WHO GETS TO DECIDE WHO BELONGS?
I am angry.
Not mildly annoyed. Angry.
Because I keep watching the same old story play itself out in Canada: Indigenous peoples are expected to continually explain, defend and justify their rights on their own lands, while politicians argue about how much recognition they should be allowed to have.
Now we have a B.C. Conservative MLA, Harman Bhangu, seeking to repeal the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA).
And yes, I understand the legal distinction: Elections BC has approved the initiative petition to proceed. DRIPA has not been repealed. This is the beginning of an attempt to collect signatures.
But that attempt itself deserves scrutiny.
Stop for a minute and think about the history.
Canada is a country built through colonization.
Indigenous peoples did not immigrate here and ask for permission to exist. They were already here.
Their governments, laws, languages, cultures and relationships to the land existed long before Canada became Canada.
Then came colonial governments, land dispossession, residential schools, the Indian Act, restrictions on Indigenous governance and generations of policies designed to assimilate Indigenous peoples.
And now, in 2026, we're still arguing about whether Indigenous peoples should have meaningful recognition of their rights.
How did we get here?
And why are some politicians so determined to turn Indigenous rights into something frightening?
The part that really bothers me
Bhangu is of Indian heritage.
That isn't a problem.
Being Indian isn't a problem. Being an immigrant isn't a problem.
Canada is made up of people from everywhere.
But I find the political contradiction worth talking about.
India itself has an enormous and complicated history of colonialism, including nearly two centuries of British rule and the continuing consequences of that history.
So I find it deeply uncomfortable when someone whose family comes from another formerly colonized part of the world arrives in Canada and then takes a political position that would roll back recognition of the rights of the Indigenous peoples whose lands we are all living on.
That's the conversation I want to have.
Not:
"Go back to India."
That is too easy.
And it misses the point.
The point is:
Wherever you come from, once you live here, you have a responsibility to understand the history of the land you're living on.
You don't get to arrive in a country shaped by colonization and pretend colonization is ancient history because it makes today's politics inconvenient.
DRIPA didn't create Indigenous rights
This is another thing that gets lost.
DRIPA didn't magically give Indigenous peoples rights.
It was B.C.'s framework for implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
And Indigenous rights don't originate with a provincial government.
They existed before British Columbia existed.
They existed before Canada existed.
They existed before somebody drew lines on a map and called them provinces.
So when people talk about "giving Indigenous peoples special rights," I want to stop them right there.
We're not talking about handing somebody a gift.
We're talking about recognizing rights that Indigenous peoples have been asserting for generations.
And who gets uncomfortable when Indigenous people have a voice?
That's the question.
Because apparently Indigenous participation is welcomed when it's symbolic.
Put Indigenous art on the wall.
Celebrate Indigenous culture.
Have a ceremony.
Use the words reconciliation and relationship.
But when Indigenous rights potentially affect land, resources, development, government decisions or money, suddenly everybody gets very nervous.
Suddenly we're told:
"This creates uncertainty."
"This is bad for investment."
"This will stop development."
"We need clarity."
Maybe.
But let's ask another question:
Clarity for whom?
For governments?
For corporations?
For investors?
For developers?
Or for Indigenous nations whose territories and laws were ignored for generations?
I am tired of the double standard
Canadians are constantly told that reconciliation is important.
But reconciliation cannot mean:
"We'll recognize you until recognizing you becomes inconvenient."
You cannot celebrate Indigenous Peoples Day and then turn around and argue that Indigenous rights are an obstacle.
You cannot put Indigenous artwork in government buildings while trying to weaken the legal framework intended to recognize Indigenous rights.
You cannot say "we're all Canadians now" while conveniently forgetting how Canada came to possess the land in the first place.
And you cannot erase history simply because the history makes the present uncomfortable.
This isn't about where Harman Bhangu was born
I want to be very clear about that.
People from India, China, Mexico, Europe, Africa, the Philippines, the Middle East and everywhere else have every right to live in Canada.
I don't care where someone comes from.
What matters is what they do once they're here.
If you come to Canada, learn the history.
Learn whose land you're living on.
Learn what the Indian Act did.
Learn about residential schools.
Learn about treaties—and the absence of treaties in much of B.C.
Learn why Indigenous nations are still fighting for recognition.
Then enter the political debate.
But don't come here and simply reproduce the same old colonial assumption:
that the government gets to decide what Indigenous peoples are entitled to.
That's exactly the thinking reconciliation is supposed to challenge.
Canada needs to stop pretending reconciliation is easy
Maybe that's what makes me angriest.
We talk about reconciliation like it's a nice little national project.
It isn't.
It's uncomfortable.
It challenges property.
It challenges government authority.
It challenges resource development.
It challenges the stories Canadians were taught about how this country was created.
And yes, sometimes it challenges us.
That's the point.
Because if reconciliation never makes anybody uncomfortable, we're probably not actually doing reconciliation.
We're just decorating colonialism.
And I'm not interested in that.
— Zipolita
10 Hard Reflective Questions
If Indigenous rights existed before Canada, who gave Canada the authority to take them away?
Why does reconciliation seem acceptable until it affects land, resources, money or political power?
When we call Indigenous rights an “obstacle” to development, whose interests are we actually protecting?
Can Canada honestly claim to support reconciliation while politicians campaign to weaken the laws intended to advance it?
What would Canada look like today if Indigenous nations had never been forced to surrender their authority over their own lands?
Why are newcomers expected to learn Canadian laws and customs, but so many Canadians never learn the colonial history that created the country?
When does “certainty for business” become another way of saying that Indigenous rights are inconvenient?
Are we willing to accept Indigenous sovereignty only when it is symbolic—or also when it changes who has decision-making power?
If we believe colonialism was wrong, what are we willing to give up today to actually undo some of its consequences?
What does reconciliation mean if, the moment Indigenous rights become politically or economically inconvenient, we decide they have gone too far?
#DRIPA #IndigenousRights #Colonialism #Reconciliation #UNDRIP #Decolonization #BCPolitics #LandRights #CanadianHistory #PoliticalAccountability
No comments:
Post a Comment