Media.Knet.Ca

Two opinion articles published in the Toronto Star and the Globe and Mail highlight the importance of addressing First Nation land claims in an effective and concrete manner to avoid further civil disobedience. National Chief Phil Fontaine's opinion article challenges the current government to take these claims seriously.

Opinion 1: From Toronto Star at http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_PrintFriendly&c=Article&cid=1149285032859&call_pageid=968256290204

Coverage can shape conflicts - Jun. 3, 2006

"Media coverage plays a key role in determining how events are dealt with in a democratic society," writes John Miller in his report about daily newspaper coverage of the 1995 Ipperwash crisis. "Accurate, comprehensive coverage can promote understanding and resolution, just as inaccurate, incomplete and myopic coverage can exacerbate stereotypes and prolong confrontations." Miller is a former deputy managing editor of the Star and a journalism professor at Ryerson University. He wrote this column at the invitation of the Public Editor.

Reporters covering the three-month confrontation in Caledonia have faced at least two difficult challenges — sorting out the facts about a complicated, 200-year-old land claims dispute, and reporting responsibly on several outbursts of stunning, modern-day racism.

Both require paying close attention to context, which is not always a strong point with the news media. Luckily, we seem to have been reasonably well served so far.

I've been watching the coverage unfold with a certain trepidation because of what I found last fall when Aboriginal Legal Services of Toronto commissioned me to do a major study, paid for by the Ipperwash Inquiry, of newspaper coverage of the 1995 First Nations confrontation in which Dudley George died.

We know now, thanks to testimony before the inquiry, that the OPP was wrong about many key facts, saying the people occupying Ipperwash Provincial Park were armed (they weren't), that they fired the first shot (they didn't) and there was no First Nations burial site there (there is).

Yet my analysis of 496 news and opinion articles, published in 19 daily newspapers over a two-month period — the month before and after the shooting — showed how badly reporters and editors got it wrong: They failed at their most basic task — to find out what happened on the night of Sept. 6, 1995, when George was shot and they weren't there.

The context of the dispute was forgotten. Ipperwash became less and less a story about a 50-year-old land dispute, and more and more about First Nations "rebel" troublemakers clashing with police.

Reporters relied heavily on interviews with "official" sources — police, outside First Nations leaders and politicians. Very little news coverage was told from the perspective of those occupying the park.

"Warriors" were reported to be in the park, but no reporter ever talked to one or provided reliable evidence they were there.

The police version — that the natives were armed and fired first — was almost always given prominence in news stories, over denials from the other side.

Editorials and columns were mostly unsympathetic to the occupiers. Many fit "frames" associated with racist dialogue — that a Canada-wide Indian revolution was about to break out (moral panic); that authorities are lenient to First Nations lawbreakers (double standard); that mainstream Canadian society is under assault (white victimization).

Calls for an inquiry into the disputed events at Ipperwash were not pursued by the newspapers. The actions of the police and the government of Mike Harris did not come under serious examination until years later, when Peter Edwards, a reporter with the Star, wrote his book One Dead Indian, a reconstruction of events that was published in 2001.

My report concluded that "the news coverage frequently strayed from what are commonly understood to be the core principles of journalism (first obligation to the truth, the discipline of verification, an independent monitor of power)."

Did this contribute to the 10-year delay in calling an inquiry? I think so.

Fast forward to Caledonia.

There have been a few dramatic photos taken of self-styled "warriors" (instead of the Clan Mothers who actually organized the occupation). And there have been a few columns based on inaccurate stereotyping.

But there has also been plenty of good, solid reporting, mainly from the nearest local daily, the Hamilton Spectator.

We learned what happened when police moved in. We understood why people on both sides of the barricades were there. And, when the barricades came down, we knew that it was the work of courageous townspeople, native and non-native, rather than posturing politicians.

When Caledonia's mayor uttered racist remarks on air, reporters were quick to find statements of denunciation from fellow councillors.

Perhaps now someone will go after the really big story — why the federal government seems to have bungled decades of land claims disputes and allowed events like Caledonia to happen.

+++++++++++++

Opinion 2: From Globe and Mail OPINIONS at http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060530.wwebcom0531/BNStory/specialComment/home

Web-exclusive comment by PHIL FONTAINE - POSTED May 31/06

It is interesting to hear statements by the media and general public that “the law must prevail” in Caledonia, the point being that First Nations citizens are being treated differently than would non-aboriginal protesters.

Let us first acknowledge that First Nations are often treated differently under Canadian law. Canadian law denied us the right to vote until 1960. Canadian law forcibly displaced our traditional governments and laws. Canadian law forbade us from hiring legal counsel to address, for example, improper land transactions and sharp dealings by the Crown that led to situations like that in Caledonia.

Yet, we agree that the law must prevail. But the real legal issue here is not civil disobedience but the legitimate land claims of First Nations.

Land claims are legal matters, lawful obligations. They are not discretionary spending. They are not ancient disputes to be dismissed at the whim of the state.

Unfortunately, the current claims process is painfully slow and inherently unjust. The Auditor-General recently pointed out the obvious: Canada is in a clear conflict of interest in adjudicating claims against itself.

Under the current system, Canada acts as judge, jury and, too often, executioner. Canada decides what is and is not a valid claim. Canada decides what is on the table for negotiations and then negotiates the claim against itself. Canada places the full weight of the Department of Justice against the First Nations.

The result of this inherent bias is a claims process that is agonizingly slow. It takes an average of 10 years for a single specific claim to make its way through the system. Now consider that there are at least 1,100 specific claims before Canada. About 300 of these have been validated, which means they can begin their long, slow march through the system.

Comprehensive land claims are different and, generally, more complex.

Basically, they relate to lands where there was never a treaty or agreement between First Nations and the government. They require more time and research. The recent Auditor-General's report says it takes, on average, 29 years to resolve a comprehensive claim.

Canada's approach to claims is a national failure and an international disgrace. We need a better process to resolve these claims, one that is more effective, fair and efficient.

Fortunately, much of the work on a better process is already complete.

In 1998, a Joint AFN-Federal Task Force on Claims issued a report with recommendations to create a better process, one that is truly independent, faster and more cost-effective. It had the support of First Nations and federal representatives. All that is needed is the political will to institute this process.

The alternative is more frustration, more anger and more conflict. I am being very careful here because this is not a threat, it is a reality.

The unfortunate lesson our people learn from Oka, Ipperwash and Caledonia is that drastic measures get government attention and action.

If the “rule of law” means delay and denial, why would our young people - desperately seeking a better future - listen to those who counsel patience and obedience?

It is in all our interests to establish a new way to resolve claims. Doing so will provide First Nations a solid foundation to build our economies and improve our quality of life, provide government and industry the certainty they need to get on with their business, and provide a climate of hope and optimism for all Canadians.

The law must prevail in Caledonia and across Canada, and that means dealing with the legitimate, lawful claims of First Nations in a manner that is fair and just.