence of violence and racism. We all know it is there. And I didn't say you supported the letter. For that matter, I didn't say I condemn it. I sympathise with some of his concerns and his fears. But I think my question is a valid one.

And Unionist, likewise. Who has made any of the assertions you are talking about?

I am just hoping that something productive comes out of this day. Reading that CBC article about Chief Spence's news conference - in which the hecklers got more priority, and her words were refered to as a "rant" made me sick at heart. Never mind the trolls who seem to be working overtime on their comment section.

 


sknguy II
Offline
Joined: Apr 20 2009

Unionist wrote:
Terry Nelson is entitled, I suppose, to speak on behalf of the First Nation that he represents. He does seem to provide a handy foil for anyone who wants to diminish Indigenous struggles, however.

And I hailed RP's comment precisely because he focused the discussion back where it belongs - on the ongoing and unresolved violence of the colonial state against Indigenous peoples, and not on the imaginary dangers of chaos and bedlam about to be inflicted upon "us" by the victims.

I too despise the political gamesmanship. I think that if one listens to these same people in a few days one might hear some backtracking going on through their statements. But more to the point I want to mention about Terry Nelson’s statements. We are in a treaty relationship. My ancestors respected and did their part to honor those commitments, even when it meant they were suffering because of it.

Not only did Canada have responsibilities to live up to, but so do we Indigenous people... just as out ancestors did. I’m from the treaty 4 area in Saskatchewan. In the treaty it mentions that we must honor and respect the laws of Canada. And, the expectation was that Canada would honor ours as well in reciprocity. Of course this hasn’t happened. But that doesn’t relieve us of the commitments that our ancestors made. We have to respect Canada’s laws. But on the other hand, I pray that one day Canada will realise that it must also respect ours.

What a confusing day this was. And it's not done yet.

Just to add... although we know that Canada has never fully respected the treaty commitments, sometimes we Indigenous people also forget that we have our own treaty responsibilities to maintain as well. And that our ancestors maintained those sacred commitments in light of their own suffering.


6079_Smith_W
Online
Joined: Jun 10 2010

sknguy II wrote:

I’m from the treaty 4 area in Saskatchewan.

I didn't know you were a neighbour. I hope you are riding out the other storm safely . We haven't seen any snow up here at all.

And regarding committments. One of the drummers at the round dance last night had "Loyal til Death" on his hat, and it reminded of the sacrifices many FN people made during the rebellion, standing with Canada, against their own interests (and how they got rewarded for it).

I hear you about committments on both sides, but at least I think your people generally  have more of an understanding of the seriousness of this process, why the GG should be there, and why it's not as Murray Mandryk said this morning "all about jobs". The way many non-FN people are writing, talking about erasing our committment and making racist slurs, is absolutely shameful.

 


sknguy II
Offline
Joined: Apr 20 2009

@ Smith_W, Yeah, it was blizzarding here in the south. And has only letting up a bit an hour & a half or so ago.

The violence of racism I could never understand. Hate for the sake of hate is hurtful and incomprehensible. Chantel Hebert last night on the National's At Issue panel said that there's some realities that Canada will need to deal with. Likening the First Nations issues to the Quebec seperatists debates of the past concerning the nature of a pluralist society in Canada.

Indigenous people didn't choose a feduciary reelationship with Canada. They thought they were negotiating to establish a diifferent treaty/nations based relationship. Howver, Canada had foregone this treaty relationship in favour of "fiduciary" one which began the moment it undertook to control Indigenous peoples and deal with the "Indians" as a problem. The articles of the treaties wasn't sufficient as a tool for Canada to do that. So it undertook to regulate and legislate the lives of Indigenous peoples.

That fiduciary commitment has left us with the situation we're in now. With Canada still in control of Indigenous peoples lives, and Indigenous peoples trapped and dependent on this legislative relationship. Our leadership is accountable to Canada alone, and not their own peoples, Self determinstion means that we would be responsible for ourselves. We would be in control of our own lives. Our leaders would then be accountable to their own people. We need to be released from this rediculous, oppressive relationship.

The intent to free us from the "funding problems" and become self determined is one of the reasons Indogenous people want to talk about resource revenue sharing. We don't need taxpayer dollars this and tax payer dollars that. It an all too easy way of maintaining the oppression. But, because of our interests in the resources, Canada still needs some manner of control over us so that it can continue to develop and extract as it sees fit through legislation.

I'm tired of hearing in the news how the federal government needs to do this or that "for" us. And I'm also tired of hearing the news stories talking about how the federal government will need to do this or that "for" us. We need to be self determined and doing these things for ourselves because Canada has been trying to solve the problem of "us" for the past hundred and fifity years, and more. I don't think that we can ever share the same identity as the rest of Canada. Our needs are simply too divergent. And as time goes on this cultural uniqueness will require expression, in new laws and social institutions. We can't forget that Indigenous people see their relationship with land and water differently. And is one of the core motivating issues of the women who started INM.


RevolutionPlease
Offline
Joined: Oct 15 2007

sknguy II wrote:

Unionist wrote:
Terry Nelson is entitled, I suppose, to speak on behalf of the First Nation that he represents. He does seem to provide a handy foil for anyone who wants to diminish Indigenous struggles, however.

And I hailed RP's comment precisely because he focused the discussion back where it belongs - on the ongoing and unresolved violence of the colonial state against Indigenous peoples, and not on the imaginary dangers of chaos and bedlam about to be inflicted upon "us" by the victims.

I too despise the political gamesmanship. I think that if one listens to these same people in a few days one might hear some backtracking going on through their statements. But more to the point I want to mention about Terry Nelson’s statements. We are in a treaty relationship. My ancestors respected and did their part to honor those commitments, even when it meant they were suffering because of it.

Not only did Canada have responsibilities to live up to, but so do we Indigenous people... just as out ancestors did. I’m from the treaty 4 area in Saskatchewan. In the treaty it mentions that we must honor and respect the laws of Canada. And, the expectation was that Canada would honor ours as well in reciprocity. Of course this hasn’t happened. But that doesn’t relieve us of the commitments that our ancestors made. We have to respect Canada’s laws. But on the other hand, I pray that one day Canada will realise that it must also respect ours.

What a confusing day this was. And it's not done yet.

Just to add... although we know that Canada has never fully respected the treaty commitments, sometimes we Indigenous people also forget that we have our own treaty responsibilities to maintain as well. And that our ancestors maintained those sacred commitments in light of their own suffering.

 

Please speak more, I interjected with a bit of gamesmanship, but the semantics are frustrating. I will listen to my Allies for guidance.

 

And thanks Unionist for helping me express what I meant to say.


sknguy II
Offline
Joined: Apr 20 2009

There’s a lot of stories about the conflicts surrounding the numbered treaties. It was all a time of a great conflict. The buffalo were gone, the United States was warring with Indigenous peoples there. The ink wasn’t even dry on the treaties they signed and Canada was proceeding to dictate to communities where they could locate their reserves. Even though the process was suppose to be freely exercised through site selection. There was a lot of active management of what community could live where and even involved the eventual moving of whole communities to new locations.

There were small rebellions and armed conflicts brought on by both a lack of food and dissatisfaction over the breaking of treaty promises. Even my own community had its activists who took the local Indian Agent hostage and later broke into local general stores. All because the treaties just weren’t working out. In northern Saskatchewan Big Bear, who tried to reopen treaty negotiations, had the most notable conflicts with Canada during the North West rebellion. But there were many who had their struggles. For the most part, and aside from the events I mentioned, most in our area had honored the treaty commitments. Even though there was so much to be angry about.

Canada wasn’t honoring the treaties, and was proceeding to overstep the treaties by implementing direct control over Indigenous communities and people. You can research some of the old NWMP reports that closed with “calmer heads prevailed”. But there was a lot of frustration and uncertainty over the loss of a way of life and a lack of treaty commitment on the part of Canada. Canada really played the snake oil salesman to a tee on these agreements.

If you read through some of the treaty transcripts or stories surrounding the treaty negotiations one thing that stood out for me was the concerns of the translators who were involved. There were concerns about the inability of Indigenous people to fully understand what was being discussed. And the concern that the translations themselves weren’t going well. There really was some conceptual divides going on at that time.

We talk these days about the legal requirements for full disclosure when negotiating contracts. Well at the time of the treaties I think there was the added challenge of even simple meeting-of-the-minds regarding concepts and details of what was being negotiated. Could the unfairness of the Treaties (or contracts) render them null and void? I don’t know, but I’d hazard a guess that they probably could. But would one really want to go there?

Anyway.... regardless of the honesty, or dishonesty of them, Indigenous people tried to uphold what they felt were the agreed to terms. Unfortunately, Canada later sidestepped those and proceeded to add a whole raft of other “fiduciary” undertakings in order to exert further controls, through the Indian Act and other legislation.

A return to a treaty relationship is one of the goals being pressed by First Nations. That means eliminating legislative controls and conceding that even new legislation would not hold juridiction on First Nations unless "agreed" to, implying an agreement. Only the treaty relationships apply. Anything else would be an agreement associated with the treaties.


ilha formosa
Offline
Joined: Feb 1 2010

sknguy II wrote:

What a confusing day this was. And it's not done yet.

Just tell that one-third of "white Canada" to think of the recent NHL negotiations as a warm-up exercise for the much larger and far more consequential task of honourably re-setting the treaty relationships within Kanata. I'm not trying to be flippant, just attempting to get through to that 'one-third'. And trying to get through to them is better than talking about division and bloodshed, which we know would only spiral the wrong way for all sides, including innocent bystanders and moderates in the middle. That said, the history of things like residential schools and smallpox infected blankets helps one understand the palpable rage behind Terry Nelson's statements. Truth, reconciliation - and reparations - must be part of the process.

I believe the RCAP has already begun some of the work.

Quote:

Some of the major recommendations included the following:[1]

  • Legislation, including a new Royal Proclamation stating Canada’s commitment to a new relationship and companion legislation setting out a treaty process and recognition of Aboriginal nations and governments.[1]
  • Recognition of an Aboriginal order of government, subject to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, with authority over matters related to the good government and welfare of Aboriginal peoples and their territories.[1]
  • Replacement of the federal Department of Indian Affairs with two departments, one to implement the new relationship with Aboriginal nations and one to provide services for non-self-governing communities.[1]
  • Creation of an Aboriginal parliament.[1]
  • Expansion of the Aboriginal land and resource base.[1]
  • Recognition of Métis self-government, provision of a land base, and recognition of Métis rights to hunt and fish on Crown land.[1]
  • Initiatives to address social, education, health (Indian Health Transfer Policy) and housing needs, including the training of 10,000 health professionals over a ten-year period, the establishment of an Aboriginal peoples’ university, and recognition of Aboriginal nations’ authority over child welfare.[1]

 


6079_Smith_W
Online
Joined: Jun 10 2010

@ sknguyII

Not to mention that FN people could not even vote, were penned in on reserves, and subjected to the horrors of the residential system, which non-FN people still have no real understanding of.

And that when a Native representative - Louis Riel - was actually elected, he wasn't even allowed to take his seat in the House of Commons. He had to sneak into the parliament in disguise to sign the register to legalize his election.

I'm sure people today are mystified at that incident at Battleford when people showed up starving and sick and the whites were so full of themselves and full of hatred and fear that they called it a seige, and didn't even consider that we were the ones causing the starvation.

But when I read and see some of the ignorant reactions to what is happening now, I don't think anything has changed; it's worse, actually. What astonishes me most is that most people in this province don't see it. Given how FN and Native population is growing, the good news it that it is only a matter of time before that change is inevitable.

And from what I have heard from yesterday - the fact that they have not budged on the new legislation - I think this is far from settled.

(edit)

Thomas King, in today's globe:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/thomas-king-the-conservativ...

Quote:

Practical sovereignty is the sovereignty that any nation, no matter what size, has. Look at Canada: We think of ourselves as sovereign, and yet when it comes to border security, we have to work with the U.S. if we’re going to be friends with them. Is that an invasion of sovereignty? In pure terms, yes. But in practical terms, it’s not. Every nation develops their own sense of “practical sovereignty.” The Mohawk, for example, produce their own passports. Not many places accept them, but that’s not the point. The point is control of our own lives. I think that’s what native bands and tribes will be looking at as these discussions go on. For instance, completely controlling our own membership. Controlling our land base and controlling any profits that come from that land base or any use of that land base. Right now, the federal government can force leases on tribes. That can’t keep happening if we expect to succeed as nations.

 

 

 


Boom Boom
Offline
Joined: Dec 29 2004

I think Harper will continue to stonewall, maybe throw a few crumbs here and there to Atleo - but as we saw yesterday when John Duncan said C-38 and C-45 will stand unchanged, the government has NOT had a change of heart.


Tommy_Paine
Offline
Joined: Apr 22 2001

From a strategic point of view, it seems to me that the Native Leadership that has always attempted to work within the system and have gotten little to show for it in the eyes of many Natives has once again gone to a meeting and will walk out-- as it seems right now-- empty handed.  

It seems to me a vindication of those Natives who don't see the system as being a way to change things.  


6079_Smith_W
Online
Joined: Jun 10 2010

Tommy_Paine wrote:


It seems to me a vindication of those Natives who don't see the system as being a way to change things.  

Really?

I can't imagine that anyone who understands the cost of confrontation and violence would take any pleasure in that (or take it as a sign that negotiation cannot work).

I can see that there are some people itching for it, though.

But I think we have talked that difference of opinion to death elsewhere.

 

 


quizzical
Offline
Joined: Dec 8 2011

vindication? puttung white man's thoughts and action types upon us really isn't a gd thing


Matuwehs
Offline
Joined: Jan 12 2013

A restrained militancy focused on treaty education, communiques that explicitly state goals and time-frames for achieving them,That inform the general public of Directed protests that bring attention to treaty violations.This is what escalation means for IdleNoMore. The seriousness of this situation cannot be overstated,The govt is only paying lip-service to our demands, with the intent to provoke violence. In order for us to maintain the moral high ground, we can not be manipulated into random acts of violence against the state. Social Media is our ally, we need to film and record our people and our heartfelt desire for justice. We must gather all our resource people and utilize their gifts to articulate our shared path forward. #indigenousrightsrevolution #Wolastoqiyik #IdleNoMore


Tommy_Paine
Offline
Joined: Apr 22 2001


Smith, you are taking vast liberties with what I observe, and ascribing to me ideas that are wholly without foundation.

 

But then, it is Babble.


quizzical
Offline
Joined: Dec 8 2011

Matuwehs wrote:
A restrained militancy focused on treaty education, communiques that explicitly state goals and time-frames for achieving them,That inform the general public of Directed protests that bring attention to treaty violations.This is what escalation means for IdleNoMore. The seriousness of this situation cannot be overstated,The govt is only paying lip-service to our demands, with the intent to provoke violence. In order for us to maintain the moral high ground, we can not be manipulated into random acts of violence against the state. Social Media is our ally, we need to film and record our people and our heartfelt desire for justice. We must gather all our resource people and utilize their gifts to articulate our shared path forward. #indigenousrightsrevolution #Wolastoqiyik #IdleNoMore

gr8 description!!!!! i think some are waking to the fact  it's  serious. and some people are even getting it no matter how much the msm is trying to turn events against us.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or register to post comments