| Summary: | 8 TheConcordian OPINION January 16, 1998 Josh Erickson Staff Columnist Inheriting decisions of a different time Within the international community Canada has a reputation for compassion and a dedication toward peace. Canada, as an industrial power with nuclear capabilities, possesses no weapons of mass destruction and maintains only a mini-mal defensive force which is always part of a UN peacekeeping force. This reputation makes the Canadian passport the document of choice for terrorists and spies bent on committing acts of violence and espionage. Last week the Canadian government made a small but all-important first step in extending this commitment to its indige-nous population of 1.3 million by formally apol-ogizing for the racist policies over the last 150 years toward native people. "The government of Canada formally expresses to all Aboriginal people in Canada our profound regret for past actions of the federal government which have contributed to these difficult pages in the history of our relationship together." This "Statement of Reconciliation" was read by Jane Stewart, the minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, at a ceremony in Parliament. The formal apology specifically mentions human rights violations that surrounded the government's policy of assimilation via forced participation at residential schools. The program, which began in 1849 and continued until the 1950s, involved the abduction of thousands of children from their families. These children were then enrolled in schools where they received corporal, psychosocial and sometimes sexual punishment for speaking their native tongue or adhering to their culture and beliefs. "To those of you who suffered this tragedy at residential schools, we are deeply sorry." The United States, which also engaged in a similar forced schooling program and has a tradition of racist and paternalistic Indian policies, has never made any formal attempt at reconciliation. Canada's apology was made in response to a November 1996 report by the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. This report made 440 recommendations including the establishment of an aboriginal parliament, ending the Department of Indian Affairs and increasing federal spending from $4 billion to 55.4 billion annually. This apology does not meet any of the commission's recommendations and includes a modest S245 million "healing fund" for the victims of residential schools. ^ The apology received mixed responses from Canada's Indian, Inuit and Metis com-munities. A common complaint is that the statement is superficial and does not contain the comprehensive change needed for the indigenous peoples who are collectively the poorest segment of Canadians. Prime Minister Jean Chretien, a former Indian Affairs minister, was criticized for not signing the apology. Though this recent formal apology is late in coming and plagued with inadequacy, it is the all-important first step. As any student of history or sociology knows, evolution at the cultural level is an excruciatingly slow process. Many North Americans, Canadians and Americans alike, do not believe we, as a society, need to be concerned with the •see ERICKSON on page 14 Breaking what speed limit? While I was driving to visit friends and relatives over break, all of a sudden I noticed in my mirror a state patrol vehicle. "Great," I said, "Just what I need right now is a speeding ticket." You see, I can't remember the last time I was going the speed limit (or anything very close to it) under good driving conditions. Instead of pulling me over, this cop cruises right by me without a second glance. This I took as fate smil-ing upon me. Two more times that day, the same thing happened. This started me thinking. Why should I follow a rule that the enforcers deem moot? Now, I think it is a little silly that this whole article is about the speed limit. How petty can one person be? But when looking at it I see a number of questions. This, of course, begs a deeper question of authority. How can it be ethically possible for enforcers to transgress something that they will later punish? If I am to follow a law, I assume that it was passed for rational reasons. If the enforcers of the law transgress, this, in a sense, negates the reasons that the law was passed, as they are in effect, mak-ing policy. If the statutes are going to be taken seriously, all must follow, no matter what posi-tion they are in. Allowing people in positions of authority to ignore statutes and hold a special favor goes expressly against the spirit of all laws and even the documents which guide our nation. The other grievance that I hold against this situation is a need for the law in the first place. I am not saying that we should abolish the speed limit. While that would be fun for a few weeks, our streets would become extraordinarily dangerous, and, after all, even Montana has a speed limit. Perhaps we should modify the ' law to include these driving habits. :-.; If the enforcers do not see the need to police the law where it stands, :" perhaps it should be changed to $ accommodate the way it has been enforced. After all, isn't this what Montana did when they eliminated their daytime speed limit? The state • had been enforcing the law as if v:l.~" r^-;:-::;-:H;^;-^-v::^^:Vj:-;^x-i-^-- :-::^-;^S^-^-::-\^^"/^t;\-]-^";OV there was no 55/65 MPH speed limit for years, and when the opportunity came, the legislature did do just what I am propos-ing. I hear people complaining all the time about the size and the bureaucracy of our gov-ernment. This seems to me to be fueled partially by laws which are enforced sporadically and seem to have no basis. Chris Rogers rule tRat thevenfbrcers#jj| '&k.deem moot?"!PPft* E ve f/ vbod vTn u 'Wketsto n ecn Jon Ruzek Guest Columnist "But I would not feel so all alone/ within on-campus organizations by hounding these out-dated remnants of Everybody must get stoned." Concordia's past. They could not be more wrong. As a member of the counterculture during the Do they not hear of the occasional "initiations" which happen among many of < 1960s, Bob Dylan wrote these lines in defiance of our fine athletic teams? Do these not qualify as hazing? Or is it more important thatf an older generation who condemned the new societies like AES have only one active member remaining by the year 2000? Only| ways of thinking and living th&t were emerging, then will this person be able to haze himself in the privacy of his own room. | Surely, Dylan thought, if our lives are going to be My purpose is not to bash athletes. Many other groups are noteworthy for defy-J subject to ridicule and inspection, then everyone ing Concordia's alcohol policy. Over the years there have no doubt been parties^ else's behavior should be held up to the light as where underage members of the other notable committees have consumed alcohol. well. Everybody must get stoned. The same type of situation is hap-pening today at Concordia. Recently, three societies - Cobbers' watered-down version of frats and sororities - were suspended for violating the college's policies regarding alcohol and hazing. I do not claim that they are innocent of the charges. It should be a crime when a grown man spanks another grown man. Concordia's societies are vanishing year by year, thajiks in part to an administration which watches their every move in these very politically correct times. *>J jon Ruzek Moreover, let us not forget our friends in musical or theater groups. Simply, every organization out there is fair game, or at leasti; should be, according to our so-called policies. Instead, ' Student Affairs is content with picking on a small minority of students. This does not.necessarily mean there should be a uniform crackdown on all organizations. However, the a n o t h e r grOWn arbitrary nature of Student Affairs' enforcement of campus policies reeks of hypocrisy. Intentionally or not, a small group of students is getting put through the wringer for "It should be a crime when a grown man man. •;••:'::;:-:4;'-t--^-V:^.''^\ something that is more prevalent than Student Affairs is will- The way that Student Affairs attacks societies with such vigor is almost comical, ing to acknowledge. The college should put more of its creed in its deed. They must be so proud that they are seemingly preventing drinking and hazing Everybody must get stoned.
|
|---|