Leading to More Understanding

This letter was primarily addressed to the First Nation groups named above and then copied to the others. The addresses of all of the individuals 'sent to' are removed from this electronic version to save space:

March 18, 2011

Dear Sirs and Madams;

This letter starts off being primarily addressed to First Nations for this reason.

I was putting together the copies of the correspondence, that is dated before March 17, in the package that follows. I was primarily preparing for those express post mailings that went to Stein, Murray and Ghomeshi on that day. Three other books, that went to people who want to read them, left on that day. And one for a book reviewer who was just starting to get into the book. He was agreeing to ignore the structural errors (a few I AM finding as I ready for the second printing WHICH will include the draft Final Corollary already sent to most or enclosed here to others). He says that he is finding it a good read, although he is just into the early pages.

But what is ironic is this.

A Nipigon resident, who is closely associated with some people on town council, showed up at my door. He was enthusiastic to pay for his exclusive limited edition copy (and yes, I charged him no taxes... visit the book's web page to understand why that is). And, yes, he complained about the mechanical difficulties of us old folk being forced to read "the fine print" in Part 6 of the book. But, when I asked if he understood the messages in that section about how our courts are corrupted, he said that, oh, he understood all too clearly.

What First Nations, and the people this is copied to below, need to remember is this.

This is a man who showed up at my display and short talk on the February 15 book launch date. His focus at that presentation? His own problems with government.

Having now read the book, what is this man’s main concern?

He gave me a copy of a handwritten March 15 letter he had sent to Jason Kenney, Minister of Citizenship.

Think of how it is worded ... "... after far (too) many years of hoping for a return to a reasonable level of morality, truth and sanity reflected in our democratic principles, when example, evidence and rational logic indicate otherwise, (I duly) conclude that to continue on (status quo) is to become in part responsible as our country sinks deeper into injustice and moral disintegration. In a reasonable attempt to preserve what is left of my sense of civil decency, as of this date, I am suspending my citizenship. ...".

But, all receiving this letter should remember that, on February 15, this was a citizen who was primarily concerned about what had happened to him in his history. After reading this book, what did he cite as "... major, no longer tolerable reasons ..."? They were "...:

1. The abominable treatment of the First Nation Peoples and their treaties;
2. The almost complete lack of truth and credibility in the political arena;
3. The farce constituting the legal dimension of our society;
4. The almost total disconnect between the Federal and Provincial bureaucracies and the people they serve; ..."... and his final statement becomes this "...
5. I am appalled at what has become our "twisted, deformed version of democracy", where a small, arrogant, greedy few determine the direction of the vast majority thru their lies and deceptions. ...".

So, my question for First Nations, and then others, is this.

In 2006, I began to warn that our continuing to accept the illegal continued the illegal. And, yes, there are lawyers we would hug and play tennis or golf with. BUT when do we start to challenge when principled democracy, protected by principled institutions of justice, is indeed protected? When do we ask when the citizen owns the word meaning "justice" instead of having to buy it from the politicized lawyers and the lawyers promoted to be judges?

Since 2006, we have watched lawyers in Pakistan stand up against ruling regimes, instead of putting their hands into the pockets of ruling regimes. Since then, we have seen rioters in Haiti and African countries who say that they will not allow rule by those who corrupt their vote. Since then we have seen Tunisians, Egyptians and Libyans say that those who break our (international) laws will not be allowed to be the ones to define for them what is "justice" and what is not.

One book at a time, if that is what it takes. And is this what it takes because "leadership" is a word so corrupted in this nation that only the corrupted can lead us?

The citizens are starting to say that this will no longer be tolerated. One step at a time.
　
Don MacAlpine