Time Immortal

Did you know that, O Reader?

…But the surprise came from Duffy himself: he reminded viewers that the Canadian Human Rights Act does not apply to Canadian Indians. Right now, section 67 of the CHRA explicitly exempts Indian reserves from the application of the law.

This has been a long-time grievance of Aboriginal women, not because they have a hankering to file complaints about “hurt feelings” under the (recently-added) “hate speech” provisions of the Act, but because there has historically existed on many Indian reserves significant, real discrimination — such as the wholesale disenfranchisement of women who marry non-Indians, cutting them off from government funds and other rights as band members. Unlike for the rest of us who live in a free society, the libertarian solution to discrimination — simply move on to another restaurant, apartment, job, etc. — doesn’t work when the entire economy, and all property, are owned communally and are apportioned by fiat by chiefs and councils. That’s how it works under Canada’s Indian Act.

And guess what? Just last week, Liberal MPs tried to delay a Conservative initiative to extend the Canadian Human Rights Act to Indian reserves. Liberal Anita Neville showed the soft bigotry of low expectations, arguing that Indians just aren’t culturally ready for the kind of laws that apply to the rest of us.

Ms. Neville said there’s “a real ideological divide” over the issue of individual versus collective rights in the repeal legislation. “There doesn’t seem to be, on the part of the government, a willingness to respect the tradition of collective rights for First Nations on reserve.”

So, in the same week that we have Stephane Dion demanding that his MP, Keith Martin, rescind his private member’s motion to remove the “hate messages” provision of the CHRA, Dion’s MPs are blocking the entire CHRA from applying to hundreds of thousands of Canadian Aboriginals.

Hypocrisy from the Liberal Party? Perish the thought!

On a more serious note, however, I was actually unaware of the “exemption” provided under the CHRA for Natives. Personally, I think that’s absurd that this is, in fact, the case, and Ezra Levant enumerates a number of very real, and very good, examples why that is (above). Bigotry does not just flow one way, and there can be an immense prejudice on reservations against those who “go outside” the reservation in some way (the issue of marrying non-Natives is one example). Many people on reservations are very disenfranchised, precisely because of these reasons. Many people on reservations are denied basic human needs, and basic human rights, by usurious and greedy band councils.

I’m not saying that Natives should file more human rights complaints (if in fact they could) — the tribunals have to go, and nobody should patronize them. But the tribunals are one small part of what the CHRA deals with, and many of its other provisions are both relevant to the situations on many reservations, and also necessary tools for combatting those situations. And it’s shameful that Canada does not extend the legitimate protections of the CHRA to the Native people of this country.

Doubly shameful, of course, is that the Liberal Party has been attempting to block a Conservative Party attempt to extend the CHRA to include Natives and the reservations. Levant asks:

So which is it? Is the Canadian Human Rights Act so sacrosanct that not even a single section can be amended? Or is the Act so unimportant that Canadian Aboriginals can be denied all of its provisions for years to come? Mike Duffy pointed out this contradiction today; I wonder if any other journalists will follow up.

Personally, I very much doubt any of them will — our media is, as a general rule, terrified of printing anything that might result in a swell of support for Stephen Harper’s government. Which is a shame, because the hypocrisy of the Liberals over this issue is staggering.

Update: Welcome, Steynians and FreeDoMinions!