Toronto Media Co-op

Local Independent News

More independent news:
Do you want free independent news delivered weekly? sign up now
Can you support independent journalists with $5? donate today!

The Spectre of the ARA

Christie Blatchford blocked from speaking in KW by Anti-Racist Action

by KW Anti-Racist Action


On Friday, November 12, 2010, in response to the presence of white racist apologist Christie Blatchford at a speaking event at the University of Waterloo, members of KW Anti Racist Action (ARA) locked down the event. Blatchford was planning to promote her book and her shameless racist ideologies. Fortunately, ARA got to the venue before she did. Three people were locked down together on the stage, while another took care of the podium. Audience members reacted with a mixture of yells, some supporting the chained people, and others berating the speakers for not having paid for the stage. 

Christie Blatchford arrived late to her own event, and the official facilitator declined to invite her to the stage. Members of Anti Racist Action feel that it is important to challenge those who attempt to divide our community on the basis of race and class. Christie Blatchford provided ARA with the perfect opportunity to speak out against her outrageous claims that the police gave indigenous protesters at Caledonia preferential treatment. In her book, Blatchford consistently asserts, “the government and police have failed the citizens of Caledonia,” while at the same time declines to comment on any land claim issues, which must form the core of any honest analysis of the situation in Caledonia.

In the 1990s, at a peak of southern Ontario's white supremacist movement, Blatchford accused leftists and anti-racists of violent acts against members of this racist movement,  and failed to discuss the violence caused by the racists. While she admitted that she did not believe Ernst Zundel's words, she glamorized his “struggle” and made the actions of ARA seem inconsequential, despite the widespread power of and community support for ARA existing at the time Blatchford has proven over and over again that she does not do her research, fails to connect ideas and events that are inherently inseparable, and, above all, does not respect anybody beyond what her privileged attitude will allow. 

Community members feel that this type of one-sided journalism negates context, thereby allowing aggressors to hide under the cloak of victimization. With her new book, Helpless, Blatchford is at it again, speaking about the situation in Caledonia as one in which the police had no power. In truth, the police had an abundance of power, which they chose to exercise in a way that did not suit Blatchford. With her insistence on a narrow representation of the “citizens of Caledonia,” she has demonstrated an astonishing lack of honesty in her analysis, a mind-boggling resistance to common sense, and most worrying of all, a commitment to publicly promoting her insincere and misinformed opinions.

“As members of the KW community, we feel it is important to challenge all those who come into our spaces creating room for racism, sexism, and homophobia,” stated organizer Kat Wombwell. Other participants in the action strongly agreed, and further added that the whole community suffers and is weakened, when people allow themselves to be subjected to the dominance of people such as Christie Blatchford.

The goal of this action was to silence Blatchford and make it clear to her, and to her supporters, that the people of Kitchener-Waterloo will not tolerate bigoted, ignorant analyses of our indigenous allies. We will not stand by and watch undisturbed, as Blatchford and those who share her views attempt to poison the minds of people across Turtle Island. Our goal was clearly achieved, as Blatchford was not invited to take the stage and did not protest at the lack of invitation. It has been made evident to the community that Blatchford and her like are not welcome, and that KW ARA is alive and well, energetic and well-informed. We are proud to have stopped this racist apologist from further disseminating her lies, and we firmly pledge to be present at the rescheduling of this event, in order to continue our “Campaign Against Christie”.

This action was preceded by a teach-in run by the Concerned Settlers of Waterloo Region on the Grand River Territory.


Want more grassroots coverage?
Join the Media Co-op today.

Creative Commons license icon Creative Commons license icon

About the poster

Trusted by 5 other users.
Has posted 107 times.
View Dan Kellar's profile »

Recent Posts:

picture of Dan Kellar

Dan Kellar (Dan Kellar)
Member since July 2009


friendly neighbourhood anarchist, rad dad, land defence enthusiast, decolonial digger, radio pirate, indy journalist, systems geographer.

662 words


this is

literally the best news i have read all day.

way to go kw ara! i want to be on the stage with you next time.



Fascists supress the ideas of others are try to prevent free speech.


Where the fuck do you morons get the idea of connesting Blatchford to Ernst Zundel. You assholes bear a much closer resemblance to Joseph Stalin


Fascists supress the ideas of others are try to prevent free speech.


Where the fuck do you morons get the idea of connesting Blatchford to Ernst Zundel. You assholes bear a much closer resemblance to Joseph Stalin

They're not preventing free speech

Free speech is the freedom to speak without sanction by the government.

This is civil disobedience that prevents a specific person from speaking at a specific time, and is also a form of expression. From what I can tell, there was no violence or threat thereof.

So you're going to have to find another argument to lean on. You might even have to explain, without resorting to concepts that don't apply, why you think that it's not acceptable for people who feel strongly about allowing racist ideologies to proliferate in their community to take peaceful direct action to maintain those limits by putting their bodies on the line.

They certainly are.


"Free speech is the freedom to speak without sanction by the government."
If you are referring to the American First amendment, as well as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Then that is correct, they specifically deal with government limiting speech. Which this is not a case of.
However there is another relevant document titled the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
Article 19 
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Freedom to hold opinions without interference.  Which means that if someone wants to speak, and others want to gather to listen. That is no one else's fucking business and they should leave them alone.
Your argument that only government can restrict free speech is garbage. Every human has the right to free speech and any human can interfere with that right.


So explain to me then: how has Christie Blatchford's "right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference" been violated? Is she being prevented from seeking, receiving and imparting information and ideas through any media?

Doesn't look like it to me.

From the article: "The goal

From the article:

"The goal of this action was to silence Blatchford,"

I'm not really sure if it could be stated more clearly. And yes she was prevented from imparting information and ideas through the medium that was the talk she was scheduled to give.

Just because the right hasen't been violated in all mediums and in all places does not chance the fact that this action was clearly intended to violate her right to freely talk to people who had gathered to hear her listen.

The only case you have

Is that they said it was their intent to "silence" her. That case would evapourate if they added the words "today, in K-W". Other than that, there's nothing about the action that actually violates her rights. Christie Blatchford has a position of extreme privilege when it comes to communicating; she can access hundreds of thousands more people than anyone posting here.

Speaking in a manner that excludes, in a particular time and place, the possibility of someone else speaking, isn't a violation of the right to free expression. You might argue that it's rude, or stupid, or tactless. But it's not a violation of the Charter or the UN Declaration.

Hi, I just have a few

Hi, I just have a few questions for the poster of this article. What is KW Anti-Racist Action? How long as it been around? I also have the same questions about Concerned Settlers of Waterloo Region on the Grand River Territory.

I'm asking because I have been in KW for going on 6 years now, and have been involved in activist work for many of those years, yet I had never heard of either of those groups until now. I remember seeing the Facebook page for the teach-in, and I thought it said it was being done with members of the Six Nations Solidarity Network, was I or the page mistaken?

The reason I am posing these questions is because these groups sound like the sort of thing I would like to get involved in. As a person of mixed-race Native descent, I've always been involved in anti-racist and indigenous solidarity work, and would be quite excited to find that there are groups in KW who specifically orient themselves towards that kind of work.


hey chuck, if you want to be involved in such work, come on down the the kwccsj and talk to folks there.


kw ara is real old, figting back nazis the last time the popped up in town and the concerned settlers is an ad hoc group composed of many people.

"The goal of this action was to silence Blatchford"

"The goal of this action was to silence Blatchford" - Gotta love censorship!

That's not censorship.

Check the definitiion of censorship at Wikipedia or anywhere else:

Censorship is suppression of speech or other communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the general body of people as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body.

Is ARA a controlling body? Did they exercise any sanction other than peacefully arranging their bodies to block Blatchford, and exercise their own freedom of expression?

"Their own freedom of expression"

"The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins."

Oliver Wendell Holmes

So no, thats a pretty messed up view of freedom of expression if it also allows you to prevent others freedom of expression. That would kind of defeat the whole purpose.




Not freedom of expression. One space

Nothing about the action stops Blatchford from holding and expressing opinions. What they did is contest the use of a particular space at a particular time.

Does a chairperson violate freedom of expression when s/he rules someone out of order at a meeting and bangs the gavel to silence them? No. Does the Globe and Mail violate freedom of expression when they fire a racist columnist? No.

Is it a violation of your freedom of speech if I use my administrative power to delete your comment from the Media Co-op? No. It might be unjust, and it is a violation of our policies, but it's not a violation of your freedom of speech.

Unfortunately, the fact of

Unfortunately, the fact of the matter is that the most people you are trying to convince do not have time to read deeply into the various contradicting definitions of free speech and there is no way of summarizing this event in a way that convinces them that's not what happened. After reading a whole bunch on this issue I have to agree that the protesters have some really great points and Christie Blachford is pretty racist, but the fact of the matter is most people who hear this story are more likely to take her side. Plus the controversy will add to her book sales immensely. I agree with your views but this is no way to teach them to the general public.

could you share with us what

could you share with us what you think we should do.  she is coming back to waterloo on decembre 7th and there seems to be an open call for actions...

On Liberty

I think that you should real On Liberty by J.S. Mill.  Specifically Chapter 2 on Freedom of Speech.  Suffice to say, you're doing it wrong.

Did *you* read it?

You should. J.S. Mill's idea of freedom of speech is protecting people against censorship by the government. He consistently refers to abuse of power by "public authority".

THE TIME, it is to be hoped, is gone by, when any defence would be necessary of the "liberty of the press" as one of the securities against corrupt or tyrannical government. No argument, we may suppose, can now be needed, against permitting a legislature or an executive, not identified in interest with the people, to prescribe opinions to them, and determine what doctrines or what arguments they shall be allowed to hear.

Take a look.

Christie Blatchford has a right not to face government sanction for her thoughts and public or private statements.

If you want to argue that a bunch of people acting peacefully to block Blatchford from taking the stage are acting immorally, go for it. But they are not violating her freedom of expression, because she has faced no government sanction for her speech by their actions, or at all, for that matter.

If police removed Blatchford from the scene, or the city of K-W fined her, then that would be a violation of her freedom of expression.

This is just civil disobedience, and you're going to have to engage it on some other grounds.

It was clear that the

It was clear that the protesters were determined to make sure Ms. Blatchford comments could not be heard over their shouting.  There was nothing about that, that I regarded as "civil".  I wanted to hear her perspective as well as those who disagree with her.  instead, all I got was a close-up view of thuggery activism. 

If you disagree with me, you will shout me down and make sure I'm  not heard.  Then I will shout you down so others cannot hear you.  And all we have is chaos and anarchy and name-calling.  The only reason the protestors were not removed is due to the fact the UW lacked the backbone to have them removed. 

anarchy is much more than

anarchy is much more than name-calling...  in fact, i don't know if name-calling even makes the playbook...  and im not too sure about the official anarchist playbook anymore either...

and im pretty sure the guy who called me an idiot today for my dog's behaviour was not an anarchist, so how does this support your theory of anarchy by name calling?

also, blatchford never made it to stage, no one had to yell over her, the yelling started when "rent your own stage" dude started going off after Tallula took the mic to discuss how blatchford misrepresents and lies.

now, more seriously.  with the distaste for truth and the supremest reporting christie blatchford practices, how can we have a civil conversation?  she takes the history out of the context of the current situation and ignores nation-to-nation agreements.  what is civil about the genocide of a people?  what is civil about the settler goverment's non-compliance of treaties?  let's start to think of what we want to be as a base level for "civil" before we start to let history deniers and colonialist propagandists speak at our universities, social spaces, churches, libraries, or bookstores.

and i am wondering @clancy, what do you mean by a backbone to have them removed?  what would have you done to the protestors if you were allowed to use the state of exception for your "justice"?

I find it hilarious how you

I find it hilarious how you equate the ramblings of Christie Blatchford, which are legitimate if not well written criticisms, with racism.

Your attack on free speach

Your attack on free speach prompted me to go out and buy the book.

Hi Fascists,   By resorting

Hi Fascists,


By resorting to violence and the silencing of others you expose for all the bankruptcy of your arguments, and your inability to simply argue with Blatchford.  Your smug and self-righteous attitude is not warranted: in reality you are nothing more than intellectually deficient closet authoritarians.  You are fascists, because you choose to use violence when words would serve you best.  By supposedly fighting under the banner of anti-racism, you bring this cause into disrepute. 




first up, where was the violence? secondly, how do you have a debate with someone who has a distaste for the truth and actively denies history?

It seems that "racism" has

It seems that "racism" has been redefined as whatever statements left - wing activists don't like to hear.

I understand why this strategy is used - it has been effective in the past. But you will see that you have overplayed your hand, like the boy who cried "wolf", and pretty soon no one will be listening to you, whether you are truly fighting racism, or lying (as you have in this case). 

How sad for Canada that this is what our universities are turning into.


People took the time out of

People took the time out of their schedules to go see Blatchford speak. She took the time to come up from Toronto to speak at the university. 5 people is not a community reacting, 5 people is just a bunch of young pricks trying to control what people are allowed to hear.

How does preventing speech prevent racism? (It doesn't). In this day and age hate speech is widely available through the Internet. This has absolutely nothing to do with preventing racism. This comes across as young people with nothing better to do than attempt to control what others are allowed to hear by calling it "racist". In reality she is presenting one side of the story, which while biased, shouldn't be stopped. 


Its incredible disrespectful to stop the speaker of an event from speaking. If you don't like what they are saying, leave the room. 


I hope she sells a lot of books, KW ARA is certainly giving her lots of publicity.


So allowing George galloway, who is a known terrorist supporter, to speak is OK but preventing Christie Blatchford not to because she wants to speak the truth is not? Typical leftie moranism, smear them with the R word and suddenly it's OK. I don't think so, Stalin would be proud of you guys, when does th book burning and executions take place?

You Lost

You lost the battle decades ago. Grow up & get over it!

all these "fascist" responses

all these "fascist" responses are so weird.


have you ever read anything by christie blatchford? no? well, it's racist.

it's drivel, and poorly written, and plays to your emotions and isn't backed up by facts and relies on vague and ethnocentric notions of "nationhood", and falls into every category of gender stereotype and is filled with fear and loathing of everything not middle class and "respectable". AND it's racist.

furthermore "freedom of speech" neither prohibits people who disagree from doing so in whatever medium they wish to express it (with their bodies, for instance), nor does it permit the saying of whatever, anywhere, about anything.

just a reminder - the late great CANADIAN no-fascist media theorist Marshall McLuhan referred to millions of things as mediums of communication, including your clothing, your skin, your very body. so, wouldn't that mean that those KW ARA folks were using *their* freedom of speech when they took over that podium. hmmm.

you "facist" accusers really need to tone it down. if you don't like what happened, donate some money to the "christie needs a haircut" fund and stop wasting your time posting here.

why has no one mentioned

why has no one mentioned hitler yet? come on! you've thrown out every maniacal right-wing accusatory trope BUT hitler. get it over with! call them hitler already!

Blatchford a racist? Then so is 90% of Ontario

It is a bit of an ideological stretch to call Blatchford a racist. I am no fan of her or her writing, but simply because she "sided" with the non-indigenous residents of Caledonia does not constitute racism. I have read much of her coverage on this subject, and while she openly condemns the actions of native protestors and their land occupation, it is a discredit to a free dialogue on the subject to call it racism. I do not remember anything she said being about the indigenous people as a "people," nor do I recall anything she said as essentialist (if anything, the reverse is true -- she frequently characterized the "white" residents of Caledonia as "simple" and "angry).

I haven't read her book. I don't know its contents. I imagine it probably contains much of the same condemnations as her many articles. It is a shame that these protestors chose to exercise their right to protest against Blatchford, because if they think she is a racist, then I guarantee the vast majority of rural and suburbanite Ontario residents agree with her. So you'd appear to have an outbreak of racism on your hands, and if you think that locking her out of this event is "enlightening" the minds of area residents, you have a lot more work to do than you think. Good luck with that.

"then I guarantee the vast

"then I guarantee the vast majority of rural and suburbanite Ontario residents agree with her. So you'd appear to have an outbreak of racism on your hands,"


I'm fairly certain that is what people are talking about.  Systemic racism is slightly different from the average overtly racist hate-mongers with the KKK.


Blatchford (and the whole Caledonia debacle) are simple a result of systemic racism and colonialism.


How does a person write about issues facing Canada's indigenous population and not mention land claims? Everything comes back to the land!

I have tried to have an open

I have tried to have an open and fair dialogue with Christie Blatchford before sending a series of emails to her with several questions and criticisms of a severley biased article that she wrote. She was rather evasive. That is sherefused to engage in dialogue and answer my questions and instead chose to attack my writing style.

I have read excerpts from her book and she sounds like she is running for office or something.

I don't really have time for middle class institutionalized racism. Which I should say comes through in some of the above comments.

I appreciate this action. At the same time I hope that the individuals involved are constantly challenging themselves.

And if any of you want to criticize me because I don't think that apologists like Christie should be allowed to move around protected by their priviledged middle class peace.

Go buy her book that will show us.

you know we are... can't live

you know we are... can't live without self-reflection and radical self-critique.

Ahhh, I love it when idiots open their mouoths...

For they provide the rest of us with fodder.

The truth is, the Anti racist Action, or ARA are indicative of the left. They cannot tolerate or abide any opinion that does not conform to their narrowly defined, collectivist idea of the truth. When someone does try to speak up, it is not their ideas that are attacked, but their character. The left likes using ad hominem attacks because they know, deep inside, and yet are afraid to admit it that their cherished beliefs are nothing more than cod swollop.

One og the above posters opined that Christie Blatchford gives no mention of land claims, and tars her as an apologist. The focus of her book is not the issue of land claims, but how the Provincial Government acceeded its authority to an unelected, militant organization that is also suspected of organized criminal behaviour: The Warriors Society. She criticizes the government for abandoning law abiding citizens to a terror campaign mounted by violent, racialist, isolationist extremists within the First Nations community.

Now, if you want to talk about land claims, don't raise that topic unless you know where from you speak. Why? Well, my dear friends, the Six Nations Mokawk on the Haldemand Tract are not indigenous to the area. Like the Cuyuga, they fought for the British during the American Rebellion, and then fled New York for Ontario, and the protection from prosecution that the Crown offered, Then Governor Hamdemand leased them the land for the notional price of One Pound. The land was never deeded to them, but instead lent to them as long as they prmised loyalty to the Crown. Then one of their own sold it off in the 1870's.

So, PISS on the Six Nations. Let them go back to New York and whine after their "traditional" territory.

Hear Hear!

Wise words Hagbard Celine and very true. This is the truth that nodoby wants to confront and talk about, it cuts too near to the bone. The OPP abdicated it's response to the unlawful few and made themselves look like asses just to be politically correct. I have no respect for them or the people on this board who support that stance, they are lawbreakers and nothing less

Chuck in K-W asked some

Chuck in K-W asked some questions that are unanswered:

"What is KW Anti-Racist Action? How long as it been around? I also have the same questions about Concerned Settlers of Waterloo Region on the Grand River Territory."

I hope someone answers.

Elise: I have read plenty by


I have read plenty by Christie Blatchford.  Not racist a single bit.  You just throw that word around to give you a feeling of superiority, which is massively undeserved.


You on the other hand are a fascist, not just because you're a moron and I disagree with you, but because you act like a fascist.


Let's go into more details so that I dont come off as throwing the term around loosely.


What constitutes a fascist?  Well, fascism is a collectivist ideology which denies individuals of their inherent worth and which subordinates everything to the collective.  This is an apparrent contradiction because obviously there are individuals who rule the collective, but fascists are not usually very intelligent so it does not bother them.  Fascists dont think much of individual rights like freedom of speech, because free individuals could have ideas which differ from the collective's groupthink and that is bad for fascists.  So when fascists cant argue with reason (i.e., always, see above re lack of intelligence), they form little groups and use violence and threats to get their way.  Voila, fascism in full display by the ARA.


And you dare say that WE need to tone it down?  until your side learns how to behave in civil society, you will be treated like the spoiled child that you are.  Grow the fuck up - the world is different from your fucking women's studies class.

'civil' societies make genocide.

p { margin-bottom: 0.21cm; }a:link { }

 According to wikipedia, “Scholars generally consider fascism to be on the far right.[10][11][12][13][14][15]”.


I'm no scholar, but I think that chuckin' round the word fascist, is just like when Anonymous says,


“It seems that "racism" has been redefined as whatever statements left - wing activists don't like to hear.

I understand why this strategy is used - it has been effective in the past. But you will see that you have overplayed your hand, like the boy who cried "wolf", and pretty soon no one will be listening to you, whether you are truly fighting racism, or lying (as you have in this case). 

How sad for Canada that this is what our universities are turning into.”


What is certain, is that fascism is of your political class, right wing goofs.  Name one known Fascist to actually be considered left wing?  Fascism actually refers to a politic, and past manifestations of that politic, and the current conditions for my friend Alex.

At least this sexist, angry guy is clear that he's right wing. 

As far as racism goes, one doesn't have to overtly be a racist to be racist. Racism does exist. To be divisive based on race is 'racist'. Preference of one's culture's point of view without consideration for the 'other' is divisive, based on race. = racist, or racial, or racialist. As you wish. A government cannot be a racist, but is racist. The colonial government by default.


As for Hagbard, I have never heard anything more stupid than the “Mohawk... are not indigenous... blah blah blah, I think your trying to say that it's not their traditional territory. This is a good example of a racist colonist. He thinks that whatever reason (colonization) the Mohawk might live a relatively small distance from where they have always lived, and colonial war, and colonial law; can justify him to say “PISS on the Six Nations” ?????

This is the right wing of KKKanada.  Angry, violent, hurtful, sexist.  Let me guess, sexism doesn't exist either. 


Racism certainly exists, but

Racism certainly exists, but Christie Blatchford is not the purveyor of it.  Also, sorry to crush your comfortable preconceptions, but fascism is actually left-wing, regardless that it's been mischaracterized as far-right.


The word from fascism comes from the Italian 'fasci' which means a collection of rods held together - the symbolism being that the collective is stronger than the individual.  It was created by Mussollini, a card carrying member of the Italian Socialist party, and while he allowed for a bigger role for private corporations, everything was directed by the state.  If you know even the slightest bit of political science, you would understand that this makes it left-wing, as the no. 1 principle of conservatism is to reduce the role of the state to a minimum, which stands in direct contradiction to the priniciples of fascism.


The notion that Mussolini was left-wing would likely come to a surprise to those left-wing elements he had purged from society.  This is the same argument made by folks who like to attribute the Nazis to the left, despite the role they played in destroying European labour movements, and their ostensible anti-Communist agenda.  The left has Stalin... which is bad enough.  But there is no doubt that fascism is a movement of the furthest extreme right.  The right-left spectrum is essentially concerned with the ownership of property and the means of production.  The right favours private property and a capitalist means of production, and the left favours collective ownership of property, and a collectivist means of production.  It is that simple.

The idea of "less government" is a contemporary, Grover Norquist notion of conservatism.  It is a notion parrotted by corporate apologists, who seek to remove regulation over private capitalist development and thereby remove barriers to corporate profit. 

State control over resources is a trademark of Marxist-Leninist/Stalinist political/economic systems, and is not characteristic of leftism more generally.  Both the social democratic left (which favours free markets and representative democracy) and anarchists (who oppose the state structure altogether) oppose a centralized economic system.

Redefining Fascism


You have no idea what you're talking about.  Fascism is about much more than simply "a collectivist ideology".  Morons like you, who valorize the intangible concept of individualistic freedom while angrily denouncing those who actually exercise theirs have no right posing as an expert on issues they clearly do not understand.

If you are truly interested in learning about fascism is, and what it constitutes, I would recommend reading The Five Stages of Fascism by Robert Paxton.

I don't really like throwing the term around much myself... because it normalizes what should be a particularly odious and distinct set of ideological practises.  But that being said, Blatchford matches the profile much more than the activists of the KW ARA.  She makes a living out of whipping up populist, racist sympathies by appealing to a particular demographic's beleaguered sense of privilige - all while attacking the perceived failings of liberal democracy.  These are the trademarks of a proto-fascist demagogue - not the simplistic caricature you seek to apply to people you don't agree with.


hey folks, A few notes about

hey folks,

A few notes about fascism. The best definition I've ever heard is that fascism is the fusion of state and corporate power, linking the demand for profit, efficiency, and expansion to the state's mandate of control and nationalism.

It can't really be understood just in terms of left and right, so let's broaden the spectrum a bit. Imagine a circle. Let the left part of the circle be 'socialist', and the right part of the circle be 'capitalist'. Now, let the top of the circle be 'libertarian' and the bottom of the circle be 'authoritarian'.

Now, we can see both hitler and stalin chilling out at the very bottom of the circle, firmly in the authoritarian section, one a little bit to the capitalist side, one a little bit to the socialist side, both disgusting despots intent on social control. They could probably both accurately be described as fascists.

ARA is (often) an anarchist group, and anarchism can be described as libertarian (top of circle) socialism (left of circle). Small government conservatives are on the other side of the circle, in the libertarian capitalist section. Neither of the two sides that have emerged in the above postings can really be described as fascist. There's definitely a disagreement about appropriate protest, but the huge ideological smears are unhelpful.

And now a quick note about racism too. I promise I'll make a point in just a minute. For me, it's important to distinguish racism from racial prejudice. Racial prejudice is when someone doesn't like a group of people because of their perceived race. Racism is that same prejudice backed up with institutional power, which in canada takes the shape of a predominately white government and corporate class, with a very recent history of overtly racist policies. So when a white person is prejudiced against native people, it's racist because their prejudice is in line with the power structures in society, but if a person of colour hates white people, it may be prejudiced but not racist.

Christie Blatchford might more accurately be described as a racist apologist. This is because she denies the existance of those social structures that make racism possible. The narrative that she constructs is entirely portraying affluent white people as victims, and transforms the entire issue of Six Nations land claims into a policing/crime issue. This ignores the history of colonialism and genocide that saw the Mohawk Nation's numbers be decimated and their once huge territory reduced to a handful of reservations, and those reservations shrunk to fractions of their original size.

Without saying who's right or wrong in the Caledonia land debate, Blatchford wants us to ignore history and only think about policing -- how to manage a problem so that the middle class doesn't have to think about it, rather than trying to understand a problem so that amends can be made.

Another reason that she is a racist apologist is her support of Gary McHail. McHail is quite a bit more overtly racist, questioning the right of Six Nations to any sort of self-determination, and insisting on forced assimilation by way of policing. He also works with avowed white supremists like Paul From. So we see Christie supporting Gary supporting Paul.

And we can't forget that Christie Blatchford is one of the most influential writers in this country.  When she makes invisible a people's history and advocates their forced assimilation by way of her support for McHail and others, her views have a way of transforming into reality. And her views are so strongly in line with the racist, colonial tradition that manifests in actions like McHail's and the short-lived Caledonia Militia that she is making more extreme racist positions seems more acceptable and reasonable.

Many people have been protesting her book in order to create an alternate narrative, one in which Christie Blatchford isn't speaking for all white people when she calls for a policing solution to land claims. Even if a talk is cancelled because of these protests, she is not being silenced -- she is a best selling author and is a regular columnist in a nationaly distributed newspaper. She takes up so much space in the media on the issue of land claims that she is in fact silencing others by her very success at advocating her positions.  Protestors are seeking to use her fame and notoriety as a springboard to gain attention for other ways of understanding the same issues she's talking about.

Christie dominates the public discourse with her racist apologia, using her power and privilege to make possible attacks against people with far less. Some minor, peaceful distruption of one of her many events has managed to get a dissenting view into some news sources. To me, this has introduced another voice into the media and can only be a good thing.


Danny O

Colonialism Alive and Well in "Canada"

The racist and anti-indigenous vitriol in the above thread only re-affirms my belief that colonialism is alive and well in "Canada".

Blatchford and her assorted supporters would have liked nothing less than for the OPP to send in the paramilitary ERT to supress Six Nation's resistance a la Ipperwash.  Perhaps then we would have had several "Dudley George's"? 

When was the last time a non-native activist was killed by police in Canada?

I once heard a very strong indigenous woman state that she was "sick and tired" of hearing non-natives go on about all the "goodies" that native people supposedly receive from government as these do not even begin to compensate for all that has been taken from them.  I think that states it quite well.

Blatchford and her ilk will only be satisfied when all indigenous resistance to colonialism has been crushed.



In response to the Christie Blatchford protest at the University


It's rather comfortable to write off the event as a disturbance to free speech. Without the broader context mainstream media reports that an author was prevented from speaking. (Thoughts of censorship are immediately rampant and some think of another recent example where anti-nuclear activist Helen Caldicott was labled as a fear-mongerer and convinced to present 50 kilometres away from her topic of conversation since venues in Port Hope refused to take such a controversial speaker). I'll admit, when I heard the news of the Blatchford protest I was quick to suggest that this kind of action does not allow for discussion and healthy dialogue. But I had no concept of Blatchford's book and how her opinion on the (“preferential”) police response to Indigenous protestors in Caledonia is considered without any analysis of underlying structures of power and privilege – a blatant disregard of the very real and relevant context of the oppression of Indigenous people in this country.

In her most recent column in the Globe and Mail, Blatchord mentions that in the days since the protest she has been second-guessing herself all over the place. Unfortunately, Blatchford's self-reflection only seems to go as far as wondering whether she should have forced herself onto the stage despite organizers precaution in allowing her to approach the podium. For anyone who has read Blatchford's forum of free speech in the Globe and Mail on most other days of the year, the incident seems to be less about preventing Blatchford from speaking her mind and more about highlighting why it is unjust that her book Fearless portrays an incident as on par with an entire narrative surrounding Caledonia land claim issues. Although Blatchford claims that she “took pains in the book to explain what it is not about”, how can any conflict be removed from its social and historical context? Just as onlookers (myself included) may have initially assumed that the protest was an act of hooligan censorship, there is a need in both cases for an informed analysis.

Of course people should look

Of course people should look more into the issues without automatically viewing this as "an act of hooligan censorship", but these protesters have to take into account how stupid the general population is on issues like this. We have to educate people, not give them justification for building more prisons and hiring more security. You can't teach people when you fit their definition of 'thug' or 'criminal'.

the assumption that people

the assumption that people are stupid is not very nice at all, if anything, the people are too preoccupied with survival, with meeting the establish minimus for a "life". 

thug is always used, if they consider you a thug for any dissent, then they are not really in the mindset to be taught anything.  if folks cant remeber that more prisons is less security then nothing i can say is going to change their minds.  it has to be their kids, peers, friends, parents to tell them...

Yeah I also support native

Yeah I also support native criminals!


Also if natives terrorizes your family dan then i guess you wont be calling the police because natives can attack whomever they want.


You anarchists are all so blind

The site for the Toronto local of The Media Co-op has been archived and will no longer be updated. Please visit the main Media Co-op website to learn more about the organization.