Categories for Feature

Is there an Indigenous vote, and will they vote for Justin Trudeau?

It’s not an unimportant question.

With Justin Trudeau leading only a minority government — and with two dozen Liberal MPs having won in 2019 with only a few hundred votes — small constituencies can determine many political fates.

Except the Indigenous population, and the Indigenous vote, aren’t all that small.

Five per cent of Canada’s population identify as Indigenous — close to two million people. First Nation, Inuit and Metis voters, age 18 and up, make up potentially a million voters.

That’s a lot of votes.

In the right places, that many votes can determine the outcome of the next election, expected later this year.

Not as many Indigenous people vote — certainly not as many as are entitled to.

As an Elections Canada study put it: “A significant number of Aboriginal [sic] people, as individuals and communities, still regard participation in non-Aboriginal elections or plebiscites as a threat to their unique rights, their autonomy and their goals of self-governance. Such persons hold a philosophical belief about the legitimacy of Aboriginal self-governance that differs fundamentally from that of the Canadian government.”

That’s one reason they don’t vote as much as they could, or should. Another reason: broken promises.

Justin Trudeau has broken many of the solemn promises he’s made to Indigenous people.

In his 2015 election platform, he promised to get clean water to Indigenous communities, and end the so-called boil water advisories.

He hasn’t done that. At all.

He promised to make their lives safer and better.

But, at places like Grassy Narrows, mercury still poisons the environment and the people who live there.

And when a diminutive woman protested that fact at an exclusive Liberal Party fundraiser, Trudeau had her ejected — and sneered: “Thanks for your donation.”

He promised to reconcile — in effect, build a more respectful relationship — with First Nations.

But he’s spent millions on lawyers to overturn a human rights award won by Indigenous children.

Seriously, he’s doing that.

So, considering Justin Trudeau’s abject failure to reconcile with Indigenous people, and improve their lives, are they going to vote for him again?

They did in 2015: 40% voted Liberal then. However, after Trudeau politically mauled Jody Wilson Raybould in the SNC-Lavalin scandal, and exiled her from his party, that number plummeted to just 21 per cent in 2019.

So the Indigenous vote is not a monolith. They are not partisan sheep.

While they tend to vote Liberal more, there are plenty of Conservative and New Democrat indigenous voters.

Every party has had Members of Parliament drawn from indigenous communities, too.

Full disclosure: my firm has represented First Nation, Metis and Inuit groups for years, from coast to coast. I have learned, along the way, they are like any other constituency: they vote in their self-interest, as determined by economic, social and cultural realities.

So is voting for Justin Trudeau in their self interest? Indigenous people are best qualified to answer that important political question, and they will.

This writer suspects that the recent discovery of hundreds of bodies of Indigenous children and babies looms large in their thinking, just as it does for the rest of us.

Indigenous people know that the inaptly-named “residential schools” operated for decades mostly under Liberal governments.

They also know that, while the Liberal Party of Canada may talk a good game, the fundamentals haven’t really changed.

On the very day the more than 700 tiny Indigenous bodies were discovered in unmarked graves in Saskatchewan, Justin Trudeau shrugged.

He dismissed calls to fire his incompetent and tin-eared cabinet colleague, Carolyn Bennett, who had smeared Wilson Raybould, suggesting that the respected Indigenous leader was more concerned about money than her own people.

The Indigenous vote matters. It votes. Will it go with Justin Trudeau a third time?

Well, if results matter — and they do — they shouldn’t.

— Warren Kinsella was Jean Chretien’s special assistant

Comments (24)

Comments (8)

Nobody knows a lot about Martin Niemöller, probably, but they certainly know about the Lutheran pastor’s most famous statement.

You know it, too.

“First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out — because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out — because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out — because I was not a Jew.

“Then they came for me — and there was no one left to speak for me.”

Niemöller’s truism goes back to 1946, and was about the cowardice of German clergy and academics as the conflagration of the Holocaust grew and grew, consuming millions of innocent lives.

But his words have been applied to many other injustices in the intervening years.

Because there have been too many other instances of repression and bigotry.

One such case of repression and bigotry is underway, right now, right here, in the province of Quebec.

In Quebec, two pieces of legislation have been conjured up by that province’s crypto-separatist regime, like a witches’ unholy spell.

One, Bill 21, targets what minorities wear.

The other, Bill 96, targets the language that minorities speak.

They’re like demonic twins, Bill 21 and Bill 96 are.

Using the bland Kafkaesque prose of government apparatchiks, the first one expresses hatred for Muslim women, mainly, and tells them what they can wear.

Using the same sort of bloodless idiom, the second one expresses hatred for English-speaking people.

It’s no surprise that Quebec’s intolerant government disgorged these two bills during the pandemic, when they knew the majority would be distracted by its own problems.

What is a surprise is that the son of Pierre Trudeau — and the leader of the party once led by the likes of Jean Chretien and Mike Pearson — would go along with Quebec’s evisceration of human rights in Canada.

Quoting the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to Quebeckers is a bit of a waste of time.

But their own Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms — which actually predates Canada’s, by almost a decade — is very important in Quebec. It’s a matter of pride.

And those two bills, 21 and 96, violate the Quebec Charter in 38 separate ways.

This week, this writer had the great honour of being on a panel with Clifford Lincoln, a former Quebec MNA and a fierce fighter for Canada.

No longer as young as he used to be, the intensity of Lincoln’s passion for human rights — and Canada — were undimmed.

Speaking to the Quebec Community Groups Network conference, Lincoln noted that no less than Nelson Mandela said that the majority always owe a debt to the minority. And that the strong owe a debt to those who are not as strong.

Where, then, are those who would defend minorities in Quebec? Where are the rest of us? Why are not more Canadians speaking up?

There is plenty of reason to do so. Bill 96 actually gives the French language police the power to seize and break into people’s personal phones – to see if they are speaking enough French. And Bill 21 actually goes after Muslim women who wear a simple veil – or Jews who wear a Star of David – when they work in government.

It is not an exaggeration to say that Canada is being unravelled, quietly, right now in the province of Quebec.

Our “leaders” in Ottawa are silent. They’re eunuchs.

But where are the rest of us? Why aren’t other Canadians also raising their voices in protest?

Because history shows one unvarnished truth:

When they come for me, they may someday also come for thee.

— Warren Kinsella was special assistant to Jean Chretien.

Comments (32)

Comments (1)

The job of the media is to come down from the hills to shoot the politically wounded.

So, let’s put a few rounds in the carcass of the Green Party, shall we?

Let’s start by telling a tale. But full disclosure first: My political consulting firm has acted for every single federal political party. All of them.

(One exception: We haven’t represented the political party led by Maxime Bernier, who was last seen wearing handcuffs in the backseat of an RCMP cruiser, arrested for violating Manitoba public health laws.)

But we’ve worked for everyone else. The Green Party included.

I first met with Elizabeth May, then the Green leader, in Ottawa in the summer of 2019. Some of her senior staff were there, too. We talked about my firm running the Green Party war room in the election.

May eyed me warily. “You make me a bit nervous,” she said.

Recalling that unfortunate time in 2015 when May appeared at a press gallery dinner (see photo above), I replied: “Likewise.”

Anyway, we agreed my firm would be hired. I warned her that, when that news leaked out — because everything leaks in Ottawa, eventually — it would attract controversy. She assured me that she could handle it.

She couldn’t.

Fast-forward to July 2019. May is at a pre-election rally in Guelph, and someone stands up to ask her a question about me. The questioner is distressed. She says I’m nasty (guilty) and she’s upset (good). In front of several hundred people, May insists she said this to me: “What you did in politics previously was despicable, and he said, ‘Yeah.’”

This wasn’t just false. It was a whopping whopper. It was fabulist fiction. It was a bald-faced lie.

She didn’t say that. I didn’t say that.

I fired off an email to all of the senior Green staff who had been at the same meeting, gently reminding them I am a lawyer, and that I planned to publicly repudiate May unless she did so herself, govern yourself accordingly, etc.

May issued a grovelling tweet hours later, in which she whimpered that “some past campaigns had been despicable — not Warren.”

Long story short: A couple of my staff dealt with the Greens thereafter, but not me. I’m old enough to know a clown show when I see it.

Fast forward to 2021, now. The Green Party has an impressive new leader who happens to be (a) female, (b) Black, (c) Jewish, and (d) not Elizabeth May. I note this only because I think (b), (c) and (d) are relevant.

Hamas starts firing rockets into Israel, and Israel properly acts in self-defence. The rest of the planet descends into paroxysms of “anti-Zionism” (read: Anti-Semitism). The Green Party joins in.

One of their MPs, a non-entity from New Brunswick, tweets that Israel is a state that practices “apartheid.” Last time I checked, “apartheid” is the whites-only system of laws promulgated by South Africa. Israel, meanwhile, has two million Arab citizens, some of whom are members of the national Knesset legislature, the civil service, the judiciary, and the army.

If that’s apartheid, it doesn’t sound like it’s very effective apartheid.

Anyway. The new Green leader — who is, as noted, Jewish and Black — declines to agree with the “apartheid” blood libel. The MP non-entity thereupon defects to the Trudeau Liberals, who the MP says share her “apartheid” defamation. Senior Greenies start demanding the new leader be fired for being moderate.

Elizabeth May, still regrettably an MP, is heard from. She chastises her successor, and says she wants the anti-Israel defector back.

Had enough? Me too. And I don’t think, anymore, that we need to come down from the hills and shoot the wounded Green Party people.

They’re pretty good at shooting themselves.

— Warren Kinsella was special assistant to Jean Chretien

Comments (37)

So, our motion to dismiss the lawsuit launched against us by Maxime Bernier – seen above, in handcuffs and in police custody a few days ago – is being heard in court on Friday. I’m sure it is a complete and total and absolute coincidence, but someone has given two-year-old documents about the case to Bill Curry at the Globe and Mail. Bill has taken the bait, apparently.

So Bill has an invoice, and what looks like a proposal that was never acted upon. He also had some questions for me. Here are the answers I gave him, to ensure total accuracy and transparency:

“1. The document you have is not signed by me. It is not a contract.

2. The document you have does not in any way describe what we did. We researched racism and published our research on social media.

3. We don’t discuss client relationships when the client insists on confidentiality. But we are proud to oppose racism and bigotry, and will never apologize for doing so. The client, here, deserves credit for opposing racism and bigotry as well.

4. All of this was covered extensively by you and other media two years ago. All of it. There is nothing new here, in my opinion.”

In a separate email, I also told him this:

“The client was a lawyer, and that is who the invoice is addressed to. Who he gets to pay his bills, and from which address, is determined by him, not us.

When they paid is also up to them, as long as it is done within a reasonable time frame. But we always insist we get paid for good work, and we frankly did very good work here.

Again, all of this was investigated and verified by the Elections Commissioner two years ago. I strongly urge the Globe to speak to them before publishing a story based on two-year-old documents that bear no relation whatsoever to the work that was actually done.”

I’ve urged Bill to contact the Elections Commissioner, because they investigated Bernier’s complaint about us and quickly dismissed it. They can verify everything I’ve told Bill. I don’t know if he plans to do that, so I’m sharing all of this with you guys.

Slow news day, I guess.

Comments (2)

Comments (1)

Right off the top, let’s all agree not to use his name. The alleged killer of the Muslim family in London, that is. With some crimes, that’s what the criminals so often want: to be named, to be remembered.  So let’s deny the killer that. But, as we try and find a motive for a crime as senseless, as evil, as this one, let’s also agree on this: there can be more than one motive. There can be more than one reason. The killer wanted notoriety, to be sure.  But what else could possibly be his motive, for a crime this horrifying, this cruel? We don’t know for certain yet. Bits and pieces are coming out, as they always do, in newspapers and on social media. Shocked neighbours are interviewed. Disbelieving former teachers, too. Family members are typically sought out for comment, but they often don’t know what to say. Understandably. But whatever we learn about the killer, and the killer’s motive, one thing is certain: he belongs to a certain demographic.  It’s one this writer has been paying attention to for three decades, because their ranks have been growing. Going back to my book Web of Hate in 1994, I started to notice a certain type of criminal thug committing a certain type of crime. And their ideology didn’t matter so much as their psychology. They’re not terrorists, often. Despite what Justin Trudeau claims, they’re not motivated by some political or ideological purpose. They’re just criminal thugs, and they hate other people. Often: • they’re male • they’re young (teens to early thirties) • they’re unsuccessful (at love or life) • they’re unemployed (often after post-secondary study) • they’re angry (at everything and everyone) • they’re alienated from family (who often have lost contact) • they’re involved in petty crime From skinheads to incels, these young men become incandescent balls of rage. They are looking for a replacement family, a new beliefs system, a sense of belonging, a higher calling, a culture that rejects the popular culture, a new religion, maybe even a uniform to wear. And along come manipulative older men, practiced in deception, who give them all those things. The old men give the young men a manifesto of hate. Now, desperate young men do desperate things, as we are now seeing – in London, Ont., in Quebec City, on Parliament Hill, on Yonge Street in Toronto. But these crimes are happening much more frequently, it seems, and with much more ferocity. Why? Well, social media doesn’t help.  It’s a cauldron of hate, too often, where hatreds flourish like dark weeds. Video games and popular culture, too: they nurture the notion that violence is a legitimate way of expressing oneself. But all of these young men share certain characteristics.  Despite the differing races and politics, they share motive. Why? Because they feel rejected by the mainstream. Because they feel they do not belong. Because they are shunned. So they leave civil society, and embrace a decidedly uncivil one. These young men turn to anti-democratic action precisely when they feel democracy has turned on them. Using violence to achieve political change is terrorism. But, Trudeau’s claims notwithstanding, the terrible events in London simply may not be terrorism. They truly seem what they they most often are: an angry, directionless young man, suffused with hate, who tries to destroy what he fears. Which, in this case, were some strangers who had what he did not – family, faith, love and a belief in humanity. [Kinsella is the author of several books on organized racism, anti-Semitism and extremism.]

Comments (5)

From the Picton Gazette:

“The ‘Holding Court’ statue of Sir John A Macdonald was removed from Picton’s Main Street Tuesday morning and will be placed in storage while municipal staff determine next steps for the sculpture’s location.

…During the four-and-a-half hour special council meeting Monday, 38 people provided comments on the issue, with only three speaking in favour of keeping the statue in its current space.

The municipality’s procedural bylaw that allows no more than 30 minutes of public comment was waived at the onset of the virtual meeting Monday night to allow for all pre-registered residents to speak.

The special meeting was held in light of last week’s discovery of the mass unmarked grave of 215 children at the former Kamloops Indian Residential School. Its intent was to discuss public safety and contractual obligations for the sculpture…

…Noted national political strategist and PEC resident Warren Kinsella told council his daughter is Indigenous and they reside in the home where Sir John A collected his mail when he was a young lawyer in Picton.

He said debates like this have been raging for quite some time and will continue.

“Opponents say correctly, in my view, that such monuments are painful reminders of violence and genocide and they argue that we should not ever celebrate hatred and I agree with that,” he said.

“Such monuments rewrite history, hide the truth, and celebrate a fictional, sanitized past and ignore the misery that men like this created. We now know that Sir John A Macdonald did create misery and he is not a man who we should be celebrating in this community or in this country. If you disagree, I would ask you to put yourself in the shoes of my daughter.”

He said statues of men like Sir John A Macdonald, as lifeless as they are, still hurt the living.

Coun. Andreas Bolik questioned whether council should rename the town of Picton as it is named after Sir Thomas Picton, who kept slaves. 

Kinsella said [people have enough] critical faculties to work on these kinds of changes and that though he was unaware of that fact, it should be done.

“It is an ongoing effort. It is not nearly enough to say, ‘We can’t do anything about it because there’s too much of it.’ We need as a people, collectively, to deal with this issue because it is an issue that is not only important to Indigenous people like my daughter, it is important to all.”

Comments (6)

Comments (2)