"...even the unmentionables."

“A caribou herd in decline - a way of life in jeopardy. Natives’ fight for right to hunt mysteriously disappearing species threatens to undermine an entire government.”

So read the headline in the May 5, 2010 edition of the GLOBE AND MAIL, written by a Patrick White.

As an Inuvialuit (Inuit) of Tuktoyaktuk in Canada’s western arctic, I grew up on a diet heavy with “country foods” including the caribou. Back then, conservation was not an issue as my Father harvested as many as he could. One of my many cousins once said, “we have the best food in the world.” Like Bertha Mackenzie of the Yellowknives Dene First Nation said in that article and referring to a freezer full of dead caribou, “Oh sure we use the heads. We use everything. Even the unmentionables.” Meaning, of course, when the caribou are harvested, nothing is wasted. Now, according to the government, the caribou are “declining at a unknown rate and for unknown reasons.”

So, what is worth mentioning?

There are always two sides to a coin; perhaps on this issue they are conservation versus consumption. Perhaps it can be regulations versus treaty rights? In any case, both sides will come to a head on May 18, 2010. Based on the perceived low numbers of caribou, the Northwest Territories government had imposed a ban throughout the range of the Bathurst caribou around Great Slave Lake where the Yellowknives Dene First Nation occupy. Challenging that ban, apparently, Jonas Sangris, a former chief and hunter of the Yellowknives Dene First Nation will “appear at a Supreme Court hearing on May 18 where his lawyer will argue that he has a treaty right to hunt and fish and suggest the ban may be a government ploy to assert powers it is slowly losing to First Nations governments.” I, and others, will be following the ruling with great interest from the Supreme Court.

So, what else is worth mentioning?

It is well known that First Nations have Aboriginal and/or Treaty rights to hunt and fish and the Crown (government) has the duty to consult especially when and if those rights may be impacted by resource development or for some other reason. My gist on this is Jonas Sangris and all natives will win. Standby on May 18.

After all, if I was back home in Tuktoyaktuk and the caribou were nearby, I would be awfully tempted to fill my freezer with caribou and enjoy the meat…even the unmentionables.”

Tiger Buddism....Tiger Bootyism?

While most seem to welcome the return of Tiger Woods to the PGA, there is still some who feel skepticism on his self imposed "rehabilitation." I'm sure most have seen the banner on TV that was flown above the grounds while he was still playing his first round of golf yesterday. Check it out.

Of course, this was in reference to his return to the ethics of Buddism.

It is regarded that all addicts lie and deceive people. Everyone including most media in the highly controlled event of the Masters have given him the benefit of the doubt; fair enough.

The real test will be when he will inevitably fall into temptation when he begins to travel and book into those first-class hotels and resorts. Most say that it is not good for a man to be alone. Will he practise his Buddism or resort back to Bootyism.

Silent Pope, defiant Vatican spark Easter outrage

So read the headline published in the GLOBE AND MAIL, Monday, April 5, 2010 written by Doug Saunders.

As a Survivor of Canada’s former Indian Residential School (IRS) system namely 13 years in Grollier Hall, a Catholic-run residence for students of the Western Arctic in Inuvik, NT, the Catholic Church never has and will not be near to my heart; in fact, it is virtually non-existent. While there were some positive experiences such as meeting other Aboriginal kids, competing in various sports, and learning my ABCs, it was the “church” experience that I was appalled with and continues today with a legacy of memories all too negative.

The word in the headline, “defiant” can describe part of my thoughts on the Catholic Church and all it represents. While that word and ‘silent” relate to how the current Pope Benedict and his sub-ordinates have handled all the reports of sex abuses recently even to the point of regarding it as “petty gossip”, it’s incredible how the Catholic church remains to exist. Especially when, according to my experience, it offers absolutely no spiritual enlightenment. Instead, the church has a fundamental flaw, instilling guilt within members. And, I guess, that what keeps members going back.

I'm fortunate enough to finally understand after many years in leaving the Church,...I'm not the guilty one.

My defiance with the Catholic Church comes through experience. As said above, 13 years of a regimented lifestyle run by hypocritical Nuns and Priests; non-loving beings full of hatred towards us exemplified by physical and sexual abuses. Furthermore, not once did they enlightened me to the need for an understanding of rituals, prayers, rosaries, kneeling, standing, sitting, genuflections, etc. Their attitude, instead, was, “you do this or you do that or ELSE!”

The physical and sexual abuses of the Catholic Church will always continue. Its doctrine and structure demands it.

For us in Canada, we Aboriginal people are thankful for the apology of Prime Minister Harper in June, 2008 in regards to the government’s former IRS. Since 1999, the Aboriginal Healing Foundation has allocated over 400 million dollars to Aboriginal communities across Canada to address the healing needs of the legacy of the abuses and now, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission is about to embark on a public process regarding the IRS.

The Canadian public will know through the stories of all involved that all the abuses are not simply “petty gossip.”

To Booze or not to Booze, To Drink or not to Drink?

Those are the questions but what is the answer? The headline in Wednesday’s, March 24, 2010 edition of the GLOBE AND MAIL did read, “ Meeting on booze ban marked by arrests as hundreds turn out. Residents of Natuashish to vote Friday on whether to overturn alcohol restriction in divided Innu community” written by Oliver Moore.

As noted in the article, the members of the community are to vote on the current resolution to ban alcohol from the community that was voted on and imposed on in 2002 subsequent to a number of social problems. Now, the current Chief, Simeon Tshakapesh, wants to revise the ban.

Perhaps a more appropriate question could read, “To be or not to be?” Like the questions above, these phrases imply an element of choice; after all, humans have a volitional mind. The social problems of the Natuashish are not atypical of Aboriginal communities across Canada where, I believe, the abuse of alcohol does and always will play a part in social problems: ban or no ban. In my experience living in a number of Aboriginal communities, the challenge with alcohol consumption always comes down to a choice of just one or two drinks only or getting drunk. Unfortunately, the latter is usually practiced and leads to “social problems” as alluded to in the article. Again, not atypical. According to community members, the ban has had measured success in less crime and increased attendance at school. Still, bootlegging exists. Again, not atypical. As much as Aboriginal communities are considered remote such as Natuashish, people will find a way to indulge in alcohol.

Revising the ban as proposed by the new Chief has divided the community as witnessed in their public meeting. The community members will always have a choice “to be or not to be” including Agathe Rich who tragically lost her children in a fire after drinking with her husband. Unfortunately then, she had chosen to be drunk and suffered the consequences. She has sinced become sober and has chosen not to be.

Let’s see how the community votes on Friday, March 26^th.  You can bet that some members will attend the meeting after consuming a few drinks.

Brian McKeever and Cross Country Canada

The headline for Allan Maki’s story dated, March 06, 2010 of the GLOBE AND MAIL read, “McKeever’s exclusion triggers hostility against Cross Country Canada (CCC).”

Anyone can question the hostility and, I think, it is warranted. Leading up to the 2010 Winter Olympics and especially the 50km men’s race, the public, including me, was led to believe Brian was to compete and make history in being the first athlete to compete at the Olympic and Paralympic Games. After all, Brian did win the 50km Olympic Trial race held in Canmore, AB in December, 2009. The other Canadian athletes who did win the Olympic Trial races were Dasha Gaiazova, Gordon Jewett, Madeleine Williams, Drew Goldsack, and Stefan Kuhn. These athletes expected to race and did so and realized their respective dream. Kudos to Devon Kershaw who had given up his spot to allow Gordon Jewett to race the freestyle 15km race earlier in the week.

The marketing of Brian’s achievement and impending participation included his profile and the TV commercial sponsored by VISA narrated by the well-known actor Morgan Freeman. That was a moving story that led us to believe Brian was about to make history. Included in the VISA ads was the story of Sara Renner, another story about an accomplished athlete about to retire and give it one last chance to stand upon the podium. While Sara’s commercial still can be viewed on YouTube, Brian’s ad has mysteriously disappeared. In fact, CCC still has the link on their website (cccski.com) pointing to Brian’s ad but it will get you nowhere.

In terms of what transpired towards CCC’s decision to omit Brian, Jim McCarthy, President of CCC, had said, “We’re definitely looking at what’s happened inside. I’ve been reviewing it with Davin [McIntosh, CCC’s new executive director]. At times, I’ve questioned myself.” Dave Wood, CCC Team Leader conveyed on TV that the exclusion of Brian for the 50km was a “no brainer.” That “no brainer” to regard Brian as a spare fifth man should have been conveyed to the public and also to VISA at the very beginning when Brian qualified for the Olympics.

Regarding a review, skeptics will question why is CCC conducting a review within themselves; much like the RCMP conducting a review within themselves with no repercussions. Nevertheless, hopefully the review will have some one or persons accountable to the decision to omit Brian. Seems someone or persons in the High Performance level of CCC made up some rule very convenient to try and make him or themselves look good.  Instead, as said in the article, “The hate mail has spared no one.”  I guess, for a lot of people across the country, the dismal image of CCC continues.

Indigenous?...therefore Invisible?

Where have all the Aboriginals gone? VANOC, the 2010 Olympic committee, has boasted the presence of Aboriginal content; mainly the games taking part within the territories of the four First Nations. True, the misinterpreted Inukshuk logo is there, dancers and performers were there at the opening ceremonies, the design of the medals are of a West Coast flavor, yet, Aboriginal people remain in the background or almost invisible. Name me one Aboriginal sports caster, Aboriginal host, Aboriginal commentator….and name me one Aboriginal athlete! There were four people who lit the Olympic flame; not one of them was Aboriginal. Canada boasts about being "Inclusive." I guess if you're Indigenous, you're Invisible.

Olympic Torch...Aboriginal Scorched

Just read the article, “It’s always about money: VANOC and the aboriginal torch relay” published in the Jan.14, 2010 edition of the GLOBE AND MAIL.

It’s commendable that VANOC has gone into the far reaches of Canada and included a number of remote Aboriginal communities to share the flame and that they (Aboriginals) would be full partners from the beginning and VANOC would “make sure that Aboriginals got Games-related jobs and positions on Olympic-related committees and boards.” Apparently, this is “just a fraction of the efforts VANOC was making to ensure that Canada’s aboriginal communities didn’t feel left out.”

Feeling left out!!

Yes, VANOC has adopted the inukshuk as its Olympic symbol which is very much misinterpreted but that’s another story. The real question that should be asked is where are the Aboriginal athletes who are going to the Olympics? The GLOBE AND MAIL showcases Olympic athletes on a daily/weekly basis but Canada’s Aboriginal People are no where to be seen. Talk about feeling left out. Apparently, ensuring a number of Aboriginal athletes competing at the 2010 Games was not “interwoven into virtually every discussion” from the beginning. Apparently too, Aboriginal participation and especially funding to athletes is to be left to the legacy of the 2010 Games. What about now or, better yet, what about six/seven years ago when it was announced that the Vancouver/Whistler bid was awarded the Games. According to what has transpired since, VANOC and any other sport organizations has “left out” the need for Aboriginal participation. Kudos to those immigrants who, within a year or two of becoming “Canadians” qualifed and now represent Canada at the 2010 Olympics.

In my experience in sport, Aboriginal people do not lack ability but lack the opportunity. I guess VANOC and all other sport organizations choose to ensure Aboriginal people remain marginalized. “Maybe that’s the story native leaders should be talking about at the Olympics.”