"Smart goals" are supposed to be Specific, Measurable, Realistic, and tied to a Timeline. Native protests are generally none of the above, so your correspondent normally pays no attention to them. However, thanks to years of aggressive Oliver Twist-esque branding and the advent of Facebook, Natives can now rally literally dozens of slacktivists to their cause. One of my now-former Facebook friends (an educated blonde of Dutch descent with not a drop of Native blood, mind you) has been enthusing over this "Idle No More" affair for some time, and last week, being on vacation in Ottawa, offered to "take our messages to Stephen Harper" as she would be joining the Idle No More dog-and-pony show on Parliament Hill.
At first I thought it was merely grandiose on her part. Protesters on Parliament Hill rarely get to speak with Stephen Harper, and incoherently obstreperous crowds are hardly the medium for rational political messages. If I had something to say to Stephen Harper, I'd email him, and his aides would filter me out. Or more to the point, I'd get in touch with some of my New Democrat brethren in the Shadow Cabinet, and that would be much more likely to get things done. But I digress. At first, as I said, I thought it rather arrogant of her to think of herself as a special conduit to the Prime Minister's ear. Later I realised something much more humorous and so very apt in this context: Parliament is in recess since 14 December and won't be back until 28 January. A protest at Parliament Hill on 21 December will reach no one but the janitor. (And your correspondent can't help wondering how many of the protesters left their vehicles idling so they would be warm and comfy after the protest.)
After I purged the uncritical blonde, another Facebook friend of your correspondent's, who had participated in a similar protest in Edmonton, objected to my Facebook status mentioning the purge. "Why don't you refute something instead of pouting," quoth he. Reflexive deprecation of the outgroup: always a useful fall-back position when out of arguments. Yet the reader may ask, indeed, why I don't refute something.
The answer is simple: I can't refute an argument where none has been given. So, I tried to find something in the Idle No More drivel that might be argumentitious enough to be argued against. Their website contains nothing but lamentably unoriginal purple prose, some of it misleadingly presented under the tempting heading of "action plan". I recalled from somewhere, however, that someone had made a reference to "protesting against Bill C-34." A lead! Quick, to the Batcave!
The Batcave as it were, or the Order Paper, reveals that there is no such thing as Bill C-34. It received royal assent on 23 March and is now an Act, and not a very interesting one at that. It was merely a budgetary appropriation. Protesting a bill nine months after royal assent seems woefully apt for this crowd, but even so a doubt came upon me, and it occurred to me to check Bills C-34 from previous sessions. And lo, the Tsawwassen First Nations Final Agreement Act started life as Bill C-34, back in 2008. The Tsawwassen Act replaced the Tsawwassens' treaty with a new form of intergovernmental cooperation which, whatever it is, is NOT a treaty. This seemed like an excellent idea, particularly in view of the memorable quote in Canadian Geographic from one of the beneficiaries, lamenting that "this removes the Federal Government's responsibility for us. Who's going to be responsible for us now?" Hmmmmm... May I suggest... yourself? Try that on for a change.
Unlike the budget appropriation, this seemed somewhat related to some of the purple prose, about consultations and treaties and whatnot. Of course the Tsawwassen Act was negotiated with and agreed to by the Tsawwassen, and is possibly the smartest thing ever accomplished in First Nations negotiations, so this would be the last Act that one ought to protest under the heading "lack of consultation" (four years too late, at that), but if the Natives can produce one thing in abundance, it's revised history. The vibe, sadly, was hopelessly right. Though one can't entirely rule out the possibility that they're complaining about the Protecting Victims from Sex Offenders Act or the Act to amend the Museums Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts or even, who knows, the 2012 budget appropriation. Possibly even all of the above, jointly, severally, morally, ethically, spiritually, physically, positively, absolutely, undeniably, and reliably.
In all likelihood, we'll never know. The whole thing will blow over like a puff, puff, pass of smoke. And it's good exercise for them to do some walking and stair-climbing. What's sad, though, is that next time they get together in this fashion, it will be the same thing again: no goals, whether specific, measurable, realistic or otherwise. And more generally, the eternal failure to engage in the first three steps of problem-solving: identify the problem, identify the cause of the problem, propose solutions. They may be all revved up, for now, but they're still nowhere near getting in gear.
At first I thought it was merely grandiose on her part. Protesters on Parliament Hill rarely get to speak with Stephen Harper, and incoherently obstreperous crowds are hardly the medium for rational political messages. If I had something to say to Stephen Harper, I'd email him, and his aides would filter me out. Or more to the point, I'd get in touch with some of my New Democrat brethren in the Shadow Cabinet, and that would be much more likely to get things done. But I digress. At first, as I said, I thought it rather arrogant of her to think of herself as a special conduit to the Prime Minister's ear. Later I realised something much more humorous and so very apt in this context: Parliament is in recess since 14 December and won't be back until 28 January. A protest at Parliament Hill on 21 December will reach no one but the janitor. (And your correspondent can't help wondering how many of the protesters left their vehicles idling so they would be warm and comfy after the protest.)
After I purged the uncritical blonde, another Facebook friend of your correspondent's, who had participated in a similar protest in Edmonton, objected to my Facebook status mentioning the purge. "Why don't you refute something instead of pouting," quoth he. Reflexive deprecation of the outgroup: always a useful fall-back position when out of arguments. Yet the reader may ask, indeed, why I don't refute something.
The answer is simple: I can't refute an argument where none has been given. So, I tried to find something in the Idle No More drivel that might be argumentitious enough to be argued against. Their website contains nothing but lamentably unoriginal purple prose, some of it misleadingly presented under the tempting heading of "action plan". I recalled from somewhere, however, that someone had made a reference to "protesting against Bill C-34." A lead! Quick, to the Batcave!
The Batcave as it were, or the Order Paper, reveals that there is no such thing as Bill C-34. It received royal assent on 23 March and is now an Act, and not a very interesting one at that. It was merely a budgetary appropriation. Protesting a bill nine months after royal assent seems woefully apt for this crowd, but even so a doubt came upon me, and it occurred to me to check Bills C-34 from previous sessions. And lo, the Tsawwassen First Nations Final Agreement Act started life as Bill C-34, back in 2008. The Tsawwassen Act replaced the Tsawwassens' treaty with a new form of intergovernmental cooperation which, whatever it is, is NOT a treaty. This seemed like an excellent idea, particularly in view of the memorable quote in Canadian Geographic from one of the beneficiaries, lamenting that "this removes the Federal Government's responsibility for us. Who's going to be responsible for us now?" Hmmmmm... May I suggest... yourself? Try that on for a change.
Unlike the budget appropriation, this seemed somewhat related to some of the purple prose, about consultations and treaties and whatnot. Of course the Tsawwassen Act was negotiated with and agreed to by the Tsawwassen, and is possibly the smartest thing ever accomplished in First Nations negotiations, so this would be the last Act that one ought to protest under the heading "lack of consultation" (four years too late, at that), but if the Natives can produce one thing in abundance, it's revised history. The vibe, sadly, was hopelessly right. Though one can't entirely rule out the possibility that they're complaining about the Protecting Victims from Sex Offenders Act or the Act to amend the Museums Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts or even, who knows, the 2012 budget appropriation. Possibly even all of the above, jointly, severally, morally, ethically, spiritually, physically, positively, absolutely, undeniably, and reliably.
In all likelihood, we'll never know. The whole thing will blow over like a puff, puff, pass of smoke. And it's good exercise for them to do some walking and stair-climbing. What's sad, though, is that next time they get together in this fashion, it will be the same thing again: no goals, whether specific, measurable, realistic or otherwise. And more generally, the eternal failure to engage in the first three steps of problem-solving: identify the problem, identify the cause of the problem, propose solutions. They may be all revved up, for now, but they're still nowhere near getting in gear.
No comments:
Post a Comment