little girl was killed. have we forgotten?

 😪💐a little girl was killed. 

have we forgotten? 

road safety, responsibility and the attitudes that need to change

Sometimes a news story comes around again, and I wonder how many people remember what happened in the first place.

On July 6, 2021, 23-month-old Ocean Oshi Noelle was killed in downtown Vancouver when an SUV struck another vehicle after its driver went through a red light at Smithe and Hornby streets. The SUV overturned onto the sidewalk, killing Ocean and seriously injuring her father.

She was somebody's baby.

She was somebody's whole world.

And while the rest of us go about our daily lives, I wonder how often her mother thinks about that day. Probably every single day.

I cannot imagine the grief of losing a child in circumstances like these. There is no going back to normal. There is no replacing her. There are birthdays, milestones, ordinary mornings and a lifetime of memories that will never happen.

And yet, eventually, the news moves on.

But families don't.

a new trial and another opportunity for accountability

On October 30, 2026, the Supreme Court of Canada overturned the decisions that had upheld the driver's acquittal on dangerous driving charges.

The original trial judge had described the driver's actions as a momentary lapse in attention.

However, the Supreme Court ruled that the circumstances needed to be considered as a whole, including the busy downtown intersection and the fact that the traffic light had already been red for some time.

The case has been sent back for a new trial.

This is not a conviction. The driver is entitled to a fair trial, and the legal process must take its course.

But the decision matters. It means the circumstances surrounding Ocean's death must be examined again.

And I hope we don't forget why this matters.

my own experience behind the wheel

I want to explain something about driving, because I have some experience.

I drove for 12 years, through all kinds of weather and road conditions in the Fraser Valley, the Kootenays, Kelowna and Vancouver.

I was a good driver. I never had an accident.

When I moved into the city, I continued driving for another couple of years, from 1993 to 1995, while attending college.

But city driving was a different experience.

People seemed impatient. There was pressure to rush through yellow lights, squeeze through intersections and get wherever they were going as quickly as possible.

I remember thinking that a yellow light was there to warn you to slow down and prepare to stop, not to challenge you to get through before it turned red.

There were no countdown timers at intersections then.

When red-light cameras arrived, I was worried about getting a ticket. I had very little money and considerable debt. Another ticket was something I genuinely couldn't afford.

I did get one ticket during my driving years. It wasn't my fault, but I didn't fight it.

Something else happened that stayed with me.

A friend from college was beaten up in a road-rage incident while driving home. He was a genuinely nice person, a ginger, and certainly not someone looking for trouble.

Imagine being attacked simply because someone else couldn't control their temper on the road.

Eventually, I gave up my licence more than 25 years ago.

Not because I couldn't drive.

I didn't feel safe around other drivers anymore. I also became increasingly uncomfortable with the environmental impact of driving. I felt like I was contributing to pollution when I could use public transportation, walk or cycle.

Sometimes being responsible means recognizing your own limits. But it also means recognizing that a vehicle is a potentially deadly machine.

You are responsible for what happens when you operate it.

what happened to consideration for other people?

I have travelled and lived in different places, and I have been told that in some countries pedestrians have to be particularly careful because drivers don't necessarily give them the consideration they expect.

You can take your life into your own hands crossing certain roads.

But this is Canada. We should be working toward streets where pedestrians are protected and drivers understand their responsibilities.

And this isn't about where someone was born, what language they speak or what colour their skin is.

It is about shared expectations.

I had an uncomfortable experience on a bus recently. A woman sitting nearby coughed without covering her mouth. I mentioned that there was a lot of flu going around. She shrugged and said it wasn't intentional.

I felt uncomfortable with her reaction, particularly when I felt she was looking at me with hostility. I even reconsidered whether I should have taken the seat in front of her.

I cannot know what she was thinking, and I don't want to make assumptions about her because of her background.

But it made me think about something larger.

We seem to have difficulty discussing basic courtesy without people immediately becoming defensive.

Cover your mouth when you cough. Give pedestrians room. Don't intimidate other drivers. Respect personal space. Be considerate of people around you.

These aren't cultural or racial expectations. They're human expectations.

We need to be able to talk about behaviour, double standards and respect without turning every conversation into an argument about identity.

The same standards should apply to everyone.

ten hard questions we should be asking

I don't want these questions to be comfortable. I want people to actually think about them.

1. If this were your child, would you ever stop thinking about it? If Ocean were your little girl, would you be satisfied with a news cycle that eventually moved on? What would you want from the justice system, the city and the community?

2. Why did this happen in the first place? What circumstances led to a driver going through a red light at a busy downtown intersection? What do we know, what remains to be established at trial, and what could have prevented this collision?

3. Why do some drivers treat yellow lights like a race? Why is getting somewhere a few seconds faster more important than stopping safely and protecting someone crossing the street?

4. Are we teaching people that driving is a serious responsibility? Or are we treating a driver's licence as simply another piece of identification, without enough emphasis on the lives that depend on responsible driving?

5. What responsibility do driving instructors and licensing authorities have? Are we teaching patience, pedestrian awareness, defensive driving and emotional control, or are we concentrating too heavily on passing a test?

6. What responsibility do municipalities have? Are intersections designed to protect pedestrians? Are crossing times adequate? Are visibility, traffic speeds, turning vehicles and red-light enforcement being properly addressed?

7. Why has road rage become something people fear? Why should someone be afraid of another driver simply because they are sharing the road? What are we doing to address aggressive driving and intimidation?

8. Are we becoming less considerate of one another? What happened to patience, courtesy and looking out for people who are more vulnerable than ourselves? Does everyone have to win, get ahead or have the last word?

9. Why do we wait for a tragedy before demanding change? How many collisions, injuries and deaths does it take before prevention becomes a priority rather than an afterthought?

10. What would we change if we genuinely believed every child mattered? Would we redesign our roads, improve driver education, strengthen enforcement, change our attitudes and hold ourselves accountable? Or would we simply express sadness and carry on?

what needs to change?

I think there are several places to start.

• Driver education: More emphasis on pedestrian safety, defensive driving, patience and the consequences of distraction and aggression.
• Intersection safety: Review dangerous intersections, visibility, traffic signal timing, crossing distances and pedestrian protection.
• Enforcement: Take red-light violations, dangerous driving and road rage seriously.
• Public awareness: Remind drivers that a vehicle can kill. This isn't a theoretical risk.
• Community attitudes: Stop treating impatience and aggression as normal parts of everyday life.
• Accountability: When someone is seriously injured or killed, the circumstances deserve a thorough and fair investigation.
• Empathy: Remember that the person crossing the street is someone's child, parent, grandparent, friend or neighbour.

And perhaps most importantly, we need to change the way we think about getting somewhere.

Being five minutes late is not a catastrophe.

Taking someone's life is.

please don't forget ocean

I don't know what Ocean's mother is doing today. I don't know how she gets through ordinary days, how she handles birthdays or how she feels when she sees another little girl around the same age.

But I do know that her little girl deserves to be remembered.

We talk about road safety after someone dies. We put up signs, write articles, have discussions and then gradually return to our routines.

What if we didn't?

What if every time we approached an intersection, we remembered that a little girl lost her life on a Vancouver sidewalk?

What if we taught our children that pedestrians matter?

What if we taught new drivers that a licence comes with responsibility, not entitlement?

What if we stopped rewarding impatience and started respecting consideration?

I gave up driving because I no longer liked the risks, the aggression or the environmental cost. I found other ways to get around.

I was fortunate. I never had an accident.

Not everyone is so fortunate.

Ocean didn't get a choice. She wasn't driving. She wasn't responsible for the traffic light. She was just a little girl out with her father.

She deserved to grow up.

Let's remember her. Let's ask the difficult questions. And let's make changes before another family has to learn what it means to lose a child this way.

Because road safety isn't just about traffic.

It's about human lives.

RememberOcean

#JusticeForOcean

#RoadSafety

#PedestrianSafety

#DriveResponsibly

#SlowDown

#StopOnRed

#ProtectOurChildren

#AccountabilityMatters

#SaferStreets

watergate, wag the dog and why we need to remember history

 watergate, wag the dog and why we need to remember history

I wonder how many young people today know what Watergate was.

If you weren't around in the 1970s, you might recognize the name but not understand why it changed American politics forever.

So let's go back.

what was watergate?

In June 1972, five men were caught breaking into the Democratic National Committee offices at the Watergate complex in Washington, D.C.

They were trying to install or repair listening devices and gather political information.

But this wasn't just an ordinary burglary.

The investigation eventually connected the break-in to people working for President Richard Nixon's re-election campaign and, ultimately, to a cover-up involving the White House.

What followed was extraordinary.

• Journalists investigated and kept asking questions.
• Congressional hearings exposed more details.
• Investigators uncovered attempts to obstruct the investigation.
• The existence of White House recording equipment became public.
• Recordings revealed Nixon's involvement in efforts to interfere with the FBI investigation.
• The Supreme Court ordered Nixon to hand over the tapes.
• The House Judiciary Committee approved articles of impeachment.

On August 9, 1974, Richard Nixon resigned as President of the United States.

He remains the only American president to have resigned from office.

Think about that.

A sitting president had to leave office because of a political scandal, obstruction of justice and the evidence uncovered through investigation.

Watergate became a lasting lesson in why no president should be above the law.

now let's talk about wag the dog

If you haven't watched the 1997 movie Wag the Dog, I recommend adding it to your movie list.

Starring Robert De Niro and Dustin Hoffman, it is a political satire about a White House spin doctor who hires a Hollywood producer to manufacture a fake war to distract the public from a presidential sex scandal.

They create fictional news, images and stories to make people believe something that isn't happening.

It's a movie, not a documentary.

But its central question is worth thinking about:

What happens when the people controlling the message become more concerned with managing public perception than telling the truth?

The film explores:

• Manufactured news.
• Political distractions.
• Public relations replacing accountability.
• The manipulation of images and stories.
• How easily people can be influenced when they aren't given the full picture.

It was released in 1997, long before social media, viral videos, AI-generated images and today's enormous online disinformation industry.

That makes it an interesting film to revisit.

why should younger generations know this?

History isn't just a collection of dates and old political scandals.

It's a record of what can happen when power goes unchecked, when people stop asking questions and when those responsible for telling the truth are discouraged from doing their jobs.

Watergate showed that investigative journalism, evidence, independent institutions and public accountability matter.

Wag the Dog imagined a world where political image-making could overwhelm reality.

Today, we have more information available to us than any generation before us. But having more information doesn't automatically mean we're better informed.

We have to ask:

• Who is telling this story?
• Where is the evidence?
• Who benefits from this particular version of events?
• Is this verified reporting or political messaging?
• Are we being distracted from something else?

I'm not suggesting every political controversy is another Watergate or that every news story is a manufactured distraction.

I'm saying we should understand our history well enough to recognize why these questions matter.

Democracy requires informed citizens.

And informed citizens need independent journalism, transparency and the freedom to question those in power.

If you haven't seen Wag the Dog, watch it. If you don't know Watergate, read about it. History has lessons worth remembering.

 

dan rather: a journalist who witnessed history

I grew up watching the Vietnam War unfold on television. Later, I watched 60 Minutes. I remember when investigative journalism meant going out into the world, asking difficult questions, following the evidence and holding people in positions of power accountable.

Dan Rather was one of the journalists whose work I followed.

His career spans some extraordinary moments in modern history:

• Reporting on the Vietnam War.
• Covering the Watergate scandal and the Nixon presidency.
• Reporting from Beijing during the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests.
• Reporting from Berlin during the fall of the Berlin Wall in November 1989.
• Decades of American politics, presidential elections and international events.

He wasn't simply sitting in a studio discussing history. He reported from places where history was unfolding.

That is part of why I trust his perspective.

I recently read his latest analysis of Donald Trump and the MAGA movement. I want to share the main points because I think they deserve attention.

what dan is reporting

1. Fox News is losing viewers

• Fox has lost more than 25% of its audience compared with the previous year.
• CNN and MS NOW have gained viewers.
• Fox is broadcasting fewer Trump rallies.

2. MAGA is losing some of its support

• People are frustrated with the cost of living.
• Trump's promises about ending wars and releasing the Epstein files have become sources of disappointment.
• Some supporters are questioning their loyalty.

3. Trump's longtime supporters are speaking out

• Tucker Carlson, Joe Rogan and Candace Owens have criticized Trump.
• Megyn Kelly has criticized his Iran policy.
• Some longtime rally attendees are questioning whether Trump can be trusted.

4. Republican identity is changing

Dan cites NBC News polling showing:

• MAGA Republicans: 55% when Trump took office, now 44%.
• Traditional Republicans: 43% then, now 56%.

5. Democrats are finding opportunities in unexpected places

• Dan highlights a Florida Democratic candidate focusing on affordability, healthcare, Social Security and corruption.
• Her approach is to talk about everyday problems rather than rely on political slogans.

6. There is growing disagreement within Trump's political movement

• Some former supporters are distancing themselves.
• Some conservative commentators are publicly criticizing him.
• Traditional Republicans are expressing frustration with the direction of their party.

7. Americans are participating in the elections

• Dan reported that more than 43 million votes had already been cast at the time of his article.
• He encourages people to participate in democracy.

why I am sharing this

I'm not sharing this simply to argue about Democrats and Republicans.

I'm sharing it because independent journalism matters. We need reporters who investigate, question, verify and challenge those in power, regardless of their political affiliation.

Dan Rather has spent decades reporting on events that changed the world. His latest analysis is worth reading, considering and discussing.

We should never stop asking questions.

We should never stop looking for the facts.

And we should never assume that a political movement is beyond question.

Ellen DeGeneres, love, acceptance, and why we cannot afford to stay silent.

 Ellen DeGeneres, love, acceptance, and why we cannot afford to stay silent

I was thinking about Ellen DeGeneres today and that moment in 1997 when she publicly came out as gay.

It was a big deal. She risked her career, faced enormous criticism, and became part of a conversation that television and society weren't necessarily ready to have.

My kid is now in their mid-twenties. They grew up in a very different environment. They grew up around same-sex marriages, different kinds of families, and people loving who they love.

I also worked for a gay couple when my kid was growing up. I wanted them to understand something very simple: there is absolutely nothing wrong with two people loving each other.

Love is good. Love is beautiful. As long as you're not hurting someone else, why should anyone else get to decide whether your love is acceptable?

I never wanted my kid to grow up thinking that someone else's identity, relationship or differences made them any less deserving of respect.

But lately, I've been thinking about how fragile progress can be.

We seem to be entering a time when being different can once again make people targets. Human rights, personal freedoms, freedom of expression and the right to live openly and safely should never be taken for granted.

There's an old warning, often associated with Martin Niemöller, about what happens when we remain silent while others are targeted.

First they came for the people whose voices were different. I wasn't one of them, so I didn't speak up.

Then they came for another group. Still, I wasn't one of them.

And eventually, they came for me.

But there was no one left to speak up.

The wording has been adapted many times, but the message remains.

If we only defend the rights of people who are just like us, we're not really defending human rights.

We need to speak up for writers, artists, journalists, LGBTQ2S+ communities, immigrants, Indigenous people, the poor, the homeless, women, elderly and anyone being singled out, marginalized, discriminated against or treated as though they matter less because they are different or have less.

Human rights belong to everyone, not just the people who have a voice, money or influence.

We don't have to agree on everything to respect one another's right to exist, to speak, to love and to live without discrimination.

Ellen's moment in 1997 reminds us that visibility matters. Courage matters. And the people who stand up when it isn't easy matter.

I want the next generation to inherit a world with more acceptance, not less.

And I don't want any of us waiting until our own rights are threatened before we decide to care about someone else's.

Speak up while you still can.

HumanRights #LoveIsLove #LGBTQ2S #StandUpForEquality #FreedomOfExpression #SpeakUp #NoDiscrimination #SocialJustice #EveryoneMatters #StandTogether #IndigenousRights #ImmigrantRights #PovertyAwareness #HomelessnessMatters #ProtectOurRights #NeverStaySilent 

the right to switch off:

 the right to switch off: when even relaxing becomes work

I wanted to watch a movie.

Nothing particularly complicated. I wanted to sit down, settle in, forget about the world for a little while and lose myself in a story.

Instead, there were advertisements. Two or three minutes before the movie even started, followed by another interruption shortly afterwards.

I muted them. I picked up my phone. I waited.

Eventually, I realised I wasn't watching the movie anymore. I'd lost interest before the story had a chance to take me anywhere.

And I thought, what's the point?

When did watching a movie become another exercise in tolerating interruptions?

I understand advertising. I understand that companies pay for placement, platforms need revenue and businesses want to sell their products.

But understanding something doesn't mean I have to like it.

And it certainly doesn't mean I have to accept it.

when every conversation becomes a lesson

Later, I had a conversation with my sister.

I've noticed a pattern. When I say I don't like something, the response is often an explanation of why it is that way.

If I say something bothers me, I'm told why it happens.

If I say I don't agree, I'm given the reasons I should understand.

It's almost like every conversation becomes a competition to establish who knows more.

But sometimes I'm not asking why something happens. I'm simply telling you how I feel about it.

I know things have changed. I know advertising existed before streaming services. I know the world has always had interruptions.

I said as much.

As I left the room, I added that I find it bad for my mental health. I don't want to spend my leisure time navigating advertisements.

There's a difference between explaining something and listening to someone.

And there's a difference between understanding why something exists and believing it should be acceptable.

forced consumption

It made me think of Pink Floyd's The Wall.

Remember those disturbing classroom scenes? The imagery of children being forced into conformity, their individuality and independent thinking being crushed?

That's how I sometimes feel about modern media.

We're surrounded by things competing for our attention. Advertisements, algorithms, notifications, sponsored content, recommendations and endless streams of information.

We're encouraged to watch, click, respond, share, purchase and participate.

Even when we try to escape for a little while, something wants a piece of our attention.

I'm not suggesting a television commercial is equivalent to the oppression depicted in The Wall. I'm talking about the feeling of having something imposed on you when all you wanted was the freedom to choose.

I want to choose what I watch.

I want to choose what I read.

I want to choose when I participate.

And I want to be able to switch off without feeling that I'm missing something or being targeted by something else.

words, generations and changing people

There was another little conversation about language.

An older friend of mine doesn't like hearing me swear. He remembers that I didn't used to.

Well, I had a four-year-old at one point, and my kid didn't like hearing me swear either. So I kept that language separate.

That's a long story in itself.

But people change. Our circumstances change, our vocabulary changes and sometimes the things we once avoided become part of our everyday language.

Even the words we use are personal. I don't use certain expressions, even if they're perfectly ordinary in another English-speaking household.

Language has history. It has culture. It has associations.

We don't all have to speak the same way.

And we don't all have to live the same way.

perhaps it's time to go offline

I've been thinking about stepping away from social media, perhaps even simplifying my online life considerably.

I've spent years blogging, writing, photographing, creating artwork and sharing observations about people, places and things.

I've enjoyed much of it. I've met people, learned things, documented history and created stories.

But somewhere along the way, being connected started to feel like another obligation.

Algorithms decide what we see. Advertising follows us. Data is collected. Our attention becomes a commodity.

And even conversations can become exhausting when we're constantly expected to explain, justify or defend our preferences.

I don't want to spend the rest of my life fighting for a little peace and quiet.

I don't want to argue about why I don't like advertisements.

I don't want to be lectured about why things are the way they are.

I don't want to have to explain why I sometimes just want to sit quietly and watch a movie.

Perhaps going offline isn't about rejecting the world.

Perhaps it's about finding a way to participate in it without allowing it to consume every available moment.

I still have things to say. I still have stories to tell. I still have art to make.

But I would also like to have a little life that doesn't need to be documented, monetized, advertised or explained.

Sometimes I just want to be.

And that should be enough.

---

A question for readers:

When was the last time you did something purely for enjoyment without advertisements, notifications, interruptions or someone demanding your attention?

Do you think we've forgotten how to switch off?

GoingOffline

#DigitalOverload

#AdvertisingEverywhere

#MentalHealthMatters

#TakeBackYourTime

#FreedomOfChoice

#SocialMediaFatigue

#AttentionEconomy

#RightToSwitchOff

#FindingPeace

when your personal information is worth more than $10

 

when your personal information is worth more than $10

The creepiest part? They offered me $10 to participate.

Think about that. They were offering money to get people to answer questions about their sexual orientation, and when I identified as a straight woman, I was kicked out.

I've been on the web since before it was even called the web. I know about surveillance and data collection. I still got sucked in.

Our personal data is worth BIG money. So why are we being offered a few dollars to hand it over?

And what worries me most is our youth. Many are growing up online without fully understanding how valuable their personal information is, who is collecting it, how it can be combined with other data, or how it might be used against them years from now.

Information about sexual orientation, identity, beliefs and personal circumstances can be deeply sensitive. Once shared, we may have little control over where it goes or how long it is kept.

We are entering a time when human rights and privacy protections matter more than ever. We cannot afford to be naive about surveillance, even when it arrives disguised as a worthy cause and a quick $10.

I've spent decades online. If I can be caught off guard, imagine how easily a young person might be.

Parents, educators and young people: we need to have these conversations NOW.

Ask questions. Check who is behind the campaign. Read the privacy policy. Think twice before handing over personal information for a small payment.

And remember: just because someone is paying you for your data doesn't mean you understand what you're giving away.

Our identities are not commodities. Our privacy matters. And $10 is a pretty small price to put on someone else's information.

when an ad for discrimination becomes an exercise in surveillance

when an ad for discrimination becomes an exercise in surveillance

I came across an ad that claimed to be about discrimination. But as I went through it, I became increasingly concerned that it was really collecting information about who is gay and who is straight.

I stated that I identified as a straight woman, and I was kicked out.

Let that sink in.

I've been on the web since before most people even knew what the web was. I know about surveillance, data collection and how information can be used. And yet, I still got sucked in.

If it can happen to me, it can happen to anyone.

This is dangerous territory. Our personal information is valuable, and information about our identities, beliefs and private lives can be used in ways we never intended or agreed to.

With a new government that may challenge our human rights and the protections many of us have taken for granted, we need to be proactive. We cannot wait until those rights are threatened to start paying attention.

Protect yourself. Question everything.

Before you participate in an online survey, click an ad or answer questions about your personal life, ask yourself:

Who is collecting this information? Why do they want it? Where will it go? Who will have access to it? And what happens if it falls into the wrong hands?

Don't assume something is safe just because it claims to support equality or fight discrimination. Look at the privacy policy. Check who is behind it. Be careful about what you disclose.

I'm sharing this because even people who know the internet can still be caught off guard.

We need to talk about digital privacy, surveillance and human rights before the damage is done.

Have you ever participated in an online survey or campaign and later wondered what information you had actually handed over?

Let's be more careful out there. Our rights, our privacy and our personal information matter.

Let's talk about young people in Vancouver.

 

Let's talk about young people in Vancouver. They were in their late teens when COVID hit. Some could not cope. They overdosed, some intentionally, some accidentally. And their boyfriends and girlfriends had to go on without them.

I lost my first love in a car accident. I was 19. I don't think I ever recovered. You don't. But my dad had died when I was 11, so death and I had met before.

Now those teenagers are adults, IF they survived.

They may have lost a mom, a dad, a cousin, a best friend. Overdose is killing people, but GRIEF is a HUGE part of the path that leads them there. And it's so hard when you see it happening.

But we have the most ridiculous, insane privacy laws, so a mom can't ask a doctor for help because that information is privileged.

THIS IS WHERE I GET ABSOLUTELY FURIOUS.

They locked up hundreds of kids during COVID for suicidal ideation, but then gave them no support.

They're supposedly in charge after a kid turns 12.

You know what?

FUCK YOU. FUCK OFF.

Fuck all you doctors, nurses and everyone hiding behind privacy when people are dying. You are indirectly contributing to the deaths of people who desperately need help.

It's why I hate Big Pharma and these laws that I believe protect the system more than the people who need it.

WAKE UP!

THERE'S A WAR ON OUR KIDS. A WAR ON THE POOR.

I am exhausted from trying to fight.

I am leaving for Mexico.

I am going to FIGHT BACK WITH ART. WARRIOR UP WITH ART.

I ask you to do the same.

10 hard questions about grief, overdose and our young people

1\. Doctors and nurses: What happens when a parent knows their child is in trouble but cannot get the information or support they need? Who is responsible when that young person dies?

2\. Medical professionals: Have we become so focused on privacy rules and procedures that we sometimes lose sight of the human being who is suffering?

3\. Drug companies: How much money have you made from a system that treats addiction while failing to address the grief, trauma and despair that can contribute to it?

4\. Doctors, nurses and drug companies: How much attention, funding and research are going toward understanding the connection between profound grief and overdose?

5\. Mental health professionals: When young people were in crisis during COVID, what long-term support was provided after the immediate emergency passed? Who followed up?

6\. Parents and families: Why should a mother or father have to fight through a maze of rules and bureaucracy to get help for a child they believe is in danger?

7\. Health-care policymakers: If a young person is legally able to make certain health-care decisions at 12, what safeguards ensure that struggling children and their families are not left without meaningful support?

8\. Drug companies and governments: Why are we not investing far more in grief counselling, addiction prevention, community support and accessible mental-health care before someone reaches a crisis?

9\. Everyone working in health care: When you see a young person struggling with addiction, do you ask what they have lost, whom they have buried, and what pain they might be trying to escape?

10\. One question for every doctor, nurse, politician and drug company executive: What if it were YOUR child? What if your teenager lost their first love, watched their best friend die of an overdose, and then couldn't get the support they desperately needed? Would you still defend the system exactly as it is?

11. Educators and teachers: Are you telling our children the truth about the world they are growing up in? Are you preparing them for the war on their generation — grief, addiction, overdose, poverty, homelessness and the loss of people they love? Are you teaching them how to recognize suffering, ask for help, support one another and survive when life falls apart? Or are we sending them into adulthood unprepared for the battles ahead? What if it were your own child who had to face those battles alone?

And one final question for all of us:

How many more young people must we lose before we stop treating grief as something people should simply get over?

💔 Grief is real. Addiction is real. These lives are real. What are we going to do about it?

#FightBackWithArt ✌️🧳✈️🖼🎨#WarriorUpWithArt 🪄🪡♥️🎶🎷🎥💡🔦📕📌🖍🖌🖊🖋✒️#HomelessnessCrisis🛏 #SupportOurYouth #GriefAndHealing #BigPharma #ProtectOurKids #EndTheSilence #WakeUp

 

the hidden cost of standing up for your rights

People say we have labour laws for a reason. If an employer mistreats you, report it. Know your rights. Don't let them get away with it.

And yes, workers deserve protection. Employers should be held accountable.

But let's talk about what happens afterward.

You might win your case, yet still struggle to collect the money you're owed. You might lose your job, your income, and the reference you need to get hired somewhere else. You might spend months or years trying to recover, while the employer carries on with business as usual.

I know how devastating this can be because I've experienced it myself.

When finding a job is already difficult, how do you start over when you can't use your last employer as a reference? What do you tell the next employer about why you left? How do you explain yourself without worrying that you'll be judged as a troublemaker?

And now imagine you're applying for work in today's job market, where employers can have hundreds, sometimes thousands, of applications to choose from.

Why would they take a chance on someone whose employment history is complicated when they have so many other applicants? They might never even hear your side of the story. Your application may simply be passed over.

You can be right about what happened and still lose opportunities because you stood up for yourself.

That's the part people forget when they tell workers to report abuse. There are consequences, even when you're in the right. The financial strain, the lost opportunities, the damage to your confidence, and the struggle to rebuild your working life don't automatically disappear when a case ends.

Not everyone has savings, family support, or the luxury of taking a chance on a lengthy complaint process. Newcomers, young workers, single parents, and people already struggling to make ends meet may feel they have too much to lose by speaking up.

If we expect workers to stand up for their rights, we need to care about what happens to them afterward.

How do we help people find new employment? How do we protect them from retaliation? How do we make sure one bad employment experience doesn't follow them for years?

Having laws is important. Enforcing them matters. But so does helping workers rebuild their lives.

Because the real question isn't just whether someone wins their case.

It's whether they can afford to survive the fight — and still have a future when it's over

10 reflective questions

* Have you ever stood up for yourself at work and paid a price for it?

* Should workers have to risk their future employment to report workplace abuse?

* How do you find another job when you can't use your last employer as a reference?

* What happens when an employer hears only one side of the story?

* With hundreds or thousands of applicants for one position, who gets a second chance?

* How can workers prove their abilities when a past employment experience overshadows their qualifications?

* Should employers be held accountable if they retaliate against someone for making a legitimate complaint?

* What support should be available to workers who lose their jobs after reporting abuse?

* How many people stay silent about mistreatment because they cannot afford to lose their income?

* If we tell people to stand up for their rights, what responsibility do we have to help them afterward?

### Hashtags

#WorkersRights #WorkplaceAbuse #LabourRights #EmploymentStandards #WorkplaceJustice #WorkerProtection #FairEmployment #JobSearch #EmploymentChallenges #SpeakUp #KnowYourRights #WorkplaceRetaliation #HumanDignity #FairWorkplaces #WorkersDeserveBetter

Keywords

workplace abuse, workers' rights, labour relations, employment standards, workplace retaliation, reporting employer misconduct, unfair dismissal, employment references, job search challenges, hiring discrimination, employer accountability, workplace justice, fear of retaliation, unemployment, career setbacks, financial insecurity, worker protection, employment barriers, rebuilding after job loss, consequences of speaking up

when working hard isn't enough:

 

when working hard isn't enough: housing, wages and a society under pressure

By Tina Winterlik — Zipolita

Something has to give

The other day, I was talking with a lovely woman who had helped me with my pop-up art displays. We were talking about how difficult it is to find good staff these days. She told me her son pays $2,400 a month while sharing a place with someone else. She is fortunate enough to own her own small apartment.

That conversation stayed with me.

How can young people build a life when rent consumes so much of their income? How can someone work full-time, pay their bills and still have enough left to save for a home, raise a family or simply enjoy life?

Then I came across a story about Wicked Cafe in Vancouver.

I have ridden past that café many times. It looks like a cool, creative place, and I've always wanted to stop in. So it was sad to learn about the employment standards case involving its staff.

According to a September 2026 report by Canadian HR Reporter, the BC Employment Standards Tribunal upheld an order against the company operating Wicked Cafe and Bakery. The company was ordered to pay a former employee $3,078 in unpaid wages, plus interest, and $2,000 in administrative penalties. The confirmed violations included improper overtime pay, statutory holiday pay and withheld gratuities. The tribunal did not accept all of the employee's claims, including a separate claim for 120 additional unpaid hours.

Read the report on Wicked Cafe.

This isn't about assuming every employer is bad. Many small businesses are struggling, too. But when workers are not paid what they are legally owed, that is not simply a business difficulty. Workers have bills to pay, too.

And I know something about that.

I learned about workers' rights at 16

My first real job was in 1978, after three years of berry picking. I was 16 when I went to work in Spences Bridge. My mother didn't want to leave me, but I was growing up and beginning my working life.

The woman who hired me was only about 19, I think, and her husband was around 30.

Near the end of my shift, a big bus would arrive and empty everything out. I was expected to restock everything before I could leave.

That was only one of several unfair and unethical things that happened.

My mother helped me take the matter to Labour Relations, and I won $600.

Years later, in 1999, I was downsized from another job. I pursued a claim over unpaid overtime and other pay issues and won a $7,000 settlement.

This isn't a mistake. It's abuse.

Workers should not have to fight for wages they have already earned. Young people should not have to learn the hard way that an employer may take advantage of their age, inexperience or financial circumstances.

Know your rights. Keep your records. Don't assume your employer is always doing the right thing.

The cost of living is changing everything

We keep hearing that employers cannot find good staff. We hear that businesses are struggling. We hear that housing is expensive because there isn't enough of it.

But we need to look at the whole picture.

If rent takes most of a person's paycheque, what incentive is there to work long hours for low wages? If someone works hard but still cannot afford a safe place to live, how are they supposed to get ahead?

What happens when people cannot afford food, rent, transportation and basic necessities, even when they are working?

Some people move back in with family. Others take on debt, work multiple jobs or leave the places they grew up in. Some lose their housing altogether.

And when people are pushed into poverty, grief, exhaustion and desperation, the consequences reach far beyond an individual household.

Homelessness is not just a housing problem. It is connected to wages, mental health, addiction, isolation and the loss of community.

We cannot keep treating each problem as though it exists in isolation.

From Vancouver to Mexico

I've spent much of my life travelling to and loving Mexico. It is a beautiful country, full of generous people, culture, creativity and community. But beauty does not protect people from exploitation.

In recent years, I have also followed reports of extortion and insecurity in parts of Mexico, including Oaxaca. These problems have their own causes, and they cannot simply be equated with Canada's housing crisis. But both situations remind us what happens when people lose security, trust and confidence that the systems around them will protect them.

When people face economic pressure, when businesses and families struggle, and when those with power can exploit those with less, communities suffer.

Governments cannot solve every human problem. But they can enforce labour laws, protect tenants, invest in housing and public services, and make sure that reporting abuse does not become an impossible task for people who are already struggling.

They can also stop pretending that economic growth alone tells us whether a society is doing well.

A city can have expensive real estate, impressive businesses and wealthy investors while the people who keep it running cannot afford to live there.

What kind of success is that?

We need to wake up

I don't want to see small businesses fail. I don't want workers exploited. I don't want young people forced to choose between paying rent and buying groceries. I don't want seniors spending their last years worrying about where they will sleep.

And I don't want homelessness, addiction and despair to become things we simply accept as normal.

We need affordable housing, fair wages, decent working conditions and meaningful support for people in crisis. We need governments that listen before situations become emergencies, and employers who understand that their staff are human beings, not disposable resources.

A business is part of a community. A worker is part of a community. A person sleeping outside is part of a community, too.

We are all connected.

You cannot squeeze people indefinitely and expect society to remain healthy.

Governments need to wake up. Employers need to do the right thing. And those of us who see what is happening need to keep talking about it.

Because behind every statistic is a human being trying to get through the day.

And working hard should be enough to give people a fair chance at a decent life.

— Tina Winterlik, Zipolita

Also

When workers are afraid to speak up

Some people commenting on the Wicked Cafe story also raised concerns about employee mistreatment in some Asian-owned restaurants. Those concerns deserve to be taken seriously, but we need to be careful not to stereotype an entire community.

Workplace exploitation can happen in any industry and under any employer. Newcomers, temporary foreign workers and people who face language barriers may be particularly vulnerable if they don't understand their rights or fear losing their jobs.

The issue isn't where an employer comes from. It's whether workers are being paid fairly, receiving the overtime they're legally entitled to, and treated with dignity.

Labour laws must apply equally to everyone, and governments need to enforce them. Workers should never have to accept mistreatment because they are afraid to speak up.

Fair wages, safe working conditions and respect should have no cultural or language barriers.

#WorkersRights #AffordableHousing #HousingCrisis #FairWages #LabourRights #Homelessness #CostOfLiving #SocialJustice #Vancouver

what happened to the world?

 

what happened to the world? a story of mexico, fear, and the people who deserve better

In 1990, we had to stay in Juchitán, Oaxaca, while waiting to catch a train.

The guidebooks warned travellers to stay away from the bus depot. We were passing through, trying to find our way, following the advice available to us. I remember that journey, and I remember that Mexico was never just a destination to me.

It became a place I returned to, a place I came to love.

The people. The traditions. The markets. The colours. The food. The music. The extraordinary beauty of Oaxaca and the strength of its Indigenous cultures.

Some of the people I love have their roots in Mexico. Their stories, their families and their lives are part of why this country means so much to me.

That is why reading about what is happening in Juchitán hurts.

A recent report describes the killing of a student from the Instituto Tecnológico del Istmo. He was allegedly targeted over an extortion demand of 2,500 pesos. According to the report, he tried to escape when the men demanding money arrived at his home, but he was shot and killed.

The same report makes disturbing allegations about a 19-year-old suspect known as El 22, including claims of multiple killings. Those allegations require independent confirmation, but the story of a young student allegedly killed over money deserves serious attention.

Think about that for a moment.

A young person goes to school because he wants a future. He wants to learn, to work, to make something of himself. Perhaps he dreams of helping his family, travelling, falling in love or simply living an ordinary life.

And somewhere along the way, someone decides that this young person owes them money.

What happens when fear becomes part of everyday life? When shopkeepers are threatened, drivers are forced to pay, and students must worry about whether they can afford to refuse a criminal demand?

What happens when people can no longer trust that going to work, opening a shop or attending school will be safe?

These questions are not confined to Mexico.

Here in British Columbia, Surrey has also been dealing with extortion threats and related violence. People should not have to fear for their families because someone demands money from them. No business owner should have to wonder whether opening the doors tomorrow will put their loved ones at risk.

Different places have different circumstances, and every case deserves its own investigation. But the human consequences are painfully familiar.

Fear takes away choices. Extortion takes away security. Violence takes away lives.

And when young people become involved in these criminal networks, we must ask difficult questions about the circumstances that allow such violence to continue, without excusing the people responsible for it.

How did we reach a point where some people believe they can demand money through threats and intimidation? Why do ordinary families have to bear the cost? How can communities protect their young people and give them real opportunities to build a different future?

I don't have all the answers.

I only know that the Mexico I love is not defined by crime. It is also the people who welcome strangers, the families who preserve their traditions, the artists who tell their stories, the farmers who grow our food and the neighbours who help one another through difficult times.

Those people deserve to live without fear.

And so do the people of Surrey, Vancouver and every other community where intimidation threatens ordinary life.

As I prepare to return to Mexico, I carry both love and concern with me. I will not pretend the problems do not exist. But I will not let the worst things people do erase the beauty of a place or the humanity of those who call it home.

Perhaps that is what troubles me most about the world today. We have so much knowledge, so much technology and so many ways to communicate, yet people are still being threatened for money, and young lives are still being lost to violence.

We cannot solve every problem by ourselves. We cannot carry every tragedy. But we can refuse to treat another person's suffering as unimportant.

We can demand accountability. We can support those who are threatened. We can insist that education, safety and dignity are not privileges reserved for people who can afford them.

And we can remember the people behind the headlines.

Because the student in Juchitán was more than a victim in a news report. He was a young person whose life mattered.

His future mattered.

And no amount of money was worth more than his life.

What happened to the world?

I keep asking that question.

But perhaps another question matters just as much: What kind of world are we willing to help create from here?

I still believe people can choose compassion over cruelty, community over intimidation and hope over fear.

Not because everything is fine.

But because the people who are suffering deserve more than our sadness. They deserve a world that does better.

 

dripa, mineral claims and the bigger picture: what happens while we're arguing?

British Columbia is preparing for a new government, and one of the BC Conservatives' stated priorities is repealing the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA).

Premier-elect Lorne Doerkson says repeal could be brought forward in the spring legislative session. He argues that the province needs a different approach to working with First Nations. Indigenous leaders, meanwhile, warn that repealing DRIPA could damage relationships and lead to further court challenges.

But there's another issue that deserves public attention: B.C.'s mineral-claim system, who controls the resources beneath our feet, and what happens while politicians argue about the rules.

a mining system with colonial roots

For generations, B.C. has operated under a system in which someone can acquire rights to minerals without necessarily owning the surface land above them.

You might own your home and property but not the mineral rights beneath it. The Crown may hold those rights instead.

This system has historical roots in the colonial gold rush era. It developed when governments encouraged prospecting and mineral exploration while failing to properly recognize Indigenous peoples' existing rights and relationships with their territories.

That history matters. So does the question of whether the laws governing mineral exploration adequately protect Indigenous rights, private property and the environment today.

the law has already had to change

In 2023, the B.C. Supreme Court ruled in the Gitxaała mineral-tenure case that the province's system of automatically registering mineral claims without consulting affected First Nations breached the Crown's duty to consult.

The government subsequently introduced the Mineral Claims Consultation Framework, which took effect on March 26, 2025.

Under the new framework, applications for mineral claims must go through consultation with affected First Nations before the province decides whether to approve, accommodate or reject them.

This is an important distinction: the old automatic-registration system has changed. New claims are no longer simply registered through the same automatic process.

However, the new framework does not, by itself, resolve every question about Indigenous rights, mineral ownership or the province's mining laws.

what happens if dripa is repealed?

DRIPA did not create the mineral-claim system. That system operates under separate legislation, the Mineral Tenure Act.

Repealing DRIPA would not automatically restore the old automatic-staking process, erase existing Indigenous rights or remove the Crown's constitutional duty to consult First Nations.

But the relationship between DRIPA, mineral-tenure reform and Indigenous rights is precisely why this debate deserves careful scrutiny.

The province has been working on modernizing the Mineral Tenure Act in consultation and cooperation with First Nations. We need to know what the incoming government intends to do with that work.

Will consultation protections remain? Will the mineral-claim system be strengthened, weakened or replaced? Will First Nations have a meaningful role in decisions affecting their territories? And what safeguards will apply to resource development while the legislation is being reconsidered?

These are practical questions with consequences for communities across B.C.

don't let the debate distract us from the land

I worry that the public will become so caught up in arguments for and against DRIPA that we lose sight of the underlying issues.

Corporations and prospectors have economic interests in mineral resources. First Nations have rights and responsibilities connected to their territories. Property owners may discover that their surface ownership does not include the minerals beneath their land. The public has an interest in protecting watersheds, forests, wildlife and the places we all depend on.

These interests need to be considered openly and fairly.

We should not assume that every mining company is acting improperly, or that every proposed project is automatically harmful. Nor should we assume that repealing a law will make complex legal disputes disappear.

The question is what protections will remain, what will change, and who benefits from those changes.

While governments debate legislation, mineral-claim applications, resource-development proposals and legal disputes do not cease to matter. We need transparency about what is happening now, not simply promises about what a new government might do later.

ask questions before the rules change

I want people to look beyond the headlines and ask some basic questions:

• What does DRIPA actually do, and what does it not do?
• What legal protections do First Nations have independently of DRIPA?
• How does the Mineral Tenure Act work, and who owns the mineral rights in a particular area?
• What consultation is required before a new mineral claim is approved?
• What will happen to the existing mineral-claim consultation framework and the work to modernize the legislation?
• If DRIPA is repealed, what specific framework will replace it?

We can debate how reconciliation should work. We can discuss economic development, mining, jobs and the legal uncertainty surrounding major projects.

But we should not dismantle a framework without understanding what it does, what problems it was intended to address, and what will take its place.

The land, the resources beneath it, and the rights of the people connected to it are too important to become collateral damage in a political fight.

Let's pay attention to the legislation, follow the decisions, and demand clear answers before the rules change.

Sources: Government of British Columbia, Mineral Claims Consultation Framework; B.C. Supreme Court's 2023 Gitxaała decision; B.C. government's Mineral Tenure Act reform program; CityNews, October 27, 2026.

#DRIPA #IndigenousRights #BritishColumbia #FirstNations #MineralRights #Mining #Reconciliation #ProtectTheLand #PublicAccountability #KnowTheLaw

 

rights on paper, reality in practice

I have been listening to the concerns of people in the LGBTQ2S+ community who are frightened about what the new government may mean for their rights and their future.

One MLA was challenging the Conservatives over what she saw as hypocrisy, reminding them that LGBTQ2S+ people have protections under human rights legislation.

Those protections matter. But there is a difference between having rights on paper and being able to exercise those rights in real life.

I know this from personal experience.

Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognizes everyone's right to an adequate standard of living, including housing. Yet I experienced housing insecurity as a single mother. The existence of that human right did not guarantee that I could access safe, secure housing when I needed it.

So when someone says, “Don't exaggerate,” in response to people expressing genuine fears, I have to ask: are we listening to what people are saying, or are we dismissing their concerns because we don't share them?

Nobody can predict exactly what a government will do. We should examine its policies, its actions and its record rather than assume the worst or blindly trust that everything will be fine.

But LGBTQ2S+ people should not have to wait until their rights are threatened or taken away before their concerns are taken seriously.

Human rights legislation is essential. So is enforcing it, defending it and ensuring that people can actually rely on its protections.

Dismissing someone's fears without listening to their reasons can be a form of gaslighting. It can make people question whether their concerns are legitimate when they deserve to be heard and discussed honestly.

We don't have to agree on every political issue to treat one another with dignity.

And we don't have to experience discrimination ourselves to take the possibility seriously when others tell us they are afraid.

I've learned that a right is only as meaningful as the protection people can actually access when they need it.

Let's listen to one another. Let's question those in power, regardless of party. And let's not confuse the existence of a law with the guarantee that everyone will be safe, housed, respected and treated equally.

Human rights are not something we should take for granted. They are something we must continue to uphold.

#HumanRights #LGBTQ2S #TransRights #EqualityForAll #HumanRightsCode #Article25 #HousingIsAHumanRight #DignityForAll #ListenDontDismiss #LivedExperience #SocialJustice #Discrimination #StandUpForHumanRights #InclusiveSociety #Accountability

tendinitis: the invisible disability people don't see

 

tendinitis: the invisible disability people don't see

One of the hardest things about living with a chronic condition is having to explain your pain to people who cannot see it.

Tendinitis is one of those invisible disabilities that can be easily dismissed. You look fine, so people assume you are fine. They don't see the stiffness, the aching, the difficulty moving your hands when the weather turns cold, or the effort it takes just to get through an ordinary day.

Back in the late 1990s, I was unable to get retraining because they didn't believe me. I had been taking naproxen for six months, attending physiotherapy and wearing braces. I was doing everything I could to manage the problem, yet I still wasn't believed.

My doctor eventually told me there was nothing more that could be done. It was chronic tendinitis.

I've worked outdoors and in cold places for many years. I'm 64 now, and I think about everything this body has carried me through. It has stood up remarkably well, but time takes its toll.

I've had some nasty falls, too. I nearly broke a wrist once. I fell awkwardly, bending it badly, and although it wasn't broken, the sprain was terrible.

Now, after decades of working, creating and simply getting on with life, my body is reminding me that it has its limits.

The last two days have been particularly cold, and my whole body hurts. But it's my wrists and hands that are suffering the most.

And oh, my poor, beautiful hands.

These are the hands I use to clean houses, paint pictures, type stories, write blog posts and make art. They have worked hard for me. They have helped me earn a living, express myself, tell stories and create things I hope will bring a little beauty into the world.

Sometimes I look at my hands and think about everything they've done. Every brushstroke, every word, every task completed when I was tired, every time they kept going even when they hurt.

I love my hands. I am so grateful for them.

I don't want to take them for granted just because they have always been there for me.

But I also wish people understood that invisible disabilities are real. Chronic pain doesn't have to be visible to be debilitating. You shouldn't have to prove your suffering over and over again before someone takes you seriously.

And you shouldn't have to look broken for your pain to matter.

As we get older, our bodies carry the history of our lives. The work we've done, the falls we've survived, the hardships we've endured and the things we've loved enough to keep doing.

Mine has carried me through a lot.

I'm grateful for that. I'm grateful I can still paint, write and create.

But on cold days like these, I wish the world understood that sometimes simply getting through the day takes more effort than anyone realizes.

Please be kind to people whose struggles you cannot see. You never really know what someone else's body is going through.

And if you have chronic pain or an invisible disability, I hope you know this: you do not have to justify your pain to deserve compassion.

#InvisibleDisability #ChronicPain #Tendinitis #LivingWithPain #DisabilityAwareness #ChronicIllness #AgingWithGrace #ArtistsLife #Gratitude #BeKind

 

abolishing the indian act: who gets to decide what comes next?

By Tina Winterlik aka Zipolita

I've been thinking about Wab Kinew's call to abolish the Indian Act, Isaac Murdoch's arguments about Indigenous citizenship and self-governance, and the concerns raised by First Nations leaders.

The more I think about it, the more I believe we need to look beyond the headline.

Yes, the Indian Act is a colonial law that has caused profound harm. It has given the Canadian government enormous power over First Nations people, their communities and their affairs.

But here's the question that keeps coming back to me:

If we abolish a colonial law, who gets to write the rules that replace it?

Because getting rid of a law and getting rid of colonial control are not necessarily the same thing.

the danger of replacing one system with another

Imagine the Indian Act disappears tomorrow.

What happens next?

Who determines Indigenous citizenship? Who governs reserve lands? What happens to existing legal protections, community governance and the responsibilities Canada has under treaties?

These are not minor administrative details. They affect people's identities, rights, homes, communities and futures.

Canada's Constitution recognizes and affirms existing Aboriginal and treaty rights independently of the Indian Act. Abolishing the Act would not automatically erase those constitutional rights. However, the laws and arrangements governing many aspects of First Nations life would need careful attention.

And what if Ottawa simply creates a new framework and tells First Nations how things will work?

Would that really be liberation from colonial control?

Or would it be the same relationship dressed up in different language?

who gets to decide?

This is where Isaac Murdoch's argument, as I understand it, raises important questions.

The conversation is not just about abolishing a piece of legislation. It is about Indigenous nations having the authority to determine their own citizenship, govern their own communities and build their own futures.

It is about moving beyond a system in which the Canadian government decides who qualifies for legal recognition under its rules.

First Nations are not all one people with one opinion. Different nations and communities have different histories, laws, priorities and visions for the future.

That is precisely why they must have a meaningful role in deciding what comes next.

The 1969 White Paper is a reminder of what can go wrong when the federal government proposes sweeping changes without Indigenous consent. Many First Nations leaders opposed its approach because they feared losing their distinct rights and protections.

Good intentions are not enough. The details matter.

and then there is the pipeline question

I also have questions about the timing of Wab Kinew's proposal.

Kinew has expressed openness to discussing a new oil pipeline. Meanwhile, Canada is pursuing major economic and resource-development projects that can have profound consequences for Indigenous lands, waters and communities.

These are separate issues, but they intersect.

If the Indian Act is abolished, what will protect First Nations from political and economic pressure? How will their rights be respected when governments want access to their lands and resources?

Will Indigenous nations have the genuine authority to say yes or no to projects affecting their territories?

Will they be able to make those decisions according to their own laws, priorities and responsibilities to future generations?

Or could a new system make it easier for governments to pursue projects that serve Canada's economic interests?

I am not suggesting that this is necessarily Kinew's intention. I am saying these questions must be answered before we celebrate any proposed change as a victory.

white supremacy, colonialism and the fine print

Colonialism is not only about the laws written in the past. It is also about who holds power in the present.

A government can remove an old law while retaining the power to decide what replaces it, whose voices count and whose interests take priority.

That is why I worry about reforms that sound progressive but leave the underlying power structure untouched.

If the people who designed and maintained a colonial system retain exclusive control over its replacement, how much has really changed?

We need to look at the fine print, the decision-making process and the real-life consequences for the people affected.

We also need to recognize that First Nations communities face difficult internal questions, including citizenship, accountability, governance and lateral violence. Those challenges deserve serious discussion, but they should never be used to justify taking authority away from Indigenous peoples.

Self-government means having the freedom to work through those challenges on their own terms.

what would a better future look like?

Imagine a future in which First Nations determine their own citizenship, exercise meaningful self-government and protect their lands and waters according to their own priorities.

Imagine Canada honouring its treaty obligations without treating Indigenous peoples as communities that must be managed by the federal government.

Imagine economic partnerships built on genuine consent, rather than pressure or the assumption that resource development must always come first.

That would require more than repealing legislation. It would require a fundamental change in the relationship between Canada and Indigenous nations.

And it would require listening.

Not simply announcing a proposal at a meeting and expecting everyone to fall in line. Not allowing headlines to substitute for consultation. Not assuming that one premier, one prime minister or one Indigenous leader can speak for every First Nation.

The people whose lives will be affected must help determine the outcome.

a question for canada

I believe the Indian Act deserves serious scrutiny, and the possibility of moving beyond it deserves serious discussion.

But I do not believe abolition, by itself, guarantees justice.

The real test is what happens to Indigenous peoples' rights, their lands, their citizenship and their ability to govern themselves afterward.

If we want to end colonial control, we cannot simply hand the pen to another government and ask it to write a new set of rules.

First Nations must have the authority to shape their own futures. Canada must honour its constitutional and treaty responsibilities. And no replacement system should become a back door for weakening Indigenous rights or overriding Indigenous decisions about their lands.

That is what I want to see from reconciliation: not just a change in legislation, but a change in who holds the power.

What do you think? Should the Indian Act be abolished, reformed or replaced by arrangements developed nation by nation? And what safeguards would ensure that First Nations gain genuine self-determination rather than a new form of government control?

Let's talk about it.

— Tina Winterlik aka Zipolita

I blog about nouns — people, places and things. Even when the subject is difficult, I try to put a positive spin on it.

#AbolishTheIndianAct #IndigenousRights #FirstNations #SelfDetermination #IndigenousSovereignty #TreatyRights #Reconciliation #SelfGovernment #Colonialism #Canada

 

water is life: guadalajara residents demand clean drinking water

When people take to the streets for something as basic as clean water, we need to pay attention.

There is unrest in Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico, as residents demand answers about a growing water crisis. Families have reported discoloured, foul-smelling tap water, raising serious concerns about the safety of the water they use for drinking, cooking, bathing and everyday life.

Imagine turning on your kitchen tap and wondering whether the water coming out is safe for your family.

Water is not a luxury. It is not a privilege reserved for those who can afford bottled water. It is a basic human necessity.

when people take to the streets

On October 11, thousands of people marched to the governor's residence to demand clean water. Reports described a confrontation with police involving tear gas and water cannons, with injuries and arrests.

The demonstrations reflect a growing frustration among residents who want their concerns taken seriously. People should not have to wonder whether their drinking water is contaminated, nor should they have to spend money they may not have on bottled water simply to protect their health.

The question is not just where the water comes from. It is whether the authorities responsible for supplying it can guarantee its quality.

what is the government going to do?

Jalisco Governor Pablo Lemus and Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum are preparing a joint announcement about improvements to Guadalajara's water system.

The proposed response includes major investments in water infrastructure, treatment facilities and efforts to address contamination. Authorities have also discussed suspending supplies from sources affected by water-quality concerns, a measure that could mean reduced water availability for some neighbourhoods while the problems are addressed.

That creates another difficult question: how do you protect people from contaminated water without leaving them without enough water at all?

Infrastructure takes time. Families need safe water now.

The government must explain what is being done immediately, which areas are affected, how water quality is being tested, and when residents can expect reliable access to clean water.

Independent testing and transparent public reporting are essential. People deserve evidence, not just promises.

water is life

Water connects every part of our lives. It sustains our bodies, grows our food, supports our communities and keeps our ecosystems alive.

When water systems fail, the consequences reach far beyond a tap. Families with limited incomes can be hit especially hard when they must purchase bottled water or travel to find a reliable supply. Older people, children and those who cannot easily carry heavy containers face additional difficulties.

And what about the rivers, lakes and watersheds that supply our cities? Protecting drinking water means protecting the environment that makes human life possible.

We cannot keep treating clean water as an afterthought. Prevention, responsible infrastructure, pollution control and public accountability must be priorities.

the people deserve answers

The residents of Guadalajara are asking a fundamental question: why should anyone have to fight for safe drinking water?

Their concerns deserve to be heard without intimidation. Peaceful protest is one way communities bring urgent problems to public attention, particularly when people feel that ordinary channels have failed to produce answers.

As the governments of Mexico and Jalisco announce their plans, the real measure of success will not be the size of the investment or the number of officials standing at a podium.

It will be whether families can turn on their taps and trust the water that comes out.

Clean water should never be a privilege.

Water is life. Protect it. Respect it. Make it safe for everyone.

— Tina Winterlik aka Zipolita

Note: This post discusses reports available ahead of the October 28, 2026, government announcement. The proposed measures and investments should not be confused with completed repairs or a guarantee that the water is safe in every neighbourhood.

WaterIsLife #Guadalajara #Mexico #CleanWaterForAll #WaterRights #EnvironmentalJustice #PublicHealth #Jalisco #ProtectOurWater #Zipolita

Geles Cabrera

 

Geles Cabrera: five children, a lifetime of art, and a place of her own

Remembering the pioneering Mexican sculptor who refused to let the world decide whether she belonged.

By Tina Winterlik aka Zipolita

Some stories about artists touch your heart so deeply that you have to stop for a moment and let them sink in. The life of Mexican sculptor Geles Cabrera is one of those stories.

Cabrera passed away on September 1, 2026, at the age of 100. She left behind more than seven decades of artistic work, but her legacy is about so much more than the sculptures she created. It is about determination, motherhood, independence, and the quiet courage it takes to keep making art when the world doesn't always make room for you.

Five children and a dream that wouldn't disappear

Born in Mexico City on August 2, 1926, Geles Cabrera became recognised as Mexico's first professional female sculptor. She studied art, developed her own distinctive artistic language, and spent a lifetime exploring the human form through stone, terracotta, bronze and other materials.

But she wasn't living the romanticised life of an artist with endless hours in a beautiful studio.

She was also a mother of five.

Imagine raising five children, managing a household, earning a living, and still finding the time and energy to pursue your artistic vision. Cabrera even worked in her kitchen and bathroom when those were the spaces available to her.

She didn't wait for perfect circumstances. She made art with the time and space she could find.

I think many artists will understand that feeling. Sometimes creativity has to fit around everything else life demands of us. We work when we can, use what we have, and hold on to the ideas that refuse to leave us alone.

Supporting herself while building something extraordinary

Cabrera taught art at Mexico City's National Preparatory School No. 5 for 37 years. Her teaching career provided an income while she continued developing her own work.

Her husband, Rafael Cano, was a physician. They married around 1950 and raised their five children together. He was reported to have supported her artistic pursuits, although the details of how they divided their household responsibilities and finances are not fully documented.

In 1956, the couple travelled to Washington, D.C., with her sculptures for an exhibition at the Pan American Union. One of their sons later recalled the journey, including the fact that her husband had to sign a permission document for her to travel abroad.

Think about that for a moment.

A woman could be a serious, accomplished artist and still encounter restrictions that a man might never have faced. Cabrera lived through an era when women were expected to put family first and their own ambitions second.

Yet she kept going.

When the art world didn't open its doors, she opened her own

In 1966, Cabrera founded a sculpture museum in her home in Coyoacán, Mexico City.

She wanted to create a place where sculpture could be exhibited, explored and discussed. She also wanted a space for artists that didn't depend entirely on the approval of established cultural institutions.

She maintained the museum with her own resources for decades.

Let that sink in, too.

She wasn't simply making sculptures and hoping someone would buy them. She was teaching, raising a family, creating her own work and investing in a cultural space that could serve other artists.

Her museum became part of her legacy: a physical expression of her belief that art deserved a place in everyday life.

How many artists have been told their work isn't commercial enough, isn't fashionable enough, or doesn't fit what a gallery is looking for? How many have put their dreams aside because they couldn't find the support they needed?

Cabrera's response was to create a space of her own.

Giving ordinary materials a voice

Cabrera's sculptures explored the human body through curves, gestures, textures and abstract forms. She worked with volcanic stone, terracotta, bronze, wood and other materials, finding ways to express the intimacy and movement of the human form.

She wasn't simply interested in reproducing what the eye could see. She wanted to explore how a body could be felt through shape and space.

Her teaching reflected a similar philosophy. When students struggled to afford expensive art materials, she introduced newspaper as a sculptural medium. Creativity, she believed, shouldn't be reserved for people who could afford the proper supplies.

I love that idea.

Art isn't only about expensive materials, prestigious galleries or having the perfect studio. It is about looking at the world differently and discovering what you can do with what is available to you.

Recognition, even if it took decades

Cabrera continued making art across generations of changing artistic movements. Later in life, she received renewed international attention, including a solo exhibition in New York in 2022 and Mexico's Bellas Artes Medal in Visual Arts in 2024.

In 2025–2026, a major retrospective at Mexico City's Museo del Palacio de Bellas Artes brought together approximately 100 works, introducing her achievements to new audiences.

She lived to be 100 years old and witnessed a greater appreciation of the work to which she had devoted her life.

Of course, recognition late in life cannot give someone back the years when their work was overlooked. But it can help ensure that future generations know their name.

And Geles Cabrera deserves to be remembered.

A tribute to the artists who keep going

I was moved by Cabrera's story because it reminds me that the life of an artist isn't always glamorous. Often, it is a balancing act between making a living, meeting responsibilities, finding materials, creating opportunities and protecting that little spark inside that says, I still have something to make.

As an artist myself, I understand the importance of continuing to create, even when circumstances are difficult and recognition is uncertain.

We don't all have five children, teach for 37 years or build a museum in our own homes. But many of us know what it means to keep pursuing a creative life without knowing whether the world will ever pay attention.

Cabrera did more than make art. She built opportunities for herself and helped make room for other artists.

She showed that a woman could be a mother, a teacher, a sculptor and an institution-builder. She didn't have to choose only one identity.

And she didn't need to wait for someone else to tell her she belonged.

Geles Cabrera, thank you for a century of life and more than seven decades of artistic courage. May your sculptures continue to speak, your story inspire, and the space you created remind future generations that art belongs to everyone.

Rest in peace, Geles. Your work lives on.

---

Written in tribute to Geles Cabrera (1926–2026), pioneering Mexican sculptor.

Further reading: The Art Newspaper — Geles Cabrera, Mexican sculptor, obituary

Born Into a Storm:

 ✨ Born Into a Storm: A Legacy of Hope, Heartbreak, and Becoming a Rebel ✨

(A future-dated reflection by Tina Winterlik / Zipolita)

I’ve been thinking lately about the world I was born into — a stormy, electric time in history. The year I arrived wasn’t quiet. A hurricane swept through, politics were in upheaval, and a whole generation was holding its breath. No wonder I turned out to be a rebel — I came into this world with thunder shaking the windows.

Sometimes I look back and try to understand the weight my parents carried. They lived through moments that changed the world forever — the rise of JFK, the hope of Camelot, the heartbreak of his assassination, and then the devastating loss of Robert Kennedy just a few years later.

I was only five or six, but I remember that day.
I was at a friend’s house when my brother came to get me.
He said something bad had happened… something on the TV…
And when I walked in the door, my parents and my older sister were crying.

You never forget the sound of adults crying over something too big to explain to a child.

My mom adored Bobby Kennedy. She believed in what he stood for — fairness, justice, hope for families like ours. She used to dress us like the Kennedys. She made all our clothes, right down to the little pillbox hats she crafted for our Easter outfits. I didn’t understand the symbolism then, but I do now.

She wasn’t just dressing us up.

She was dressing us in the future she wanted for us.
A future that felt bright, promising, dignified — the kind of world the Kennedys talked about.

And then those dreams were shattered, twice.

It’s only as an adult that I realize how deeply those losses shaped my parents’ generation… and shaped me too, even as a baby in the middle of the storm.

Maybe that’s why I fight the way I do now.
Maybe that’s why injustice hits me so hard.
Maybe that’s why I speak up, even when it costs me.
Maybe that’s why I write.

I’m a rebel not because I chose to be — but because the world I was born into made me one.
A storm baby with a heart full of my mother’s hope and my parents’ courage.

History repeats.
So does resilience.
And maybe… so does the dream they believed in.

---

Note: I was savig this to publish but I think niw is good time.

the revolution will not be televised — but what about the internet?

 

the revolution will not be televised — but what about the internet?

https://youtu.be/90zm9DCBbXo?si=rUfrW6esSiEPB2_f

I was a huge Bernie Sanders fan, and this is an important video I want people to watch.

Back in 2016, more than 1,000 people reportedly protested outside CNN's Los Angeles headquarters over what they called the Bernie blackout. After Bernie Sanders won caucuses in Hawaii, Washington and Alaska, protesters questioned how much attention the mainstream media was giving his campaign.

Cenk Uygur of The Young Turks breaks down the controversy in the video featured in my original blog post.

Here's what I want people to think about: television isn't the internet, but the same questions about who controls the message still matter.

Television networks decide what makes the news, how much attention a story receives, and which voices get heard. Online platforms have their own gatekeepers, algorithms and corporate interests. Information can be buried, overlooked or removed from view.

We need independent journalism. We need people who question powerful institutions. And we need audiences willing to look beyond the headlines and ask difficult questions.

When the media becomes part of the establishment it is supposed to scrutinize, who holds the powerful accountable?

I wrote this in April 2016. Nearly evearything about how we consume information has changed since then, but the question remains worth asking.

Watch the video and tell me what you think.

https://youtu.be/90zm9DCBbXo?si=rUfrW6esSiEPB2_f

🔗 https://tinawinterlik.blogspot.com/2016/04/the-revolution-will-not-be-televised.html

huge step in the right direction: time to abolish the indian act

 

a huge step in the right direction: time to abolish the indian act

By Tina Winterlik aka Zipolita

Sometimes, a political conversation takes a turn that deserves our attention.

Today, I learned that Manitoba Premier Wab Kinew has called for the abolition of the Indian Act. And I think this is a huge step in the right direction.

The Indian Act has shaped the lives of First Nations people in Canada for generations. It is part of a colonial system that gave the federal government enormous control over Indigenous peoples, their communities and their affairs.

How can we talk about reconciliation while maintaining a system rooted in government control over Indigenous lives?

Kinew has raised an important question: can Indigenous nations have genuine self-determination and strong nationhood without the paternalism and barriers imposed by the Indian Act?

I believe this conversation deserves our full attention.

what comes next?

Abolishing the Indian Act cannot simply mean replacing one set of rules with another imposed by Ottawa. First Nations must have a meaningful role in deciding what comes next.

That means serious conversations about Indigenous citizenship, self-government, treaty rights, land, sovereignty and the future of First Nations as distinct nations.

It also means listening to Indigenous people who are asking difficult questions about lateral violence, internal divisions and the challenges communities face when trying to build healthier futures.

These are not simple issues. There will be different opinions, different experiences and different visions for the future. Those differences deserve to be heard.

But imagine what could become possible if First Nations had the freedom and authority to build governance systems that reflect their own peoples, laws, cultures and aspirations.

Imagine a future in which Indigenous citizenship is determined by Indigenous nations themselves, rather than being defined by a colonial law.

Imagine reconciliation moving beyond words and ceremonies into meaningful changes in power and responsibility.

this conversation belongs to all of us

Canada's history cannot be changed, but the systems we carry forward can be questioned, challenged and transformed.

I have spent years researching family history, including connections to Indigenous ancestors. I do not claim First Nations citizenship or speak on behalf of Indigenous people. I believe, however, that learning about our shared history means paying attention when people call for meaningful change.

We should be able to discuss these questions without shutting down the conversation or assuming that everyone who disagrees has the same motives.

And we must remember that Indigenous peoples are not one single political community with one single opinion. First Nations must be able to determine their own futures.

Wab Kinew's call does not solve everything, and a declaration is not the same as action. His position on pipelines and environmental protection remains a separate, important conversation.

But calling for the abolition of the Indian Act opens the door to a much bigger discussion about what genuine self-determination could look like.

The next step is to listen, learn and make sure First Nations have the power to shape what comes next.

Reconciliation cannot simply mean asking Indigenous peoples to fit into the systems that were imposed upon them.

Perhaps it is time to build something different.

What do you think should replace the Indian Act, and how can Canada ensure that Indigenous nations—not Ottawa alone—decide their own futures?

Let's have that conversation.

— Tina Winterlik aka Zipolita

I blog about nouns — people, places and things. Even when the subject is difficult, I try to put a positive spin on it.

#IndigenousRights #AbolishTheIndianAct #SelfDetermination #FirstNations #IndigenousSovereignty #Reconciliation #TreatyRights #IndigenousCitizenship #SelfGovernment #Canada