I’m a fairly new citizen of Canada, but came from the UK and lived in a military environment during the 60s, 70s and 80s becoming a part timer in the early 90s; so it was with interest that I read the latest word vomit from apologist for powerful men (preferably in a uniform), La Blatch.
The first thing that struck me as particularly ironic was her criticism of a woman leader who is actually trying to get a government to stand by its obligations. The Indian Act may be all those things that the “screechers” on the right claim it is, but one thing no one can deny is it’s a legal contract. It was signed by a former Canadian government after discussion and agreement and did include the following as La Blatch herself admits:
….. and treaties that were expected to be in place “as long as the sun shines, the grass grows and the river flows.”
So Chief Spence is somehow in the wrong because she actually expects the treaty to be honoured as it was written and signed. How is this in anyway controversial, except to fraudsters and liars?
Next the good lady
journo opinionist decides to attack the Chief for financial mismanagement in support of a government that has not only mismanaged the finances of the country as a whole, but also mismanaged the finances of the Chief’s nation via its appointment of an Indian Agent. The biggest cost of his enforced appointment appears to have been covering the costs of appointing the agent and fighting to keep the agent there. On this however Blatch is silent once more confirming that opinions aren’t necessarily based in reality.
But the statement form Blatchford that hit home with me was the attempt to tar the Chief with the brush of being a terrorist. Many a Harper puppet has tried to do that too and the word is fast becoming meaningless because of it. According to the know-nothing Blatchford.
It is tempting to see the action as one of intimidation, if not terrorism: She is, after all, holding the state hostage to vaguely articulated demands. But if she were to die on Mr. Harper’s watch, it would be not only tragic, but also disastrous.
She justifies this by insisting that Bobby Sands went on a hunger strike and was a terrorist too you see, so connecting the dots….. As she admits in her piece, Bobby Sands was in gaol on terrorism charges because he was found guilty of weapons offences at a time of armed conflict and in a country riven by atrocity. Her equivalence is not only absurdly false but is an insult to the folk who died during those years of unrest and division and those they left behind, as well as the Chief. Chief Spence has never been convicted of a crime or even as far as I can find, charged with one; unlike many in the Harper party whom Blatchford seeks to support. But unlike those people, about whom nothing bad can be uttered, Chief Spence won’t be elevated to the Senate I’ll warrant.
I remember living in the UK during the “Troubles” and can totally and utterly confirm that Chief Spence’s actions are so far from terrorism, that to even try and compare them as the Post and its opinionist seem to want to do is despicable beyond comparison.
Three outright lies and/or half truths passed off as argumentation. How Blatchford keeps getting paid for what she does is beyond me.
tip 6th sense