centre of the universe - the dreaming: Political rant

10/19/2004: "Political rant" Why, oh why does this not surprise me? I know there are a lot of people out there who voted for this fellow because they were so upset at a 'turncoat' running in their riding...but I just can't picture why that is okay. Sure, it's hard to choose between an idiot who can't keep his party lines from tangling with his clothes lines and a hardcore racist who promotes intolerance and fear-mongering.

...(sigh)...

okay, that's a little harsh.

It's no secret that Jim Pankiw scares the hell out of me. Especially because people keep voting for him.

I also readily admit I'm no right-winger. I have some good friends who *are*, and I don't begrudge them their opinions or their ideas. We simply see things differently. Fair enough.

It's not the fact that he's a right-winger that bothers me. I don't care that he thinks social programs are wrong and/or bad for the country. I disagree, but that's what being able to have your own opinion (and a very marginal choice of political parties) is all about. It doesn't really bother me that he thinks that funding the arts is wasting taxpayers' money. Again, I think he's wrong, but that's one of myriad reasons I'd not vote right-wingy. I just couldn't bring myself to support a man who is openly disparaging of non-whites. Particularly Natives. Especially someone who either doesn't know much about history or who got it all wrong (I'm referring to when he called members of the New Democratic Party and Canadian Alliance "modern-day Klansmen" for supporting the active hiring of visible minorities. The active hiring of visible minorities is not something even modern-day Klansmen would do, I think). I think he was invited to shut the hell up in the House of Commons after that one.

I was taught that people are people. I was also taught that if we don't *do* something about intolerance, racism, hatred, pick-your-title, it's never going to get any better. Voting for this idiot is probably a step backwards.

Granted, he may have been the only non-Liberal, non-NDP, non-Conservative candidate in the area. Granted, you might be the sort of person who doesn't like to "throw away your vote" by choosing an idependent or a different party candidate. I shouldn't be the one being critical of you. I'm just saying that I couldn't have done it.

And that I'm not surprised he couldn't make it through a single mediation appointment. I pity the man's family.

"Happy Snow Day" "A Delightful Word of the Day"

7 Comments

FYI , on Tuesday, 19th October:

Election results from the Saskatoon- Humbolt riding:
Brad Trost (Conservative) 9444 votes won
Nettie Wiebe (NDP) 9027 votes
Patrick Wolfe (Liberal) 9009 votes
Jim Pankiw (Independent) 7076 votes
Ron Schriml (Green Party) 680 votes
Larry Zarysky (Not Affliated) 100 votes

Der Kaptin , on Tuesday, 19th October:

No doubt about it, Pankiw is a loathsome character. One incident that was reported to me was that an aboriginal woman wrote him a letter expressing concern, in very non-fanatical terms, for the way he consistently portrayed her people. He proceeded to put her letter on the back of parliamentary letterhead, with his stern, insulting, response on the front, and send it, courtesy of our nickels, to everyone in his constituency. And beyond -- I've talked to people in Moose Jaw who got the letter. You can think about how that might have happened.

The problem is -- people I know voted for him, and there's a good chance that people I'm related to voted for him too. The main reason is -- he took this stance against the "favouritism" consistently being shown to aboriginal people in this province and in this country. You can piss and moan all you want about how we took their land from them, took even more when we ripped off the reservations we'd put them on, gave them smallpox, put them in residential schools, continually changed the laws to prevent those who did try and adapt to a farming way of life from ever succeeding (there's a book still waiting to be written). These people don't care. They know some white kid who went to the Woodland Campus and got severely beaten for no other reason than that they were white. They don't give a fig for historical anything, they're tired of paying for all these people who are freeloading on the system -- no taxes, more giveaway programs every time you turn around -- and they're afraid the white-guilt liberals are going to give the whole frickin country back before they're done.

There are a million holes in their arguments, but there are always some shreds of truth behind them too. And the undeniable fact is that they are more than a few white supremist freaks passing around a can of paint thinner in some house trailer just the other side of the tracks. There are more than 7 thousand of them in one federal constituency alone. And they are going to have to be addressed in some way. Some action, involving native people, is going to have to be taken to start rebuilding the bridges. Because as the aboriginal presence grows, and it is growing rapidly, so is the temperature on this situation. If we don't want race war in this province, in this generation, we're going to have to figure out how to do more than calling people like Jim Pankiw and the people who support him nasty names.

cenobyte , on Tuesday, 19th October:

...I don't know that calling him nasty names *hurts*, though. Yes, we *do* need to figure out how to do more than that. But until we figure out how to convince 7000+ people that voting for him is fueling the fire, I don't think we'll get very far.

I know a few people (more than a few, I'm ashamed to admit) who agree with Pankiw's stance on many things. I am related to some of them, too. I don't know if any of them voted for him, and I don't really think it's any of my business.

I just think it's shameful that he can get away with half the things he says, and that people vote for him in spite of it.

Also, FYI, Patrick Wolfe is another piece of work, but that's another rant.

Terry , on Wednesday, 20th October:

The one sliver of truth extracted from Pankiw's rants is this...

As long as one race (majority or minority) has rights/abilities/etc. that are unavailable to others simply because of race... You have a racist society.

And for whatever reasons, right now there are Canadians who get special privileges because of race. That has to stop. We need to figure out a way to compensate folks, maybe a one time cash payout, maybe some other solution and from that point… all people in Canada are equal. No special hunting rights or fishing rights. No scholarships with racial requirements. From this point on, all Canadians are treated the same, no matter what the race or colour.

I believe strongly in that 'All men are created equal' stuff the Americans claim and it does bother me that I live in a society where that's not true.

BTW, I'm in Saskatoon-Wanuskewin. I had the choice of an arrogant Liberal who didn't do a damn thing for the west so he could toe the party line, a Conservative who's a fanatic religious nut who is against same-sex marriage and several other things I support and an NDP candidate who seemed underqualified for the job although likely the most honest, well meaning of the bunch. Yes, I voted for her (Priscilla Settee) but honestly if Pankiw was running in my riding, I would've considered it.

cenobyte , on Wednesday, 20th October:

This is always a touchy issue, and I was expecting a lot of replies about it. The fact is, I'm torn on the issue .... torn on the way it's presented, torn on the solution...just...torn.

I think that after the way our government has treated certain segments of our population (*not* just Native Canadians, by the way - I'm also referring to the thousands of Japanese Canadians we put in internment camps during the second world war, the way our government has treated various religious/communal groups, and the way many immigrants have been treated), these people do deserve some kind of compensation. On the other hand, I also believe that the only way we can achieve the equal treatment we strive for is, as Terry says, to stop treating any cultural group specially.

That being said, I think there is some 'baseline achievement' we need to do. How, for example, can we take away, for instance, treaty rights (including land ownership for bands) without some kind of compensation? Our ancestors essentially *destroyed* Native culture in Canada and did NOTHING to accept, invite, or even suggest these people be a part of a new culture. That is *still* going on.

There are LOTS of Canadians who get special privileges and treatment because of race, and most of them are white. The majority of families living in poverty in this country are non-white families: Native, immigrant, and refugee families. Why are they living in poverty? Because many of them don't speak the languages, their education isn't recognised or isn't equivalent to that of other Canadians, they can't get jobs that pay over minimum wage (because of some of the stuff listed above), and because the social safety nets that are available are horribly mismanaged, particularly underfunded, and hopelessly misunderstood by most of the people who have never *had* to apply for EI, Welfare, low-income supplements, daycare subsidies, etc. And I'm *not* ignoring the people who *do* ride the system because they can - that falls into the 'horribly mismanaged' category.

I do agree with Pankiw's statement, but not aimed at Native Canadians in particular. I'd aim that one at *everyone else*.

If we could come up with something that would work to break the cycle of poverty, don't you think we'd be trying it? We're making little steps with programs like Habitat for Humanity and, in Saskatoon, the Quint Development program.

Maybe there is and has been a time for hiring programs and incentives and maybe that time is over. Now that women are allowed in the workforce, and in some cases encouraged to work at the same jobs as men, maybe the requirements to have a certain percentage of women on staff should be done away with too. Incidentally, women are still, on average, being paid far less than men for similar work. Women are still discriminated against (in a bad way) during hiring processes. There are still a lot of people who won't hire women because they think that women can't do the job or need more time off or something silly like that.

Let's expand Pankiw's statement. Let's say "As long as one group of people has rights/abilities/etc. that are unavailable to others simply because of the conditions apparent in that group, you have an unequal society".

That opens up entire other cans of worms, doesn't it? It brings into question the disabled (differently-abled), the mentally ill, seniors, children, women, immigrants, refugees, Native Canadians, etc.

As much as I love to dream of an egalitarian society; as much as I wish for and hope for a Star Trek universe, it's probably never going to happen. Human beings seem to have this need to segregate themselves, to group themselves. There will always be, I fear, an 'us versus them' attitude. If it's not 'white versus non-white' then it's 'good versus evil' or 'educated versus uneducated' or 'have versus have-not'. Pankiw may have coined a great phrase (that is certainly not original), but instead of working toward a solution, he makes the situation worse.

Now, as Terry suggests, maybe a one-time compensation would work. Who knows if the treaties would have worked if we'd have kept up our end of the bargain(s) and not lied and rescinded stuff and changed our minds? And maybe from that point, at least *legally*, Native Canadians could be on 'equal footing' with the rest of Canada's priviledged. Maybe. But how do we change the attitude of the manager who won't hire Natives because they're Native? How do we change the attitudes of the school children who beat kids up because they're poor, or black, or Ukrainian? How do we convince parents and grandparents and cousins and aunts and generations upon generations of people that just because someone is different from you doesn't mean you're going to get LICE from them for God's sake?

IF we could figure out some way of starting underpriviledged people off on the same or similar footing to the 'rest of us', how many people would support that? How many people would stand on their porch and holler that they've worked hard all their lives for what they have and nobody deserves the right to be handed these priviledges.

I also believe that humans are humans (or, as Horton would say, "A person's a person, no matter how small"). We come into the world and we leave the world the same way. Our challenge is to change what goes on in the middle there. Even the statement "All men are created equal" is exclusionary. The intent is clear, of course, but you see my point.

My point, I guess, is that you can take the words of anyone and bend them to fit your will. Pankiw's statement is a good one, and it's just sad that when you look at the rest of his actions and statements, it's clear (at least to me) that his attitude is part of the problem. Just remember that the leader of the FSIN or the Metis could use that statement just as easily and with justification.

cenobyte , on Wednesday, 20th October:

oh, and on the topic of hiring women, I should point out that I think it's ridiculous that there are different standards for women than for men in things like the military, the RCMP, Fire protective services, EMS, etc. This is one area that I think needs absolutely to be 'baselined'. If a man is expected to do 30 pushups, so should a woman be. It's insulting to require otherwise.

Terry , on Wednesday, 20th October:

"Why are they living in poverty? Because many of them don't speak the languages..."

There are many things I feel it's wrong to use to discriminate. BUT, I don't think it's unreasonable to require that you speak one of the two official languages, preferably both.

"I think it's ridiculous that there are different standards for women than for men in things like the military, the RCMP, Fire protective services, EMS, etc"

Agreed. The requirements of the job should be defined and one set of standards used to determine capability. If a fireman needs to put 80lbs over a shoulder and climb down a ladder to do his job... fine. But if a woman firefighter can qualify with 60lbs over her shoulder, then the standard should be 60lbs for everyone. (In Minneapolis, the fire department offers special assistance to women for the physical test and considers female applicants who pass the physical test no matter how high the score. In other words, a woman who passes the test is considered before the men who score higher on the same test. That does not sound like equality.)

I know if someone I love is being pulled out of a fire, I don't give a damn what gender the firefighter is, I just care that they'll be physically able to do the job.

distractions