Hoax?

Apparently it is being reported that the wikileaks on Minister Duncan is now a “hoax.”

Really.

And that the article was meant to be “humourous” and that those things were just “imagined.”

Really.

Whether the things have been said or not, it was imagined what would or could have been said by a government official. What does that say about an Aboriginal’s view of Canada’s officials? Not very much.

For a government official to take something not so serious, serious, shows where his priorities are. (His own public image.) Why not join in on the joke? Let people believe whatever they want to believe. It’s not like everyone (Aboriginal or not) thinks highly of the Canadian government anyways.

Am I happy people are paying attention to what exactly is being said by First Nations? Sure. Duncan’s team worked hard and fast to remove these posts.

I wish rest of the issues affecting First Nations were addressed this quickly. Obviously when I say this, I know that “processes” and “policies” have to be followed, and that some situations are more important than others.

It is too bad the response to the supposed humorous and satirical article was not answered in just a humorous, satirical manner. It would have been refreshing.

Click HERE to read the article in which it was shared that the leaks is a hoax.

Update 01/19/11: It’s strange how media can change any story to either emphasize one point or de-emphasize another point, or even completely alter the story. My post in response to the hoax and APTN’s own response/reporting on it just proves this. Yes, I did wrong by posting a response to the originating article (even after the original news source said it was “first to report” and failed to include an “Editor’s Note” stating it was meant for PURE entertainment; and even when the Reporter’s name “looked Native”–in reality it wasn’t really anyone at all). Aside from all that, I noticed that APTN mentions that I provide “a point by point analysis.” Correction APTN: I provided an analysis only on three of the ten points. These points were not even an “analysis” at all. One of the points I could relate back to another point I was trying to make in a previous post on my blog (re: The use of the term Fiduciary Duty). Another was point was highlighted to only probe further questioning/gain an understanding of what was being said in the supposed “wikileaks,” and the other just highlighted the “paradox” between Canada’s history and present-day Aboriginals. Even though I “reported” wrongly on this originating article containing the hoax (and I put reported in quotation marks to highlight the fact that I am not an official reporter), I must say, “Thank you APTN for boosting my readers.”