Continued hunger strike kills the meaning behind the cause
Darcy Ropchan
Opinion Editor
Jan 16, 2013
Chief Theresa Spence has become one of the most polarizing figures in Canada over the past several weeks. Love her or hate her, she has become tied to the Idle No More movement, and her hunger strike continues to unnecessarily dominate the news.
Although there is absolutely no question that major work needs to be done in terms of the federal government protecting the rights of First Nations people in Canada and that Spence’s hunger strike may have started out with good intentions, her recent actions have shown that she is unwilling to negotiate and in the current situation, she appears to be solely pursuing her own interest.
Spence’s liquid-only diet started Dec. 11 as a way to bring attention to the deplorable conditions of Attawapiskat and other reservations across Canada, as well as the disregard for treaty and land rights by the federal government. Her goal was to seek an audience with the Prime Minister as a way to have a serious, open dialogue and produce much needed change.
Although the goals are similar, the Idle No More movement started around the same time with four other female activists who oppose bill C-45 and wanted to start a grassroots campaign to fight it. Unfortunately, Spence has also become associated with the movement, despite having nothing to do with its orgins.
Hunger strikes are a powerful way to get your message heard — and Spence was heard. She wanted a meeting with Harper, which was granted on Jan. 11, with Minister of Aboriginal Affairs John Duncan and a collection of First Nation Leaders also in attendance. Despite getting what she wanted, Spence rejected the meeting because Governor General David Johnston would not be in attendance — even though Johnston’s role is a completely ceremonial representation of Canada’s former ties to the British Monarchy.
The fact that Spence was able to get what she initially wanted, yet changed her mind and made more demands at the last minute, proves that she has no place as a voice and activist for First Nations’ rights in Canada. Although it may be symbolically important that Johnston attend the meeting, his attendance means nothing in reality.
Harper made a necessary concession when he agreed to this meeting, and Spence had the chance to end her hunger strike and accomplish her goal, but instead she now looks like nothing more than someone out for attention and publicity. The increased focus on Spence and her hunger strike is taking away important focus on the real causes and concerns behind the Idle No More movement.
Spence’s continued liquid-only diet twists both Harper and Johnston’s arms in an unreasonable way. They already agreed to meetings with Spence and other First Nations leaders. They should feel no obligation to give in to Spence’s vague, changing demands.
Spence’s selfish hunger strike and demands for media attention should not detract from the true meaning behind Idle No More and similar protests.
It should always be remembered that the federal government must do more to protect the rights of First Nations peoples and their land and treaty rights in this country. Spence on the other hand, should be ignored.
Comments
Board of Governors — May 10, 2013
05/13/2013
Chivalry Should Die
05/02/2013
The remnants of chivalry still linger today, especially in the dating world.
The Best of Gateway Multimedia 2012-13
Varsity Sports Awards [Gallery]
Board of Governors — May 10, 2013
05/13/2013
Talk on “commitment,” “excellence” and “unity” dominated Friday’s Board of Governors meeting, as members continue to address financial pressures and determine their next steps in the wake of the budget cut.
There is one major error in this article that Darcy Ropchan wrote and that is not only is he repeating the same erroneous information that the Conservative Ministry of Propaganda have been promoting but it seems that he has been suckered into believing and promoting in his article; the Idea that the Governor General (G.G.) is just a “completely ceremonial representation of Canada’s former ties to the British Monarchy.”
First off the Queen is the Official Head of State of Canada, making Canada a Constitutional Monarchy. A form of government in which the monarch (Queen) acts as head of state within the guidelines of a constitution, our constitutional monarchy means we have formal ties to the British Monarchy which is reflected in our constitution. If we had as Darcy asserts have “former ties to the British Monarchy” then the Queen would not be the official head of state of Canada the Prime Minister would be, but the role of Prime Minister is just that as a minister. I am not sure where this idea came from that we have no more ties to the British Monarchy. This YouTube link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wffqnlcRI8) of a speech made by the Queen during her most recent visit certainly confirms that not only is she our monarch her in Canada but is the official head of State. A speech I am sure that P.M. Harper was not really listening to other than trying to make his way through the maze on his place mat.
Reality though is much different the position of G.G. is more than just a ceremonial position. The G.G. has both Constitutional Roles and a Ceremonial Roles as G.G.
The Constitutional Roles are:
•The G.G. in the absence of the Queen represents the Queen in Canada who is the Official Head of State for Canada who retains all executive, legislative, and judicial power in and over Canada
•The G.G. in absence of the Queen is permitted to exercise most of these powers in her place.
•The G.G. Signs out laws and legislation into effect calls parliament together, also constitutionally mandated to summon parliament.
•Carries out the other conventional parliamentary duties in the sovereign’s absence, which include
•reading the Speech From the Throne and
•Proroguing and dissolving parliament.
•The governor general also grants Royal Assent in the Queen’s name;
•legally, he or she has three options: grant Royal Assent (making the bill law), withhold Royal Assent (vetoing the bill), or reserve the bill for the signification of the Queen’s pleasure (allowing the sovereign to personally grant or withhold assent) This means that the Prime Minister does not sign out laws into effect the G.G in place of the Queen does
•Is the Commander in Chief of our Canadian Armed Forces decides when we go to War, issues medals to our men and women in uniform and other duties.
Ceremonial Roles Include:
•Host members of the Royal Family
•Act as host to other foreign royalty and heads of state
•Represent the Queen and Canada abroad on state tours in other countries
So as you can see the Role of the Governor General is more than a “completely ceremonial representation of Canada’s former ties to the British Monarchy.”
There are some other areas that are mentioned in this article I fee need to be addressed and that is that when he talks about how Harper would meet with Spence and other Aboriginal Leaders but the G.G. would not. When it comes to Aboriginal issues particularly Treaty issues they are a Crown Matter the treaties are formal nation to nation agreements between FN group and the Crown (British Monarchy) The G.G in the absence of the Queen is to act in her place and this is why the demand to meet with him was made as he is representing the Queen. The Prime Minister is Not the Official head of state although he is treated like he is.
I do agree that media attention on Chief Spence has taken a large part of Media attention become tied to the Idle No More movement and in some media news reports they cite her as being the leader of the movement, which is wrong. Even the some of the founders who started Idle No More have said in a Recent CBC new report that they are “concerned with how the media is portraying her as the leader of the grassroots campaign.” (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/story/2013/01/14/sk-idle-no-more-sylvia-mcadam-130114.html)
Posted by Jéan on Jan 16, 2013
I agree with Jean. If you are discussing changes to treaties made with the monarchy the G.G. needs to be there if only to legitimize the government’s stance/proposed changes/whatever.
That being said: “Conservative Ministry of Propaganda”? Really dude?
Posted by Glenn on Jan 17, 2013
Submit a comment
All comments must be approved by a moderator before they will be visible, and may take up to 48 hours to appear. Comments may be no longer than 5000 characters.
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.