A video I found on my friend’s facebook page.
Decided to share it on here.
Made me smile 🙂 Seeing all those Aboriginals smiling, laughing even little babies. We are a strong, beautiful nation! And I think I seen my cousin…hehe jokin’ 😉 .
A video I found on my friend’s facebook page.
Decided to share it on here.
Made me smile 🙂 Seeing all those Aboriginals smiling, laughing even little babies. We are a strong, beautiful nation! And I think I seen my cousin…hehe jokin’ 😉 .
Going through drafts in my blog and found this draft. Enjoy my gorgeous readers!
On facebook today a friend posted a picture of a Fish and Chip place located in Lakefield, Ontario that had a sign posted in its window that said: No Natives. I found the article online titled “No Natives” sign taped to restaurant’s door.
I thought to myself: What does this business mean by Natives?
So, I looked up the definition of Native.
Noun: inhabitant, resident, local; citizen, national; aborigine, autochthon; formal dweller. Antonym: foreigner.
What does this sign mean? The place doesn’t want locals, citizens, or residents at the business?
I think the business is severely limiting their customer base only wanting to serve foreigners. Maybe there is an over abundant of foreigners in Lakefield, Ontario… I don’t know. Any Lakefielders out there that can explain to me the logic behind this sign?
You can watch all parts by clicking on the video. Interesting video. She had done this in response to her student’s questions: Why was Martin Luther King Jr. killed? She thought, “How do you explain racism to children?”
For more information: Jane Elliott’s website.
Well today I was able to view my comments today from my letter to the editor at LFpress today. The link provided brings you to the letter with comments directly.
In one of the comments, one person asked questions or proposed that I think about why don’t Aboriginals have it best?
Well, that is a very simple question with a very complicated answer. I know that any answer I give him will be further questioned with even more simple questions with even more complicated answers.
Submitting my letter to the editor I know that not everyone will agree with what I have to say. I don’t want everyone to agree with what I have to say. I believe that if everyone agrees with what everyone is saying, you will never change, or improve.
Anyways, I replied to this person. I don’t know if my reply will get posted. I did however refer the individual to the R. v. Gladue appeal decision. Found here.
I hope that the person who asked me why not, knows that I have asked myself that over and over again. Why? The answer is too complicated to discuss in one post and too complicated to even present in a simple way.
I hope the one individual is able to find the answers in the link I provided so that he may believe what the BC Appeal Court Judges have written because even not even my post or answer to the question will ever satisfy the typical Canadian. People need people with formal knowledge, and not real life experience to answer difficult questions.
This post is in response to an article titled Siblings Jailed After Fatal Stabbing..
When I first read this article, I was thinking to myself, “Why would a news source announce that these youth were First Nations?” Then I read the readers’ comments, and it made more sense to me now.
A bit of background information (This information is available through the LF press news articles): This occurred last year in August. Both offenders are First Nations. One is a 22 year old mother of three, the other is 18 years old. Both pretty young. One received 2 years (the mother) and the other sentenced to 17 months.
In the Criminal Code of Canada, Section 718.2(e) states the following:
718.2 A court that imposes a sentence shall also take into consideration the following principles:
(e) all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of aboriginal offenders.
The interpretation of this section was conducted during an Appeal to the decision made in R. v. Gladue. That decision can be read HERE.
It must be highlighted that this section of the Criminal Code of Canada does not give special consideration to Aboriginal peoples but in reality acknowledges the fact that many of them occupy prison systems. Harper’s Truth in Sentencing Act was seen as a step back because it failed to acknowledge this state of Aboriginal peoples in Canada. This Act removed the 2-4-1 sentencing, where time already served would not be acknowledged in final sentencing. Further exacerbating the rate at which Aboriginals populate prison systems.
Now, I won’t comment on the sentencing and the length that they received but it must be highlighted some of the factors that court’s consider when sentencing.
Some of these include:
In the case of these two individuals, they were both young, one was obviously drinking underage, and one already had three children before reaching the age of 25. This is what life is like in Canada for most Aboriginals. There is alcohol abuse, young parenthood, violent environments (Wasn’t one already carrying a knife…who carries a knife around if they are in a “safe” environment).
I am not promoting bad behaviour or violent behaviour among Aboriginal youth in any way. I am just attempting to address the comments some of the readers had in the article which can be read HERE.
They ask why was the term First Nations used? Why did that have to be mentioned? And one even states that using this term contributes to stereotypes in society. I thought the same thing.
But then I read a comment that said:
Look at the bright side, if you’re a white male, you’ll get at least 15 years for the same crime.
Hmmm, but race is not the case here. What is the case is that Aboriginals are over-represented in the Criminal Court system, including prisons. You say that still is dealing with race. No, it is dealing with the social situation that Aboriginals presently face. The decision in the appeal in R. v. Gladue highlights this.
Within this decision, it states:
With the above, I tried my best to grasp the most important points, although this case is significantly important in every which way as it pertains to Aboriginals who enter the criminal court system. I guess by mentioning that the two offenders were First Nations, the news source may have been acknowledging the fact that Aboriginal people still face great disparities when it comes to society.
Relating to this LFpress article, this situation is nothing new to Aboriginal people in Canadian Society–violence amongst its young or its young going to jail, leaving behind futures and children. The thing that I am most annoyed with in this article is the fact that the comments just focus on “First Nations” and fails to acknowledge that some Aboriginal people face huge disparities in comparison to other groups within Canada. Not one comment, showed concern for the 3 children left behind or showed concern for young person who chose to throw their life away.
In the end, some people might respond to this post and say, “Well, who cares? That is their fault.” No, this isn’t their fault. Some Aboriginal people lag behind in education, employment, and some even live in poverty… despite having social supports. These are the inter-generational effects of colonialism, displacement of culture, loss of identity, and most importantly the effects of the Residential School system.
I hope more people begin to understand that Aboriginal people do not have it the best in Canada, and that we don’t get everything “for free.”
Read my post titled I get everything for free! and also my post titled Tax Exemption.
I hope this post changes one individual after reading it. Not everyone. I am content with one 🙂
Smoke Signals… No Dance Scene but one of my favourite movies! (Along with the other two posts: Napolean Dynamite and 500 Days of Summer.)
Napolean Dynamit just rocks!
500 Days of Summer: love this movie, love this song!
So Chris Bentley spoke at TedxUWO this past weekend and not too long ago Phil Fontaine spoke at UWO. Both mentioned suicide amongst Aboriginal youth. I wonder when the last time they actually spoke to Aboriginal youth, one on one, and found out what they wanted? Or asked them what the youth thought? Or even asked the youth what they could do to help the youth? Or were these speeches and mentioning of Aboriginal youth and suicide rates just another adult reading numbers prepared by statscan?
Maybe Phil Fontaine may have spoken with Aboriginal youth and suicide survivors but what about Mr. Bentley?
Nevertheless, When was the last time both of them asked a youth: what is working for you (and what isn’t)? Anyone can read a report and speak about, but to reach out to the real people you talk about makes a real difference.
Just a little late night thought.
Two quotes I like from this movie:
“I meant what I said, and I said what I meant.”
&
“A person’s a person, no matter how small.”
I love Dr. Seuss, and you should too!