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what happens if dripa is repealed?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

Help Tina Get Back on Her Feet

❤️ Help Tina Get Back on Her Feet

I'm an independent artist, writer and blogger trying to find stable housing and get back on my feet.

For years, I've shared my art, stories, photography and writing with you. Now I'm reaching out to ask for a little help with housing and basic living expenses.

If my work has ever made you smile, inspired you, taught you something or simply brightened your day, I'd be grateful if you could give a little back.

Every contribution, no matter how small, is appreciated. Thank you for your kindness and for helping me continue creating.

💙 Support Tina through PayPal:

https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/Zipolita

Please note: My QR code doesn't seem to be working, so please use the direct link above.

Thank you for being part of my creative journey.

Tina Winterlik aka Zipolita 🎨

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

stand with canada’s courageous young climate plaintiffs

 

seven years of waiting: stand with canada’s courageous young climate plaintiffs

fifteen young Canadians. Seven years of perseverance. One enormous question: who is accountable for protecting our future?

Today, October 26, 2026, history is being made in Vancouver.

Fifteen young Canadians are finally getting their day in Federal Court in a landmark case challenging the federal government's response to climate change. Their lawsuit, La Rose v. His Majesty the King, was filed on October 25, 2019. These young people have spent seven years navigating a legal battle just to have their case heard. Imagine that. Seven years of waiting for your day in court while the climate crisis continues to unfold around you.

I want everyone to know what these courageous young people are doing. They deserve our attention, our respect and our support.

why are these young people taking canada to court?

The plaintiffs argue that the federal government's failure to adequately address greenhouse gas emissions is contributing to climate-related harm and violating their constitutional rights to life, liberty and security of the person under Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

This isn't simply an argument about political promises or whether we like one government's policies more than another's.

It is a legal challenge asking whether the government has constitutional responsibilities to young people whose lives, health, cultures and futures are being affected by climate change.

Their lawyers argue that Canada's repeated failure to meet its emissions targets has consequences. Wildfire smoke, extreme heat, flooding, displacement and the psychological burden of climate anxiety are not abstract concepts to the people living through them.

The government will have an opportunity to present its own evidence and arguments. The court must consider the case before reaching a decision.

But these young people have fought for seven years for that opportunity to be heard.

seven years. Let that sink in.

The original lawsuit was filed in October 2019.

In October 2020, the Federal Court dismissed the original claim. The young plaintiffs appealed.

On December 13, 2023, the Federal Court of Appeal allowed part of their appeal, giving them an opportunity to amend their constitutional claim. They subsequently filed amended claims in 2024 and 2025.

And now, on October 26, 2026, their trial has begun.

These plaintiffs were children and teenagers when this journey started. They have grown older while waiting for the legal system to reach this point.

Think about what seven years means when you're young. Think about the summers, the wildfires, the floods, the heat and the changes to the world around you. Think about having to keep pushing forward with a case that challenges the decisions of your own federal government.

They didn't give up.

That persistence deserves recognition, regardless of what the eventual judgment will be.

this is about the generations who come after us, too

Climate change does not respect political boundaries. It doesn't care who we voted for, how much money we have or whether we can afford to move somewhere safer.

We depend on the same natural systems: clean air, clean water, healthy forests, functioning oceans, fertile soil and the extraordinary diversity of life on this planet.

When those systems are threatened, our communities are threatened, too.

Young people will live with the consequences of decisions made today long after many of the people making those decisions have left office.

Shouldn't their voices count?

Shouldn't they be able to ask difficult questions about the future they are inheriting?

And shouldn't governments be expected to explain their decisions when young people argue that those decisions are putting their constitutional rights at risk?

That is why this case matters beyond the courtroom in Vancouver. It raises important questions about climate accountability, constitutional rights and the responsibilities governments have to the people they serve.

show these young people that they are not standing alone

Supporters gathered outside the Federal Court building in Vancouver today. A public viewing session and a rally at the Vancouver Art Gallery were also organized to bring people together in support of the plaintiffs.

West Coast Environmental Law is part of the legal team supporting the case, alongside Arvay Finlay and Our Children's Trust.

I had hoped to bring my paintings to show my support. I was advised that the art gallery would be a better location because the rally was happening there. Although I couldn't be there in person today, I can still use my art, my blog and my voice to help spread the word.

Artists, writers, photographers, educators, parents, grandparents, students and concerned citizens all have something to contribute.

You don't have to be a lawyer or a climate scientist to care about the future.

You don't have to agree on every political issue to recognize the importance of young people having their day in court.

And you don't have to be in Vancouver to show your support.

Read about the case. Share reliable reporting. Follow the court proceedings. Listen to the young plaintiffs and the evidence presented. Talk about climate accountability with your friends, family and community.

Most importantly, don't let this historic trial disappear from public attention once today's headlines move on to something else.

The proceedings are expected to continue into late November, with closing arguments anticipated in February 2027.

This is not a one-day story.

my message to the young plaintiffs

To the fifteen young Canadians who have carried this case forward for seven years:

Thank you for refusing to let these questions disappear.

Thank you for persevering through the legal challenges, the waiting and the uncertainty.

Thank you for standing up for the right to have your concerns heard.

You should never have had to spend so much of your young lives fighting simply to get your case before a judge. But here you are, finally being heard.

Whatever the outcome, your determination has already brought an important national conversation into a federal courtroom.

You are asking difficult questions about responsibility, rights and the future we are leaving to the next generation. Those questions deserve serious consideration.

I hope you feel the support of the many people who care about this planet and the people who will inherit it.

You are not alone.

everyone, please share this story

If you have children, grandchildren, nieces, nephews or young people in your life, think about the world they will inherit.

If you care about the forests, the oceans, the salmon, the orcas, the wildlife, the land and the communities we call home, take a moment to learn about this case.

And if you have ever wondered whether ordinary people can challenge powerful institutions and demand accountability, pay attention to what these young Canadians are doing.

Fifteen young people began this journey in 2019. Seven years later, they are standing before a federal court.

That is courage. That is persistence. And that is a story worth telling.

Please share this post. Let these young people know that their efforts matter. Let Canada know that people are watching. And let us keep asking the questions that future generations deserve answers to.

Our future is not somebody else's problem.

It belongs to all of us.

— Tina Winterlik aka Zipolita

Sources and further reading:

• CBC News — Supporters rally as historic youth-led climate trial begins in Vancouver
• West Coast Environmental Law — Climate litigation
• Our Children's Trust — Canada Trial Headquarters, case updates and ways to support the plaintiffs

#ClimateJustice #LaRoseVCanada #YouthClimateAction #ClimateAccountability #ClimateRights #WestCoastEnvironmentalLaw #OurChildrensTrust #ProtectOurFuture #ClimateChange #YoungPeopleMatter

who is accountable for bc's prescribed drug supply?

 

calling for an independent investigation: who is accountable for bc's prescribed drug supply?

We need investigative journalists, university researchers, public institutions and people with lived experience to help us uncover the facts.

I recently came across a troubling discussion about Dilaudid (hydromorphone), prescribed safer supply, pharmacy payments and allegations involving more than 60 pharmacies in British Columbia.

The more I read, the more questions I had.

I am not a medical researcher, an investigative journalist or a public-health expert. I am a concerned citizen who believes that public money, pharmaceutical interests and the lives of vulnerable people deserve serious scrutiny.

This story is too big for one person to investigate alone.

are we learning from the oxycontin crisis?

North America has already witnessed the devastating consequences of opioid-related corporate misconduct, inadequate safeguards and failures of accountability.

We cannot assume that the circumstances surrounding Dilaudid are identical to those surrounding OxyContin. But we should be asking hard questions about financial incentives, public spending, prescribing practices, patient safety and the availability of treatment.

In February 2025, the B.C. government announced allegations involving more than 60 pharmacies and changes to its prescribed-alternatives program.

What happened next?

Were the allegations substantiated? Were any pharmacies disciplined or referred for prosecution? How much public money was involved? What independent evaluations have been published?

These are questions that deserve documented answers, not speculation or political talking points.

is there a war on people who use drugs, harm reduction, or both?

We need to look beyond the headlines and examine what is happening to human beings.

If someone depends on prescribed medication and that prescription is discontinued, what happens next?

• Can they access treatment promptly if they want to stop using drugs?
• Are detoxification, opioid agonist treatment, residential rehabilitation and long-term recovery support genuinely available?
• What happens to people who return to the unregulated drug supply?
• Are changes to prescribing policies reducing harm, increasing harm, or producing different outcomes for different groups?
• Are people being treated as individuals who need care, or as numbers in a system of prescriptions and payments?

Preventing diversion matters. So does preventing overdose deaths. Neither objective should be used to dismiss the other.

We need independent research that examines both.

who can help investigate?

I am calling on:

Investigative journalists, including the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ), to consider whether the financial arrangements, public payments and allegations warrant deeper investigation.

University researchers, particularly in public health, epidemiology, addiction medicine, pharmacy policy and health economics, to examine the available evidence and identify what remains unknown.

Public accountability institutions, including the Office of the Auditor General of British Columbia, to consider whether public spending and oversight arrangements merit further examination within their mandates.

Frontline workers and people with lived experience to share documented evidence, research, and experiences that can help explain what is happening beyond official announcements.

We need to hear from pharmacists, prescribers, outreach workers, people receiving prescribed alternatives, people in recovery and families who have lost loved ones.

Their experiences matter. So do reliable data, independent analysis and the presumption that allegations must be investigated fairly before conclusions are drawn.

this is bigger than one medication

The question is not simply whether Dilaudid is good or bad. It is whether our systems of healthcare, addiction treatment and public funding are delivering the outcomes they promise.

Who benefits financially? Who is accountable when safeguards fail? Who measures the consequences when policies change? And who ensures that people are not abandoned when they need help?

We should not have to choose between protecting vulnerable people and demanding financial transparency.

We need both.

If you are a researcher, investigative journalist, healthcare professional, frontline worker or someone with relevant lived experience, please share credible sources, published research and information that could help move this discussion forward.

Please distinguish verified facts from allegations and personal opinions. Protect the privacy of patients and other vulnerable people. We are looking for evidence, not scapegoats.

I may not have the expertise to uncover this story myself, but I can help ask the questions and bring attention to the people who do.

Sometimes the first step toward accountability is refusing to stop asking questions.

Who is willing to help investigate?

— Tina Winterlik aka Zipolita

Sources to begin with:

• B.C. government: https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2025HLTH0008-000127
• B.C. prescribed-alternatives program: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/health/practitioner-professional-resources/pharmacare/pharmacare-substance-use-disorder-hub/pa
• International Consortium of Investigative Journalists: https://www.icij.org/
• B.C. Centre on Substance Use: https://www.bccsu.ca/
• Office of the Auditor General of British Columbia: https://www.oag.bc.ca/

#Dilaudid #OxyContin #SaferSupply #OpioidCrisis #PharmaAccountability #PublicHealth #AddictionTreatment #InvestigativeJournalism #PatientSafety #BritishColumbia

we are the world 🌎🌍🌏

 A little note before you read: My kid was born in the early 2000s, and when We Are the World came out in 1985, I was about the age my kid is now. I'm 64, and this song genuinely inspired me and gave me hope. ❤️🌎 I wonder how many young people today have even heard it, and how many of us older folks have forgotten what it meant. Maybe it's time to pass that hope along.

we are the world —🌍🌎🌏🌐🗺 when music brought us together

January 28, 1985. Forty-one years ago, some of the biggest names in music came together for one extraordinary night. The result was We Are the World, a song that reminded the world what we can accomplish when we put our differences aside and work together for the greater good.

The idea began with Harry Belafonte, who wanted musicians to use their fame and influence to help people suffering from famine in Africa. Michael Jackson and Lionel Richie wrote the song, and legendary producer Quincy Jones brought an incredible group of artists together to make it happen.

After the American Music Awards, 45 musicians gathered at A&M Studios in Los Angeles. Think about that for a moment! Stevie Wonder, Bruce Springsteen, Tina Turner, Diana Ross, Bob Dylan, Ray Charles, Cyndi Lauper, Billy Joel and so many others, all in one room, donating their time and talent to a cause bigger than themselves.

Quincy Jones famously placed a sign at the studio entrance that read, “Check your egos at the door.”

And they did.

The single was released on March 7, 1985, as part of USA for Africa, raising millions of dollars for famine relief.

more than a song

Man, a lot has happened since 1985. The world has changed in so many ways, and many young people today may not even know the story behind this remarkable collaboration.

But watching or listening to We Are the World today reminds me of something we should never forget.

When people work together for the greater good, good things can happen.

Boy, did this take vision, luck, timing and love. Someone had to imagine what was possible, bring all those different personalities together, and convince them to put aside their individual interests for a common purpose.

That is no small achievement!

We don't have to be famous singers to make a difference. We can contribute our time, our skills, our creativity, our compassion or whatever we have to offer. Sometimes a small act of kindness becomes part of something much bigger than we ever imagined.

Look around us today. There is so much division, so much suffering, and so much emphasis on what separates us. Meanwhile, people everywhere are struggling to find housing, feed their families, escape conflict and simply get through another day.

Imagine what we could accomplish if we put even half as much energy into helping one another as we put into fighting with one another.

We are not all the same. We don't have to agree on everything. But we are sharing this planet, and we have a responsibility to care about what happens to one another.

That is what makes this song special to me, even after all these years.

It is a reminder of what humanity can do when we choose cooperation over competition, compassion over indifference, and love over division.

We are the world. We are the people. And we still have the power to make a difference.

What a beautiful thing to remember.

Put a little love in your heart. The world could use it.

— Tina Winterlik | Zipolita

from the amazon to canada

 

from the amazon to canada: why i still believe we must speak up

(I need to edit a bit, but posting now)

Proud of the people who keep fighting for the land, the water, the people and the future.

I remember when I first became interested in environmental destruction in the Amazon. I read Savages by Joe Kane, a book about the struggle of the Huaorani people in Ecuador against oil companies threatening their ancestral lands, forests and way of life.

That book stayed with me. It opened my eyes to what was happening to Indigenous communities and the natural world in the name of oil and money. .

I remember thinking that if enough of us spoke up, we could stop it. If people understood what was happening, surely we could make a difference.

How naive I was about the power of money, politics and corporate interests.

I have learned that speaking up does not automatically stop destruction. Awareness does not always lead to action. And even when people fight for years, the forces working against them can be enormous.

But I have never stopped caring.

a dream of the amazon

I always wanted to travel to the Amazon with my camera. I wanted to photograph everything — the incredible colours, the wildlife, the forests, the rivers and the people. I wanted to see it for myself, not simply read about it or look at photographs taken by someone else.

I wanted to witness that extraordinary world and share it through my photography.

I may never get there. Mexico has been the closest place I have found to that dream, but right now, even getting back there is difficult.

There is sadness in having dreams that circumstances may never allow us to fulfil. But loving a place, caring about its people and standing up for its future should not depend on whether we can afford to visit.

We can care from wherever we are.

i love canada, too

I love Canada. That does not mean I cannot see the damage being done here.

Our forests, rivers, coastlines, salmon, orcas and communities all need protection. Indigenous peoples continue to fight to have their rights, knowledge and relationships with their territories respected. Housing, clean water and the basic dignity of human beings should never be treated as expendable.

I have spent years using my art, photography and writing to draw attention to the things I believe matter. My Water Is Life paintings are part of that commitment. Mermaids, whales, otters, waves, forests — these are not simply subjects to paint. They represent the living world we depend on.

I cannot solve every problem. I cannot personally stop every pipeline, oil spill or act of environmental destruction. But I can refuse to pretend that these things do not matter.

And I can keep speaking up.

remembering shane pointe

I also want to remember Siem Te’ta-in (Shane Pointe), the respected Musqueam Elder and Coast Salish Knowledge Keeper, who passed away on April 8, 2026.

Shane generously shared his teachings with communities, schools and institutions throughout British Columbia. One of the teachings associated with his work was Nutsamaht — “We are one.” His words reminded people of the connections between human beings, our ancestors, the land, the water, the sky and all living things. .

We need to remember people like Shane, not only for what they taught us, but for the responsibility those teachings leave in our hands.

I also remember the words “Class Action Lawsuit.” To me, they represent the importance of people coming together to seek accountability when individuals or communities believe they have been harmed by powerful institutions. Legal action can take years, and bringing a case does not guarantee justice, but collective action can give people a way to have their voices heard.

Shane's teaching that we are one is a reminder that we should not have to face every struggle alone.

why i am still proud

Today, I am thinking about Brazil, the Amazon and everyone who continues to defend the natural world and the rights of the people who have lived in relationship with it for generations.

I am thinking about Canada, too. Loving our country should mean wanting it to do better. It should mean asking difficult questions, protecting what is precious and holding those in power accountable.

I am proud of people who stand up, even when the odds are against them. I am proud of artists, photographers, writers, knowledge keepers, community members and ordinary people who refuse to look away.

I once thought that speaking up would be enough to change the world.

I understand now that it is not that simple.

But silence will not make the problems disappear, either.

I still have my camera, my paintbrushes and my words. I still have dreams, even if some of them remain out of reach.

And I still believe that every living thing matters.

Nutsamaht. We are one.

Water Is Life. Protect the land. Respect the people. Keep speaking up.

— Tina Winterlik / Zipolita

#WaterIsLife #AmazonRainforest #IndigenousRights #ShanePointe #Nutsamaht #EnvironmentalProtection #Canada #Brazil #FightBackWithArt #WarriorUpWithArt

 

under pressure: brazil, canada, and the fight for our future

“This is our last dance…” — David Bowie and Queen, Under Pressure

Have you seen the video of the enormous crowds in Brazil, with David Bowie and Queen singing Under Pressure?

I watched it and felt something I haven't felt in a while: a sense that ordinary people still have the power to stand together, raise their voices, and demand something better.

After Canada's last federal election, I have been feeling sad about the direction our country is taking. I worry that people are being influenced by one-sided messaging, political spin, and misinformation circulating through WhatsApp and social media. When people hear only one version of a story, how can they make a fully informed decision?

Democracy needs more than an election every few years. It needs people who ask questions, check facts, listen to one another, and think beyond the next headline. It needs a public that understands what is at stake.

And it needs us to remember that our neighbours are not our enemies simply because they vote differently.

looking beyond our borders

A friend in Mexico recently mentioned BRICS, and it reminded me how much the world is changing.

BRICS originally stood for Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. The group has since expanded to include other countries across Asia, Africa and the Middle East. Canada is not a member.

BRICS is a forum for economic, political and diplomatic cooperation. Although there have been discussions about alternatives to the US dollar in international trade, BRICS does not currently have a single shared currency used by all its members.

What interests me is the bigger question: how will countries cooperate in a changing world, and will those relationships improve life for ordinary people?

Economic power means very little if people cannot afford a home, feed their families, access healthcare or imagine a future for their children.

Those are the things I want our leaders to be talking about.

today, young people are taking canada to court

Here in Vancouver, fifteen young Canadians are beginning a landmark climate trial against the federal government.

In La Rose v. His Majesty the King, they argue that Canada's actions on climate change violate their constitutional rights. They are asking the court to hold the government accountable and require a science-based Climate Recovery Plan.

Their case has taken years to reach trial.

Think about that. Young people have had to fight for seven years just to get their arguments heard in court.

They are asking questions that affect every generation: What kind of planet are we leaving behind? Who bears the consequences when governments fail to act? And do young people have a right to a safer future?

Today, people are gathering at the Vancouver Art Gallery to watch the proceedings, and a rally is planned for this evening.

I had considered going downtown myself, perhaps even taking some of my paintings. But the weather is cold, and my paintings are already taking part in the Eastside Culture Crawl. So today, I will be supporting these young people from home.

You don't have to be physically present at every demonstration to care about what is happening.

You can share information. You can tell someone about the case. You can listen to the young plaintiffs. You can refuse to look away.

solidarity is not just a word

I think about those crowds in Brazil, the young people standing up in Canada, and people everywhere who are worried about their homes, their livelihoods, their rights and their children's future.

We may live in different countries and speak different languages, but many of our concerns are the same.

We want clean water, breathable air, safe communities, affordable housing, dignity, and a future that isn't sacrificed for somebody else's profit.

We want governments to listen before the damage becomes irreversible.

And we need to be careful about the information we share. A video can inspire us, but we should also investigate its context. A message repeated thousands of times doesn't automatically become true. Before forwarding political claims, let's ask who created them, what evidence supports them, and what might have been left out.

That applies to every political party, including the ones we support.

Democracy is not about surrendering our judgment to a politician, a billionaire, an algorithm or a viral WhatsApp message. It is about exercising our own judgment.

the world is watching

I am an artist, a writer and a blogger. I have spent years using words and paintings to encourage people to think about the world around them.

My Water Is Life paintings celebrate the living things we have a responsibility to protect: mermaids, whales, otters, waves, forests and hummingbirds.

Art cannot solve every problem. But it can remind us what is worth protecting.

So, to the people in Brazil raising their voices, to the young Canadians walking into court today, and to everyone working toward a fairer, more peaceful and sustainable world:

You are not alone. Keep asking questions. Keep speaking up. Keep imagining something better.

And to everyone watching from home, as I am today: don't underestimate the power of paying attention, sharing reliable information and standing in solidarity with people who are trying to make a difference.

Perhaps that is what the music is reminding us.

We are under pressure. The question is what we choose to do with it.

Let us choose compassion over contempt, facts over misinformation, cooperation over division, and a future worth leaving to the next generation.

From Vancouver, with solidarity for everyone working toward a better world.

— Tina Winterlik / Zipolita
Emily's 2nd Act | Art, words and a little hope

Learn more:

• La Rose climate trial — Our Children's Trust
• BRICS — official information

#Brazil #BRICS #Democracy #ClimateJustice #YouthClimateAction #LaRosevCanada #UnderPressure #Misinformation #WaterIsLife #Emilys2ndAct

fake captcha scams:

 

fake captcha scams: when proving you're human becomes a security risk

A little online awareness can go a long way. Please share this information with someone who might not know.

Yesterday, I was trying to access my PayPal account. Because I rarely use it, I had to go through extra verification and make several phone calls before I could get things sorted out.

That got me thinking about something I recently saw in a video: fake CAPTCHA scams.

First, let's explain what a CAPTCHA is.

You have probably seen a box on a website asking you to click “I'm not a robot” or identify pictures containing traffic lights, bicycles or other objects. It's a way for websites to distinguish human visitors from automated computer programs.

Usually, this is a normal security measure.

But criminals have found a way to exploit our trust in it.

how the fake captcha scam works

A scam known as ClickFix tricks people into believing they need to complete a security check to access a website, watch content or prove they are human.

Instead of simply clicking a checkbox or selecting pictures, the fake verification page gives additional instructions.

For example, it might tell you to:

• Open a command window on your computer.
• Copy and paste something into it.
• Press Enter to complete the verification.

The problem? Those instructions can cause you to execute a malicious command that downloads or runs harmful software.

Depending on the attack, criminals may be able to steal passwords, account information or other sensitive data.

You think you're proving you're human. You could actually be helping criminals compromise your computer.

but what if you're using a phone?

This is where things can get confusing.

I watched a video demonstrating keyboard shortcuts such as Ctrl + R, Ctrl + V and Enter. Those instructions are intended for a computer environment, and some versions of this scam specifically target Windows users.

On a phone, the process can be different. That doesn't mean phones are immune to scams.

A fraudulent page might instead try to persuade you to download an unfamiliar application, install an APK file, grant excessive permissions or enter your login information.

Simply seeing a suspicious CAPTCHA or clicking an ordinary verification checkbox does not mean your device is infected. The danger comes from what the page subsequently persuades you to do.

how to protect yourself

Here are a few simple rules worth remembering:

1. Stop if a CAPTCHA asks you to do something unusual. A verification page should not need you to execute computer commands.

2. Never paste a command into a computer terminal just because a website tells you to. Don't press Enter to run something you don't understand.

3. Don't install unfamiliar apps to prove you're human. Be especially cautious about downloading APK files from websites.

4. Don't give a website unnecessary permissions. Be wary of requests to enable accessibility services, install certificates or disable security protections.

5. Check the website address. A familiar logo doesn't prove a page is genuine.

6. Use official apps and websites. If you're concerned about your PayPal account, open the official PayPal app or type its address yourself rather than following a suspicious link.

7. If something seems wrong, stop. Close the page and verify the request through the service's official support channel.

If you have already followed suspicious instructions, don't panic. Avoid further interaction with the page, run the appropriate security checks, and change potentially exposed passwords from a trusted device. Contact your bank or payment provider if financial information may have been compromised.

a final thought

Not everyone grew up using computers. Not everyone understands browser settings, command windows, malicious downloads or the difference between a legitimate security check and a convincing imitation.

And that's not a criticism. The internet changes constantly, and scammers deliberately take advantage of people who are simply trying to do something ordinary.

I don't claim to know everything about technology. I'm learning, asking questions and trying to understand what I see online. That's why I think these conversations matter.

Yesterday, I was simply trying to access PayPal. Someone else might be trying to pay a bill, contact family, make a donation or buy something they need.

We shouldn't have to become cybersecurity experts just to use the internet safely.

Think before you click. Never run a command you don't understand. And if a supposed security check asks you to do something that feels wrong, stop.

Please share this post with friends, family members and anyone who might benefit from knowing about fake CAPTCHA scams.

A little knowledge can prevent a great deal of trouble.

Sources for further reading:

• U.S. Federal Trade Commission: https://consumer.ftc.gov/
• Microsoft Security: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/security
• Google Safe Browsing: https://safebrowsing.google.com/

Stay curious. Stay cautious. Help each other stay safe online.

ai security concerns

 

ai security concerns: what is happening, what could happen, and how to prepare

There have been some unsettling reports about artificial intelligence and cybersecurity recently. I've seen people sharing videos about security procedures, emergency food supplies, backup power and generators.

Some of these warnings sound frightening. I think people deserve a clear explanation of what is happening, what the risks are, and what we can reasonably do to protect ourselves.

First, let's separate what we know from what we fear.

What is happening?

Artificial intelligence is becoming much better at finding weaknesses in computer software. These weaknesses, called vulnerabilities, can sometimes allow someone to break into a computer system, steal information or disrupt a service.

The same technology can help security researchers find and repair those weaknesses. However, criminals can also use AI to search for vulnerabilities, develop attacks and create convincing fraudulent messages.

Recent reports have described serious software vulnerabilities and disruptions to some online services. Security teams are working to identify and fix problems.

This is a legitimate cybersecurity concern. It does not mean that every computer system has been compromised or that a major disaster is inevitable.

What could happen?

Depending on the vulnerability and whether it is exploited, possible consequences include:

• Websites and online services temporarily going offline.
• Problems accessing some government or business services.
• Attempts to steal personal information, passwords or financial details.
• More sophisticated phishing emails, fraudulent messages and impersonation scams.
• Disruptions to organisations that rely on vulnerable computer systems.

A cyberattack against critical infrastructure could have more serious consequences, depending on the systems affected. However, we should not assume that a software vulnerability will automatically cause power outages, food shortages or the collapse of essential services.

Those are different scenarios, and claims about them need evidence.

What can ordinary people do?

We don't need to panic or spend money we cannot afford. We can take some sensible precautions now.

1. Protect your digital life.

• Install software and security updates from legitimate sources.
• Use unique passwords and multifactor authentication where available.
• Back up important photographs, documents and other files.
• Be suspicious of unexpected links, urgent requests for money and messages asking you to reveal security codes.
• Don't install software or follow technical instructions from an unverified video or message.
• Keep some important telephone numbers and contact information written down in case your phone or internet connection is unavailable.

2. Prepare for an ordinary emergency.

Canadian emergency preparedness guidance recommends keeping essential supplies available so households can manage for at least 72 hours.

Consider gradually putting together:

• Drinking water.
• Non-perishable food that you can eat without electricity.
• A manual can opener, if needed.
• A flashlight and spare batteries.
• A charged power bank for your phone.
• Necessary medication and a basic first-aid kit.
• Some cash in small denominations.
• Warm clothing, blankets and essential supplies for pets.
• A written list of emergency contacts.

You don't have to buy everything at once. Use what you already have, and add a few items when you can.

3. Think about food and water.

A temporary power outage can affect refrigeration, cooking and access to some services. Having a modest supply of shelf-stable food and drinking water is useful for many reasons, including storms and other routine emergencies.

Keep food that suits your needs and that you actually eat. Rotate your supplies rather than spending money on expensive emergency products.

British Columbia recommends planning for at least three days without power, with more supplies where practical. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/safety/emergency-management/preparedbc/know-your-hazards/power-outages

4. What about generators and backup power?

A generator can be useful in certain circumstances, but it isn't something everyone needs to buy.

Never operate a fuel-powered generator indoors, in a garage, or near doors and windows. Its carbon monoxide exhaust can kill. Barbecues and camping stoves must not be used indoors for heating or cooking either.

If you need backup power, consider whether a battery power bank or another suitable battery system would meet your needs. Any generator installation should follow the manufacturer's instructions and applicable electrical safety requirements.

5. Know where to get reliable information.

During a genuine emergency, follow instructions from local authorities and emergency services. Check official government announcements rather than relying on anonymous social media accounts.

A person speaking urgently in a video may be sincerely concerned. Their concern alone, however, does not establish that every prediction they make is correct.

Ask three questions:

• What specific event has actually been confirmed?
• What is a possible consequence, rather than a proven or imminent one?
• What practical action is recommended by a reliable source?

Preparation is not panic

I understand why people are concerned. We have experienced a pandemic, economic pressures, extreme weather, increasing dependence on digital services and a rapidly changing technological landscape.

It is reasonable to think about how we would manage if the internet went down, our phones stopped working, or a power outage lasted longer than expected.

But there is a difference between preparing for possible disruptions and telling people that a catastrophe is coming.

We should take cybersecurity seriously. We should also protect ourselves from misinformation, unnecessary fear and people trying to profit from our anxiety.

Prepare for the possibilities. Verify the warnings. Don't let fear make your decisions for you.

A little practical preparation, shared knowledge and neighbours helping one another can go a long way.

the abenaki of wôlinak

 

the abenaki of wôlinak: a history of dispossession, resistance and survival

They defended the land alongside Canadian troops. When they returned home, they discovered that their own territory had been divided up and given to white settlers.

Imagine fighting to defend a place you call home, only to return and discover that others have taken your land. Imagine being told that you no longer have the right to live where your community has existed for generations.

For the Abenaki of Wôlinak, this was not an imagined injustice. It was part of their history.

a homeland before colonization

The Abenaki are among the Indigenous peoples associated with the Wabanaki Confederacy, a network of northeastern Indigenous nations whose histories and territories extend across what are now parts of eastern Canada and the northeastern United States.

These nations had their own communities, political relationships, cultures and systems of governance long before European colonization. Their histories did not begin with the arrival of French or British settlers.

During the colonial period, the Abenaki developed relationships and alliances with the French, in part amid the growing pressures and conflicts created by British expansion. These relationships included trade, diplomacy and intermarriage. But alliances did not erase the Abenaki's own identity or their relationship with their ancestral territories.

As colonial conflict, famine and displacement affected Indigenous communities, some Abenaki families moved into the Bécancour region of what is now Quebec.

building a community, then being expelled

In 1708, an agreement was formalized to establish an Abenaki settlement on Montesson Island, near Bécancour. The community established roots there and lived on the island for approximately thirty years.

According to the historical account by Serge Rousseau, relations deteriorated when a new seigneur took control of the Bécancour estate. He challenged the Abenaki's right to occupy the land and expelled them from the island.

The community was forced to relocate, first to another island in the Bécancour River and then to a second location. Disease and flooding drove further displacement.

By 1735, the Abenaki had established themselves on the land where the Wôlinak community remains today.

Consider what these repeated moves meant. People had to leave familiar places, rebuild their homes and community, and adapt to circumstances they did not control. Their survival required extraordinary determination, but the need to demonstrate that resilience was itself a consequence of the injustice they faced.

even their church became a source of conflict

The Abenaki built a wooden church that served their community. At a time when Bécancour did not yet have its own church, local French Canadian parishioners also attended Mass there.

Even after a church was built in Bécancour in December 1757, some settlers continued to use the Abenaki church.

The historical account describes growing jealousy and tension between the communities. The Abenaki church was subsequently destroyed by fire in late December 1757. The original author records suspicions that some settlers may have set the fire to encourage the parish priest to reside at their own church. However, this allegation should not be presented as proven fact.

The church was never rebuilt.

This episode is a reminder that the history of colonization was not simply a matter of different communities living side by side. Relationships could involve cooperation and shared institutions, while also being shaped by unequal power and competing claims over land and authority.

fighting for canada, losing their own land

One of the most disturbing episodes in this account occurred after the War of 1812.

According to Rousseau's text, Abenaki warriors fought alongside Canadian forces against the American invasion. When they returned home after the conflict, they found that their territory had been divided into parcels and distributed to white settlers.

They had participated in defending the country, yet their own community was being deprived of its land.

The account describes the Abenaki resisting the dispossession, including destroying houses built on their village land. Through this resistance, they reportedly managed to retain two small islands in the Bécancour River and approximately sixty arpents of land.

That was all that remained of their former territory, according to the account.

Think about the contradiction. Indigenous people were expected to help defend the country against invasion, while their own rights to their homeland were disregarded. Their contribution did not protect them from dispossession.

They were not asking for someone else's homeland. They were fighting to retain their own.

asking for justice

The injustice continued long after the war.

On March 3, 1858, the Abenaki addressed a letter to the Canadian legislature protesting the loss of their property. A committee was reportedly established to help alleviate their poverty, and an annual pension of $200 was granted. Their original territory, however, was not restored through this measure.

Financial assistance could not undo the loss of land, community resources or autonomy. Nor could a small pension make the original dispossession fair.

The account does not establish every legal detail of the land claims, and the surviving historical record should be examined carefully. But its central narrative is unmistakable: the Abenaki of Wôlinak repeatedly faced displacement, struggled to retain their territory and sought redress from authorities who did not restore what had been taken.

resilience should not obscure injustice

The original historical text celebrates the admirable resilience of the Abenaki of Wôlinak. Their determination to survive, maintain their community and defend their rights deserves recognition.

But we should be careful about how we use the word resilience.

When people repeatedly lose their land, are forced to relocate, see their property distributed to others and struggle to obtain justice, calling them resilient is not enough. It can unintentionally shift attention away from those who caused the harm and the institutions that permitted it.

The Abenaki should not have had to demonstrate extraordinary resilience to retain their homeland.

Their story is not simply one of hardship overcome. It is a story about power, dispossession, resistance and the failure to provide justice.

And it raises an uncomfortable question for Canada: how can a country celebrate its history and its defenders while overlooking the Indigenous people whose lands were taken in the process?

The Abenaki of Wôlinak survived. Their community endured. Their history deserves to be told, not as a footnote to colonial settlement, but as part of the history of this land itself.

Before we judge Indigenous communities today, we need to understand what happened to them yesterday.

Their history did not begin with European arrival. Their rights did not originate with colonial permission. And their survival should never be mistaken for proof that the injustices they endured were acceptable.

Historical basis: Serge Rousseau, for the CAR Séminaire de Nicolet, drawing on Charles Wawanolett's history of the Abenaki, Société d’Histoire Régionale de Nicolet, F238 / E12 / 9. Specific dates, land transactions and allegations in the original account warrant verification against archival records.

historical sources

This article is based on the historical account by Serge Rousseau for the Centre d’Archives Régionales du Séminaire de Nicolet, drawing on Charles Wawanolett’s Histoire des Abénakis, as well as historical information published by the Abenaki Museum at Odanak and the National Assembly of Quebec.

The events described reflect the historical sources cited. Details of individual land transactions and the 1858 petition are attributed to the original historical account.

Sources:

- "Abenaki Museum — History of Wôlinak" (https://fort-odanak.ca/musee_abenakis-abenakis_museum-eng)

- "National Assembly of Quebec — Historical account (French)" (https://www.assnat.qc.ca/Media/Process.aspx?MediaId=ANQ.Vigie.Bll.DocumentGenerique_206929&process=Default&token=ZyMoxNwUn8ikQ+TRKYwPCjWrKwg+vIv9rjij7p3xLGTZDmLVSmJLoqe%2FvG7%2FYWzz)

- Rousseau, Serge, Les Abénakis de Wôlinak, Centre d’Archives Régionales du Séminaire de Nicolet, referencing Charles Wawanolett’s history.

 

should i be locked up because i can't afford an apartment?

Let's take this conversation a little further.

If British Columbia decides to get tougher on homelessness, addiction and public disorder, what exactly are we proposing to do with all the people who are struggling to survive?

Build more prisons? More hospitals? More institutions to contain people who don't fit into the picture of the society we want to present?

Let's imagine 5,000 homeless people are suddenly taken off the streets.

Problem solved?

Where do they go when they're released? Have they found a home? Has their addiction been treated? Has their mental health improved? Do they have an income, food and somewhere safe to sleep?

Or have we simply hidden the problem from public view?

Now let me ask you something.

Should I be locked up because I cannot afford an apartment?

I have not committed a crime by being poor. I have not committed a crime because my income is insufficient to pay Vancouver's rents. I have not committed a crime because I need help.

Yet people experiencing homelessness are often discussed as though they are a problem to be removed rather than human beings whose circumstances deserve consideration.

Not everyone experiencing homelessness has an addiction. Not everyone has a mental health condition. Not everyone is dangerous. And people living on the streets are also vulnerable to assault, theft, exploitation and death.

Yes, communities have legitimate concerns about violence and public safety. People who commit crimes must be held accountable. Nobody should have to feel unsafe in their own neighbourhood.

But we need to ask what happens when services are reduced, treatment is inaccessible, housing remains unaffordable and people are left with fewer options.

Where do those people go?

What happens when someone who needs help cannot get it? What happens when someone loses their housing and has nowhere to turn? What happens when the only response comes after a crisis, an overdose, an assault or a criminal charge?

Are we going to keep building institutions to deal with the consequences while failing to address the circumstances that bring people there?

And who pays for all of it?

Prisons require buildings, employees, security, food and medical care. Hospitals require beds, doctors, nurses and treatment. All of these services cost money.

What would it cost to prevent some of these crises through housing, accessible treatment, mental health care and ongoing support?

We should be asking those questions before making decisions that affect thousands of lives.

Because here's the uncomfortable part.

Homelessness isn't always something that happens to someone else. It can happen when work disappears, rent becomes impossible to manage, a relationship breaks down, illness intervenes or the people you thought you could count on can no longer help.

You can be a contributing member of society and still find yourself without a secure place to live.

So I ask again: should I be locked up because I cannot afford an apartment?

And if your answer is no, then what are we prepared to do about a society in which people can work, struggle, grow older and still be unable to afford a safe place to call home?

We cannot keep talking about removing people from the streets without talking about where they will go.

We cannot talk about public safety without considering what happens when people are abandoned without support.

And we cannot call a problem solved simply because we can no longer see it.

A prison cell is not a home. An institution is not a substitute for a functioning social safety net.

Being poor is not a crime. Being homeless is not a crime. And being unable to afford an apartment should never, by itself, be a reason to lose your freedom.

Think about it.

What kind of society are we building — and what happens when the person who cannot afford a home is you?

 

My family tree

genocide, colonization, privilege, and being an immigrant in your own land

I want people to stop for a moment and think about their family histories.

Think about your parents, grandparents, great-grandparents and everyone who came before them.

How EXACTLY did you get here?

Who was already living on the land when your ancestors arrived? What happened to those people? What did your ancestors witness? What opportunities did your family receive? And what do you know about the people whose land became the country you now call home?

I have been asking these questions for more than 20 years while researching my own family history.

Recently, APTN Investigates brought attention to the 1862 smallpox epidemic and the devastating impact it had on Indigenous peoples in British Columbia. The investigation, Weapon of Genocide, examines historical evidence and accounts suggesting the disease was deliberately spread.

The BC Centre for Disease Control also acknowledges historical evidence that infected materials were deliberately distributed and that colonial authorities forced Indigenous people from Victoria, burned their homes and sent people back to their home communities while infection was spreading.

This was not simply a story about a disease arriving and people dying. It was a story about colonial power, displacement, land and human lives.

The epidemic devastated Indigenous communities. The Tsilhqot'in, Haida, Heiltsuk, Stó:lō and other Nations have their own histories and accounts of what happened. Their experiences deserve to be heard and taken seriously.

And we cannot separate this history from the wider colonization of the land that became British Columbia and Canada.

my own family history

My great-great-grandfather arrived in Victoria in 1862.

My great-great-grandmother, Eliza, was Songhees.

My great-grandfather was born in 1867, nine years before his parents married in 1876 — the same year the Indian Act was passed.

Those are the facts I have uncovered.

Why did they marry when they did? What was happening in their lives? What did Eliza experience as a Songhees woman during that period? What happened to her family during the smallpox epidemic?

I can ask these questions. I can search the records. I can listen for what my ancestors may still have to tell me.

But I will not invent answers simply to fill the gaps.

I have spent more than 20 years researching my family history, and there is so much I still don't know.

My great-grandfather's 1881 diary records ordinary activities: pulling turnips, digging ditches, killing a panther and hunting deer with someone identified as Indian John.

I have fragments of their lives, but I want to understand the people behind those fragments.

My Portuguese grandfather left home at just 14 and worked aboard a whaling ship. Portugal has its own long history of maritime conquest and colonialism. What did he know? What did he witness? How did he understand the world he entered?

I don't know all the answers.

But I am willing to ask the questions.

That is what researching family history should do. It should make us curious about the lives our ancestors lived, the decisions they made and the histories that shaped them.

It should also make us look beyond our own family trees.

the Indian Act was not the beginning

The Indian Act was passed in 1876, but colonization and the dispossession of Indigenous peoples had begun long before that.

The Act consolidated earlier legislation and gave the federal government sweeping powers over First Nations lands, resources, governance and legal identity. It became a central instrument of colonial control and assimilation.

Indigenous peoples already had their own laws, governments, economies, cultures and relationships with their territories. They did not need Europeans to bring them civilization.

Yet colonial governments treated Indigenous peoples as populations to be controlled, displaced and assimilated.

The consequences were profound: loss of land, restrictions on cultural practices, interference with families and communities, residential schools, and generations of harm.

We cannot discuss Canadian history honestly without acknowledging the violence and the policies that helped establish the country.

And we cannot pretend the effects ended when the laws were written or when the people responsible passed away.

now think about privilege

I want people to consider something uncomfortable.

You can come from a family that struggled. Your grandparents might have arrived with very little money. They might have worked hard, experienced discrimination themselves and sacrificed to give their children better opportunities.

Those experiences matter.

But they do not erase what happened to the people whose lands your family settled on.

You can recognize the struggles of immigrants and acknowledge Indigenous dispossession at the same time.

You can love your ancestors without pretending they lived outside history.

You can be proud of your family's achievements while asking how the society they entered was established and who paid the price.

Privilege does not mean that every person has an easy life. It does not mean that every newcomer is wealthy or that every descendant of settlers has been handed a comfortable existence.

It means looking honestly at the opportunities, protections and advantages that some people receive while others are denied them.

And it means recognizing that the history of this land is not simply a story of newcomers arriving and building a country.

People were already here.

immigrants in their own land

Here is what particularly troubles me.

Indigenous people have lived on these territories since time immemorial. Their descendants are still here, yet they continue to face racism, discrimination, poverty and the consequences of colonial policies.

Meanwhile, people born and raised in Canada are increasingly being treated as though they are the problem when they cannot afford housing, find secure work or make ends meet.

People who have lived here their entire lives are struggling to find a place to live. People who worked, paid taxes, raised families or contributed to their communities can find themselves priced out of the places they call home.

Some feel like strangers in their own neighbourhoods. Some feel abandoned by the country they grew up in.

And Indigenous people have experienced the dispossession of their own territories on a far deeper historical scale.

These are different histories, and we should not pretend they are identical. But both demand that we ask difficult questions about who has power, who gets access to resources, who is pushed aside and who is blamed when systems fail.

We should be able to discuss housing, immigration, wages and public services without turning vulnerable people against one another.

Newcomers are not collectively responsible for Canada's housing crisis. Indigenous people are not responsible for the poverty imposed on their communities. People struggling to survive should not be treated as disposable simply because they have less money or less power.

The real questions concern the policies, economic decisions and inequalities shaping our lives.

Who benefits? Who is excluded? Who has a voice? And who is expected to carry the consequences?

what do we owe one another?

I am not writing this to tell every person alive today to feel guilty for having ancestors who came from somewhere else.

We did not choose the circumstances of our births.

But we can choose whether to learn the history honestly.

We can choose to listen when Indigenous people tell us what happened to their families and communities. We can learn whose territory we live on. We can acknowledge the violence of colonization without dismissing it as ancient history.

We can also refuse to accept a society in which people who are struggling are blamed for their circumstances while those with the greatest power and resources escape scrutiny.

We need to stop treating human beings as problems to be removed.

Whether we are talking about Indigenous communities, immigrants, people experiencing homelessness, people living in poverty or families who can no longer afford the cities where they grew up, we should be asking what has gone wrong and what we can do to make things better.

A person's worth is not determined by the size of their bank account, the colour of their skin, the country their parents came from or whether they have a permanent address.

i want people to think

Look at your family history.

Ask where your ancestors came from, why they left, what they experienced and how they came to live where they did.

Then look at the history of the people who were already here.

Learn about the 1862 smallpox epidemic. Learn about the Tsilhqot'in chiefs who were hanged in 1864–1865. Learn about the Indian Act, residential schools and the policies that attempted to break Indigenous connections to land, family and culture.

Consider what your ancestors may have witnessed and what opportunities became available to their descendants.

You don't have to reject your family to acknowledge the truth.

You don't have to deny the struggles of immigrants to recognize the genocide and dispossession experienced by Indigenous peoples.

And you don't have to accept a system that treats people born and raised here as disposable when they fall into poverty.

We cannot change the past, but we can stop pretending it never happened.

We can stop blaming the people with the least power for every problem we face.

We can listen. We can learn. We can question the stories we were taught. We can make room for histories that were ignored or deliberately silenced.

I am still searching for the story of my great-great-grandmother, Eliza. I want to understand her life, her family and the world she lived in.

Her history matters to me because she is my ancestor.

And the history of Indigenous peoples matters to all of us because it is part of the history of this land.

Before you decide who belongs, who deserves help, who is privileged or who is the problem, take a look at the history that brought us here.

Who was here before your ancestors arrived? What happened to them? What advantages do you have today? And what are you going to do with what you learn?

Those are questions worth asking.

Not to divide us, but to help us understand one another, confront injustice and build a country where nobody is treated as an unwanted person in the place they call home.