#IdleNoMore

[dzuunmod]

So, there's a protest movement among Canadian First Nations people that's gaining steam, and it's called Idle No More. It's getting a lot of talk around the office, and I think it has a lot of potential to be a thorn in the side of the Harper government this spring - which is fantastic. Here's an article from the National Post that explains it a

Comments

[sabatoa]

I know Lori has mentioned Bill C45 and I know that native groups are pissed about it but I don't really know the details on why they're upset.

What do you think about this hunger strike to meet with Harper? Is it dangerous precedent if he concedes because then others may try the same method?

...then again if she represents a large coalition of first nations then why hasn't he met with her yet...

I dunno.

I can tell you that a week ago Lori posted on her wall about the shootings in CN and one of her family members spent more time arguing about aboriginal affairs than what happened with these kids.

[raccoonbonapart]

I don't see how it's dangerous if people start going on hunger strikes.

[dzuunmod]

Really? I support Chief Spence, but I can at least understand why people would be maybe conflicted about presenting her as a role model to their children.

[raccoonbonapart]

"Dangerous precedent" to me kind of sounds like "negotiating with terrorists." What do role models and children have to do with it?

[dzuunmod]

A Conservative senator suggested that someone threatening their own health like this is maybe not the best role model for children, so it's been a topic of discussion out there.

I'm not saying it's not noble, what she's doing, it's just that I would have a hard time, were I a parent, talking her up to my own kids. But I'm not a parent so what do I know.

As for the terrorism bit - yeah, I do kind of see it that way because it does set a dangerous precedent. Harper should have met with her a long time ago, but he didn't, and now he's painted into a corner.

I suppose *if he admits he was wrong not to take the meeting in the first place*, he can save face and not set precedent. But anything less (and really can you see that happening?) and he is setting precedent that basically any political/social leader who has whatever cause can go hungry to get a meeting with him.

And that is dangerous, right? You don't want some anti-abortion jerk to have that avenue open, right? Then it can't be open to anyone - that's what I'm saying.

[raccoonbonapart]

I don't have a problem talking her up to my kid. I don't have a problem talking Ghandi up either. Eliot has no desire to go on a hunger strike at this point in time. If he wants to when he's older, that's his decision. I'm not really fretting that he might go on a hunger strike when he grows up, I'm more worried that he will be a cocaine addict like his dad. Anyway, I did 30 hour famine when I was in high school and my parents didn't freak out and I didn't die, so...

[dzuunmod]

Honestly, if he had just taken her initial meeting request, he wouldn't be in this position. I don't know what his move is here though, now.