proposed Inuit housing faces racist opposition from community

(Gawd it sounds like the USA)

Rethinkining this,  comment, and have decided it is well beyond that of Americans not want African American neighbours.

These people in QC are living on stolen land, and they think they are all that and a bag of chips.

C'mon--kids with serious medical conditions and old ladies getting hip replacements aren't exactly threats to public safety. I don't like to use the 'r'-word too freely, but this really is a case of racism.

There are cases of legitimate public opposition/NIMBYism to social housing. There was a problem in the Calgary community of Triwood, where a series of duplexes were converted to youth halfway houses: crime, vandalism and other problems. Nobody was informed of the decision to allow these halfway houses. About fifteen years ago, my neighbor was raped in her downstairs suite, by a convicted sex-offender from a nearby halfway house. There was a methadone clinic not far from my house, which recently closed, that injected all sorts of creepy people (junkies urinating in my garden, passing out in the neighbor's lawn for their kids to discover). The Calgary community of Stanley Park has been battling a planned halfway house for convicted sex offenders, which is right next door to a park used by children; the local Alderman (Joe Ceci, who was once sued for sexual misconduct, when he worked at a youth detention centre in Ontario) is pushing to expedite the rezoning before the impending municipal election. People have a right to be kept in the loop about these things, and reject them from their neighborhoods.

On the other hand, there is a group home for Mentally Retarded Adults (what one of the caregivers calls them), a few houses from mine. Really, some of the most pleasant, trouble-free and friendly people in the 'hood.

I call bullshit - specifically in regards to the relocation of the Bedford House facility (the halfway house being referred to that is being opposed by residents of Stanley Park). The proposed new location is located in an industrial park, approximately a kilometer away from Stanley Park, on the far side of both a major traffic artery (McLeod Trail) and the CPR tracks that run through the same industrial district. The relocation has already received first approval (unanimous) by the planning commission, and the final decision will be made at a meeting in June (some months before the municipal election). Bedford House has a remarkable successful record in its current location in Victoria Park and there is no reason to suppose that problems will be any more likely to occur in its new location. If you are playing so fast and furious with the facts about the halfway house (almost a kilometer away is hardly "right next door to a park used by children") and the time frame for the approval process (this has nothing to do with the municipal election) I believe I am quite justified in calling into question the rest of your anecdotal assertions.

bagkitty, do you actually live near a halfway house for sexual offenders? People have a right to approve/disapporove of these things in their communities. The woman next door to me who was raped by a halfway house inmate (the halfway house was on the other side of Centre Street) was so traumatized by the incident that she literally couldn't reenter her suite. The approval for this Stanley Park perv hostel was rushed and rubber-stamped, without any public consultation. And, as I pointed out, they wan't this to go through BEFORE the municipal election, when Ceci will be out of office. Something is very fishy about this.

If the Villeray residents want, I'll trade all of our pervert halfway houses for their Inuit spina bifida and angeoplasty recovery residents.

FWIW, I live within a kilometer of both the existing location and the proposed new site. I also live within two blocks of an equivalent facility run by a FN group to help individuals dealing with alcohol and/or drug issues (although that is a voluntary program and not for people on conditional release). I have never had a problem with either and, to the best of my knowledge, neither have the other members of my housing co-op (and given our love of moaning and complaining to each other, I think I would have heard if anyone had experienced problems with them).

You should also stop your fear mongering, Bedford House is not a facility devoted to "sexual offenders", it is a general purpose facility attempting to reintegrate those on conditional release (parole) back into the community at large while providing access to treatment for outstanding issues (most frequently problems with alcohol and or drug dependency). It may come as a shock to you, but not everyone who is on parole is a former sex offender. But don't let reality interfere with your indulging your fears and smears.

I doubt it will convince you, but I would like to quote Gordon Sand from the John Howard Society (who manage the facility):

Frankly, the people I have problems with are the outstanding citizens of Calgary who come into my area when they are attending events at the Saddledome... talk about people with drugs and alcohol issues who need treatment...

Thanks Unionist, you will notice I just poked back, rather than "alerting the mods". I hope you will bear it in mind next time there is another bout of Alberta bashing. Oh wait, I forgot, we are not a distinct people, we are just evil bastards out to rape the environment and prevent the rest of the country from creating a social-democratic utopia. Oh, and we kill cows and eat them.

So much guilt...

Having lived in NB for seven years, the people at the Oromocto First Nation might beg to differ.  Is there really anywhere better than another?

Oromocto is near the army base. What do you expect?

I'm so very tired right now so this will be my last post for awhile. But unionist I'll leave you with this. I've read lots of your posts regarding the jewish settlers in Palestine and how they need to leave the occupied territories (which I agree with). Why don't you make the same demands of the settlers occupying Turtle Island? I really would be very interested in hearing your response. I'm calm and everything.

Bye. Off to get mellow.......

"...not everyone who is on parole is a former sex offender."

True, and I'm friends with the guy across the street, who was on parole for boosting rebar and lumber from a construction site. However, even hardcore convicts, bikers and sundry badasses agree with groups like CCASA (Calgary Communities Against Sexual Abuse) that sexual offenders, especially pedophiles, are incorrigible scum. If it was merely a halfway house for, say, B&E artists, that would be bad enough...but CHILD MOLESTERS?! People in the community have a right to say "NO!" and not have an outgoing Alderman and rubber-stamp/closed-door zoning board try to sneak this in before the upcoming election.

I seriously doubt racism is somehow endemic to Quebec. There was a warm welcome in Southern Quebec for those people from Manawan and other rezes, who fled those forest fires. One racist polititian isn't representative of a whole province.

Sad to say that this happened in the part of town I live in. Bizarre, I met Mayor Samson at a gallery opening FEATURING TWO INDIGENOUS WOMEN ARTISTS last year and she was going on and on about Aboriginal cultures and heritage and about how lovely and multicultural our arrondissement is. (Actually, I no longer live in Villeray; I have moved to just south of the Jean-Talon Market from just north of it).

The petition was also on a racist website which has been taken down since.

The first article exposing this ghastly demagogy was in La Presse, by Rima Elkouri. I'm having trouble posting the link here (I'm not at home - I can't post on babble from my home computer). I hope someone can find the column: the title is "Le péril inuit" by Rima Elkouri at cyberpresse.ca

I have been in touch with my tenants' association and Solidarités Villeray to see how people can react to this shameful racism which is a smear on our reputation as a place where people of many origins usually live in harmony.

Remind, I'm glad you clarified what you meant. If you look back at your post, your expression is very ambiguous. There is no nation in the Americas that is exempt from racism, in many cases murderous racism, against the Indigenous population. But Québec is certainly not any worse than English-speaking Canada, the US or any country farther south. Racism must be fought everywhere.

E. Tamaran, while I certainly understand that stories like this can ignite a lot of anger, it's important to remember that we're in the process of building allies here, not enemies. So perhaps express the anger evoked from such stories in a less personal, targeted way; this doesn't mean that you shouldn't remind settlers--of which I am one--of our complicity in the dynamic that permitted the kind of racism described in the OP--indeed you should--but also remember that many here, particularly lagatta who is a long-time, dedicated activist, are actively fighting that complicity. It's okay, of course, to pose challenging, even confrontational questions to those who benefit from the status quo in Canada, but it's not cool to continually and relentlessly antagonize posters with no clear purpose on the horizon. Aggressive questions like the one you launched at lagatta are unacceptable.

Perhaps we're not talking about the same thing.

You've heard of FN people who demand that settlers leave Turtle Island?

I haven't.

You're heard of Palestinians who demand that all Israelis leave Israel (I'm not talking about the occupied territories - but all of what is now Israel)?

I haven't. Some call for one state, some for two, none for expulsion of the people they don't like - except, of course, from the West Bank and East Jerusalem and Golan, and of course an end to the aggression and sieges and incursions. The "expel the Jews" or "drive them into the Sea" is the non-existent phoney meme used to drum up Jewish support for the Zionist criminals.

There are instances of unlawful occupation of FN land by settlers, and all progressive people support the struggle of indigenous people in those instances. But Turtle Island? No. Israel? No.

I read the story and today there's interesting commentary from a guy called EvilGentleman that got me to thinking.

Obviously the Inuit people are not coming to Montreal bearing some drug or substance from the north that they are selling to locals.  To say opposition to this isn't blaming the victim would be wrong.   The racism of the people opposed to the project is blinding them to what is the reality of the situation.

I will agree, however, that such a project is likely to increase drug dealing and associated crime.  Either because the dealers view Inuit people as likely customers (due to racist stereotypes)  or likely suppliers, looking to trade pain medications for cash.   Or both.

Racism is deffinately a major aspect in this issue, but I'm not sure it is the root cause.   Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the people in the neighborhood would oppose this project even if we lived in a society that did not have the substance abuse problems that we do.   Surely, some deffinately would.   But my guess is most wouldn't. 

  And on that issue I am of two minds these days.  I think the "war on drugs"  is a joke, and the way we've done law enforcement has done nothing but make things worse.    By accident or design.

But on the other hand, scumturds who target people because they are a possible customer or supplier of oxycontin or hang out at methodone clinics looking for customers or at detox waiting for customers.... as much as I know jail terms and law enforcement doesn't help, I do want to see these people removed from society for a very long time.   

This too, however, is an incomplete picture.   There are lots of supposedly legitimate professionals and businesses making bofo profits while our neighbourhoods decay, and they laugh at us fighting amoungst ourselves trying to blame each other for our racism or, when it effects the sex trade, the inherent sexism of men using addicted prostitutes.

Meanwhile, these perpetrators live in fine neighborhoods were dealers don't dare tread, where city councillors don't dare locate halfway houses, methodone clinics or detox fascilities.

I am not saying that people identifying this issue as an example of racism are wrong.  Clearly, it is an example of racism.

But it's more than that at the same time.

And all of Turtle Island was taken from FN by the settlers.

But that wasn't, isn't, the point.

Read it again.

And in case people or going to get literal about part of that: those demands are made. But not articulated as positions in the space of civil society.

When the old Palestine protectorate was abolished, hundreds of thousands of palestinians were deported. They still can't return to what is now called Israel.  If Unionist can claim that all settlers must leave the occupied territories then logically it follows that all non-palestinians must leave "Israel" proper. Because the very establishment of Israel was based on a monstrocious evil. Forcing people off their land for the betterment of a select few is wrong no matter where it happens.

And if expulsions are fine over there then it should be fine on Turtle Island, but there's a problem. The people advocating Israeli expulsions live in Turtle Island and umm, they don't really want to leave. Hypocrisy.

So that's it then. Provided enough settlers (any settlers, anywhere) stay for long enough time then "they're there to stay" and that's that. I guess all the jewish settlers in the occupied territories need to do is stick around for 100 years then they're set and then there'll be no more "progressive" demands that they leave. Sounds like a good deal for someone.

Ken, he didn't quite say we should leave. It sounds like someone trying out logical deductive skills rather than talking about real life. I think involvement in real life and real struggles helps to solve those theoretical conundrums. Hopefully.

I think you're correct.

Actually, the analogy here that I see in the Israeli situation is more that the Israel was founded based on the idea that the Palestinians were living on "solen land" that belonged to the Jewish people and so it was just to go back and expulse them from it.

All this talk about "stolen lands", where does it end? What is the statute of limitation on that claim? History is full of conquests and population deplacements, what do we do with it? Take France, first there were the Celts (Gauls), but they were conquered by the Romans and a Gallo-Roman population started to replace the Celts, then the Franks invaded after the fall of the Roman Empire. The Franks are the majority ethnic group in France nowadays, the Celtic ethnologic group is basically limited to Bretagne. Should we consider the Frank-descended French "settlers" on "stolen celtic land"? And should the Normans be sent back to Danemark?

Should the French-speaking people in Québec see the English-speakers immigrants who came after the Conquest of New-France as "settlers" on "stolen Québécois land"? Should the Hurons in Wendake consider the Oka and Kahnawake reserves as being on "stolen land", stolen by the Iroquois following a quasi-genocidal war against the Hurons in the middle of the 17th century that left a few hundreds Hurons left alive out of a few tens of thousands?

As to the issue in Villeray, this is NIMBY, usual NIMBY but with a racial twist to it. It is wrong to oppose it, especially by portraying all Inuit as drug addicts and dysfunctional human beings.

That's a very strange analysis, Cytizen. That presumes Villeray would welcome the same facility if it were other people. You'd need a lot more evidence to derive such a nonintuitive conclusion. I thought Simon's conclusion was pretty well in line with what we have learned so far.

Aha, yes. I see where I made an illogical jump in reasoning. I think this distinction you bring up, Simon, between prejudice and racism goes to the core of where I missed the mark. By looking at this in terms of stereotyping instead of racism I see that it is about perception and not "inherent negative value", as I said earlier.

Unionist, you were right that I would need much more evidence to back up my claim, and Simon's evidence regarding the diversity of Villeray proves qutie the oppopsite of what I had assumed. (don;t assume! BAD cytizen!) 

Just because the 69% of people in this neighbourhood whose first language is either French or English manage to co-exist with the other 31% of their neighbours doesn't mean they're immune from acting like racists. Not every racist is an equal-opportunity racist. Some are perfectly willing to get along with people from one race or ethnic group, but not with others. Chalk it up to misguided prejudice and stereotypes if you like, but it's still racism.

Thanks for the info Lagatta and I hope the citizens don't let the Mayor's voice be the predominant one. 

'Cause they're dead! You settlers murdered those FNs way back in the 1700s who did want you to leave. We went from 100% of the population to 1% by genocide; that'll wipe out the protesters, no? And now you state no one is demanding the settlers leave. Convenient.

"The problem here and now". So I should just get over it right? Don't worry about the past, let bygones be bygones, and work with the settlers for a brighter tomorrow. That may not be what you "meant" but it's how it comes across.

And as for your comment about how you didn't murder anyone in the 1700s, I agree. But you still reap the benefits derived by those who did. In another context, Maysie posted a racism 101 picture about how even though some white people today never actually opressed blacks, they still benefit because their grandparents and parents did.

Notice how your comment seems to echo Bob's? People here call you an activist. I say, for who?

E. T., lagatta never said she didn't benefit from privilege. She said she never murdered anyone. She is also an ally in this struggle, working very hard against the racists who oppose this housing. Why would you question her activism? As many here know, lagatta has made a lifetime out of working in solidarity with oppressed an marginalized groups at home and abroad. Wouldn't it  be more helpful to find common ground than reason for animosity?

ET, I'll speak for lagatta. She's anti-racist and progressive and spends much of her waking hours in that struggle. Even if you wish to make the kinds of comments you make, that won't dissuade people like her or me. If you know a different or better way to fight the racism that has been revealed in this situation, put it on the table. But real allies are always allies, and that's not ever going to change - because while our struggles are not exactly identical, they cannot succeed in isolation from each other. If you consider lagatta to be your enemy, it will not advance your struggle one iota.

There was a well-attended meeting of local citizens in support of the Inuit patients' welcoming centre and for equal access to health care for people from anywhere and any nation here. Several of us will be asking questions at the arrondissement council meeting on Tuesday (tomorrow).

It turns out that the person who first spotted the racist "red leaflet" at a local dépanneur was the director of a shelter for Indigenous people! (She is Algonquin, not Inuk). A staff worker from this shelter was on hand, as were representatives of the Inuit associaiton of Montreal.

Bonjour à tous,
Le tout nouveau Comité de citoyens vous invite à venir en grand nombre à la séance du conseil d'arrondissement de ce mardi soir 6 juillet (405, Ogilvy, tout près du métro Parc). Pour plus d’information, vous pouvez lire le communiqué de presse ci-dessous qui a été produit pour l'occasion. Attention : pour s'inscrire à la période de questions, il faut y arriver avant 18h30!
Au plaisir de vous y voir en grand nombre afin que le message soit clairement entendu par nos éluEs,
Geneviève Beaudet, Porte-parole du Comité citoyen en faveur du Centre d’hébergement Inuit dans Villeray
----------

À l’attention de la direction de l’information

Communiqué de presse pour diffusion immédiate

Inuits près de ma demeure : appui au projet dans l'ancien hôpital chinois

Montréal, le 5 juillet 2010. Un tout nouveau comité de citoyens et citoyennes du quartier Villeray interviendra le mardi 6 juillet 2010, lors de la séance du Conseil d'arrondissement de Villeray/Saint-Michel/Parc-Extension. Ces résidants du quartier accueillent favorablement le projet d'installer un centre d'hébergement pour patients inuits du Nunavik dans l'ancien hôpital chinois, vacant depuis une dizaine d'années.

Les Inuits ont droit à des soins de santé de qualité, comme tout Québécois, qu'ils peuvent recevoir à l'endroit qui leur conviennent, et selon leurs propres critères. Les membres du regroupement souhaitent à leurs futurs voisins la bienvenue dans le quartier et comptent œuvrer au succès de leur projet.

C'est pourquoi le comité de résidantEs demande à l'arrondissement de lever immédiatement l’avis de motion de modification de zonage qui a été déposé dans la foulée de la campagne de désinformation du mois de mai dernier. Actuellement, le zonage permet l'implantation du centre d'hébergement dans l'ancien hôpital, mais cet avis de motion gèle tout son développement.

Ce centre peut contribuer au développement sain de la communauté, qui inclut l’entraide, la solidarité, la diversité et l’inclusion. Il pourra aussi être créateur d'emplois et d'activités économiques pour le quartier, ainsi que l’occasion rêvée de rénover et d’utiliser à bon escient un édifice public présentement inoccupé depuis trop longtemps. Ce sera de plus une occasion unique de développer des échanges culturels avec le peuple inuit, une des nations les plus anciennes et les plus pacifiques du territoire du Québec. Nous pouvons déjà d’ailleurs compter dans Villeray plusieurs citoyens inuits.

Le comité fait aussi remarquer que, depuis des années, le quartier est déjà doté de plusieurs organismes d'aide qui ne causent aucun problème de voisinage, tels, par exemple, une ressource d'hébergement jeunesse, un centre pour alcooliques et toxicomanes latino-américains, un lieu d'échange de seringues au CLSC, en plus de nombreux autres groupes communautaires, dont plusieurs sont spécialisés dans les relations interculturelles.

Le 16 juin dernier, l'Agence de la santé et des services sociaux de Montréal (ASSS) et la Régie de la santé et des services sociaux du Nunavik tenaient une séance d’information publique sur le projet. S'il est vrai que le projet peut être amélioré, les suggestions des personnes présentes y ont été notées et le projet semble bien articulé. La mise sur pied d'activités culturelles et communautaires inuits et de l'encadrement psychosocial y sont en outre prévus.

Des membres du nouveau comité de citoyens pourraient également siéger au comité d’implantation du projet promis par l’ASSS, afin de maintenir la communication avec les gens du quartier et d’être à l’écoute de leurs inquiétudes légitimes. Les membres du comité souhaitent aussi que le comité d'implantation de l’ASSS devienne un comité permanent et qu’il inclut des organismes représentant les Premières nations.

Rappelons qu'à la fin du mois de mai 2010, la population du quartier Villeray apprenait le projet de regrouper dans l'ancien hôpital chinois (7500, rue Saint-Denis) l'hébergement d'environ 150 Québécois inuits de passage à Montréal pour des soins médicaux spécialisés. Présentement, ces personnes logent dans plusieurs petits centres d’hébergement disséminés à travers Montréal. Cet éparpillement entraîne de nombreuses difficultés pour les malades, ce qui a amené la communauté inuit à exprimer elle-même le souhait de ce regroupement.

-30-

An article in our local neighbourhood/shopping paper, Le Progrès de Villeray: http://www.leprogresvilleray.com/Actualites/2010-07-05/article-1493455/D...

We are also meeting with La Presse, Le Devoir and The Gazette, and there will be an interview with one of our spokespersons tomorrow morning on CBC Daybreak.

If I can add a point here that seems to be missed:

I cannot judge as to whether racism is more or less in one place or another-- and it is so pervasive that I have my doubts as to whether it is or not. I agree with others here that it ought to be fought wherever it is identified.

However, it is wrong to consider racism in Quebec without recognizing a second dynamic: regardless of whether there is more or less actual racism in Quebec, there is certainly more of a market for stories about racism there. I am not minimizing the racism that has been pointed out here, and do acknowledge that there will most certainly be plenty of voices from Quebec angry and ashamed about it. However, when there is racism in Quebec, the chance of us being aware of it is part of an anti-Quebec dynamic that is undeniable. One unacceptable thing does not justify another.That anti-Quebec sentiment bubbled over during the Constitution debates of almost 20 years ago and it was disgusting-- I lived in Quebec at the time and can say that under the surface there are some very nasty divisions in this country and a media more than willing to exploit them when it chooses.

A more appropriate response would be to acknowledge as Canadians that this is happening in Canada, that the problem is not exclusive to Quebec (regardless of where degrees might be as I am sure that there are many in the West of Canada who would object to the idea that it is worse in Quebec than where FN people can be routinely driven out in sub-zero weather and dropped off by police to suffer and die) and that we need to address it wherever we can.

We can also recognize that there is a different dynamic with Aboriginal peoples given the colonization of this country, and that racism is a serious ongoing problem that all Canadians must face. But singling out a wider group than those directly involved to include an entire people (those of Quebec) other than the one you are a part of is unacceptable. In that context, I take all of Unionist's comments and understand where they are coming from.

Our committee has a website now! http://sites.google.com/site/comitecitoyeneninuitsvilleray/
 
There is an English-language version of our petition at the lower righthand corner of the page. Of course it would be good to get more content in English, as well as in Inuktittut and other Aboriginal languages - I haven't had time to translate much recently.
 
Ha! Justin Trudeau has finally come on board in support of the welcoming centre (after it was obvious that most people in our neighbourhood are shocked by the racist and NIMBY opposition.
 
Another funny - this remains unproven, but rumour has it that a strong opponent of the centre is a trendy neighbourhood bar (that used to be an old men's lounge). And alcohol is not the only intoxicant to be found on the premises, as one might well suspect.

Sad to see you calling out a whole province as racist.

Especially since you have sweepingly called racist, those supporters of the residence who live in Quebec, those I think, were your allies.

I think you do the cause of anti-racism harm by going after the innocent with the guilty including netting in supporters. It leaves me at a loss to understand your motives or how this can possibly aid in anything other than an attempt at general Quebec bashing. I think there is enough bigotry addressed towards Quebec without adding to it and that adding to it does not help the cause you seem to support not specifically and certainly not generally against bigotry itself.

I don't live in Quebec-- and you are confusing me at best as to what you are trying to do. I think by this kind of comment you alienate most of the people that you would want to have on your side if you really want to make progress in anti-racism. I ask if you can reconsider the tone and sweeping nature. At the same time, you are letting the racists off the hook lost in a whole province that you label together. Racists need to be exposed and isolated not buried in with innocents.

And I accept that all Canadians bear responsibility in many respects but we are not all, and neither are those of us living in Quebec all deserving of being labeled with the responsibility for this particular case.

The greatest damage you do with this kind of statement is blunt the legitimate outrage against those people who prevented this hurting the cause of those you seem to want to support, those who seem to be supporting your position and ironically helping those who have committed this outrage by implying they are just the same as everyone else in Quebec.

This is not about moralizing but when you piss on your allies pretty soon they at least lose enthusiasm to to work with you, assuming not your cause.

And I am sure you have something better to do than comment on what was written on the gates over a hundred years ago and then fixed over 50 years ago as a reason to be bigoted towards an entire provincial population, most of whom were not born early enough to see the offending words.

And no, having bigots target you does not justify a backlash against an entire people of the sort you are trying to generate.

Thankfully there are more reasonable ways that others are fighting racism in Quebec than picking a fight with the entire province by smearing it here on a progressive website.

I'm not debating there are racists there but your reverse bigotry is not going to help or even to make a point of value here except perhaps to demonstrate what is justifiable anger but unjustifiably directed.

Most here likely would prefer not to see sweeping bigotry against any target including FN and in fact including Quebec. Is there any reason not to get behind that sentiment?

As someone who has been targeted by racism from both white people and FN people while living on the prairies, marginalised people can partake in racism.

Anyway, the project has benn scrapped due to racism:

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/Inuit+residence+Montreal+scrapped+amid+...

One thing I notice about Montreal is the incredible lack of visibility of FN people. Despite the proximity of Kahnawake, there are very few FN people visible on the streets of Montreal.

I think that part of the Villeray issue is that the residents simply have no idea what Inuit people are like, so they simply assume the stereotype is true.

If you want me to call the negative stereotyping and violence directed at me due to my race from FN people as something other than racism, fine. I can call it negative prejudice or whatever phrase babble wants. However, I will not pretend that it does not happen.

EDIT: It"s hard to tell the Mohawk apart from white people, because of interbreeding, but even in the neighbourhood around the Friendship Centre, or the CRA (Cree Regional Authority), there still seems to be a disporportionately low amount of FN people living in Montreal.

I am not the subject of discussion.

I addressed Cathcfire's discussion of my posting because Catchfire is a moderator.

another disgustingly racist thread

I am not the subject of discussion. If you have a problem with my posts, feel free to flag them as questionable.

Do you have anything to say about the no-longer proposed Inuit health centre in Villeray?

For fuck's sake Fidel and Pants.

This "discussion" the two of you are having has no place in this thread. 

If you must, start a new thread in the anti-racism forum (yeah, I get the irony).

Much better is to take it to PMs. 

This is not a suggestion.

Back to the thread topic.

I was not discussing your reality about the racism you experienced or FNs experience. I don't debate that and I don't question or have anything negative to say about that other than to support statements that seem generally in line with yours-- except for the part about coming to a Canada-wide forum and bashing an entire province.

I was responding to the gratuitous swipe at an entire province. I'd like to know what Babble policy is on this. I agree that I should not interfere in your concern about the racism you experience. Nor would I for a moment deny the general racism that exists in our society or dispute that white people have undue privilege. However, I would think I should be able to comment when you target another group especially if my comment is limited to your targeting of another group and not debating either your experience or the act itself.

I don't think "racism 101" as you put it is free license to go after anyone else you choose-- the wider society yes but not another targeted minority. This is a Canada-wide website not a Quebec one. Had you either addressed this as toward white people in general, all of Canadian society or targeted the individuals involved I would have said nothing. However, there are many people happily bashing Quebec not out of any anti-racism concerns but because of their own biases against Quebec. I was asking you not to feed that. I'd be interested in knowing how out of line that concern is and why that magically makes me a racist. I don't think arguing with you on this point makes me a racist either since I am not debating or denying your individual experience or a group experience.

The second line of your comment I found deeply offensive, no doubt as you intended. I don't think it is appropriate and wonder how you can justify it given what I said.

I think if you read what I have said on topics of racism over the last few years, you might conclude that I have been an ally and that you are alienating a person who has been an ally on anti racism to the best I can be (in spite of being white). That I'd get called a racist simply for defending against an attack by you on an entire province I guess is another question for you and any other readers to decide. No doubt there could be a few other people who hate Quebec who can pile on here to both sound good supporting your point of view while getting a couple good licks at Quebec in. However, I think there are some clear lines here that I have not crossed, and I think there are some other lines that you have crossed and you are seeking to demonize me for calling you on it.

ETA: and my comment to you was not defensive since I am not a Quebecois.

Second edit due to cross-posting: I also agree that there is no such thing as "reverse racism" in the reaction. However, the targetting of Quebec generally in a Canada-wide forum is another matter and has come across as a whole new head of attack not necessarily related to the experiences being described. Getting in to the who is most racist line of argument sorting between one province and another is offensive I think  and gets away from the general concern about racism that in a Canada wide forum would fairly be addressed as a Canada-wide problem.

I am unhappy about the drift since I share your outrage about what has happened hear and my only trouble is the need to direct that outrage at exclusively the entire population of Quebec. As a resident of Ontario, I can certainly attest to racism as being a problem here and someone very close to me experienced a particularly bad case of it just a couple days ago.

It seems that there is some miscommunication occuring here.

I was not referring to FNs specifically when using the term "interbreeding". I was talking about the people in the area of Montreal in general. If there is another word you want me to use to discuss FN people and nonFN people having children together, I will use that word.

I understand how babble seems to be defining racism (i.e within a context of power dynamics), and will endeavour to use another word in the future when I am discussing negative prejudices based on race that a non-white person may have.

My point was that most Montrealers don't spend a lot of time dealing with people they know are FN or Inuit, compared to everywhere else in Canada where I have spent an appreciable amount of time.

This creates an ignorance of FN and Inuit people, which then allows stereotypes to flourish.

Hi E. Tamaran, thanks for bringing this to our attention. I don't know why your post disappeared--mods do have the ability to remove posts with a single click, and it doesn't refresh the webpage, so it's possible someone with admin powers (i.e. a mod) accidentally clicked on your post while scrolling through the thread. There are a couple of other possibilities, of course, but whatever it was, it was unintentional. it's back now.

Québec is a nation, not merely a province. Québec bashing is definitely a form of racism, and as one of the members of the Villeray Committee to welcome the Inuit centre, I strongly object to the racist, anti-Québécois posts here. They have no more business on a progressive board than anti-Aboriginal racist posts do.  The "imminent danger" racist petition was the work of a very small group (and I suspect their root motivation is real-estate speculation). Over 600 people in Villeray signed our petition, and Inuit people were specifically welcomes by the community associations day in Villeray Park.

"Interbreeding" is a racist expression (though it might have been used innocently here). Indeed so many Québécois have Aboriginal "blood" (ancestry) and southern Aboriginal peoples such as the Mohawk have had all manner of contacts with non-Aboriginals over the centuries that they are usually quite invisible. There are also many people living here with Aboriginal origins who are not Native here, as they hail from Latin American countries.

Here is an article about the event closing our struggle to welcome our Inuit sisters and brothers here: http://www.nunatsiaqonline.ca/stories/article/98789_inuit_non-inuit_join...

E. Tamaran, by deliberately ignoring the many allies, like lagatta, who tried to stand up and confront this racist, anti-Inuit garbage, you are indeed making gross generalizations about the nation of Quebec. rabble acknowledges Québec's and the First Nations' right to self-determination. And while both Canada and Québec may all be settlers in your eyes, singling out Québec for special treatment is indeed bigotry that won't be tolerated on babble. If you want to contribute to this thread, don't troll it with such offensive comments.

Well, of course that's fair comment. But it's not the topic of this thread. And, while I'm not sure your information is entirely accurate--not all nationalists agree with that sentiment, for example--it's hardly unique among the settler nations and provinces, is it?

I'd appreciate it if we could get back to the topic of this thread.

And when you define them as individuals or even "white society" you get no argument here.

I really appreciate Lagatta's and Catchfire's post and underline the fact that neither (and not myself either) are trying to minimize the fact that this is racism and is indeed not to be tolerated.