[Mayor Quimby]

Originally Posted by Only The Lonely..

We pretend race has nothing to do with it

By TOM BRODBECK | Winnipeg Sun |March 13, 2008


A Manitoba Court of Appeal ruling upholding the rights of bar owners on Indian reserves to ignore the province's indoor smoking ban is really a moot ruling.

Treherne bar owner Robert Jenkinson has been fighting for what he believes are his constitutional rights to be treated equally when it comes to the enforcement of Manitoba's smoking ban.

Jenkinson argues he's being discriminated against based on race because he has to follow the indoor smoking ban and aboriginal-owned bars on reserves do not.

He lost that fight yesterday when Manitoba's highest court said he was not discriminated against based on race.

Welcome to the world of native policy in Canada where we have two sets of laws for two sets of people, but we pretend race has nothing to do with it.

Tiptoe

Whether it's taxation, hunting, or indoor smoking bans, we have one set of laws for treaty Indians and another set of laws for everyone else.

We tiptoe around it with bogus court rulings like we saw yesterday.

But let's face it. There are two, often contradictory, sets of laws in this country -- one for First Nations and one for everybody else.

It's beyond me how the Court of Appeal could have ruled the exemptions reserves enjoy, such as ignoring provincial smoking bans, are not based on the race of the people who make up those reserves.

The court argued it's not Jenkinson's race that was in question. It was simply he didn't happen to own a bar on a reserve.

"If Jenkinson were to carry on business on a reserve -- the possibility of which may arguably be described as remote, but not impossible under the Indian Act -- he would enjoy the benefit of the exemption," the court wrote.

"His race would not dictate whether the smoking ban provisions applied; rather, it would be the location of his business."

So the court acknowledges it's nearly impossible for a white, non-native person to operate a bar on a reserve, yet they say the two sets of rules have nothing to do with race?

It's a bit of a stretch when you consider reserves were set up under the Indian Act based on the race of the people the federal government shuffled into them.

The entire Indian Act is based on race. So how can the rules that govern reserves not be based on race?

It makes no sense.

Yet the court insists the only thing that matters in this case is Jenkinson simply didn't own a bar on a reserve and basically, tough luck for him.

The court goes on to suggest it's within Jenkinson's control to own a bar on a reserve, which is ludicrous.

Two sets of laws

"I agree with the Crown that the distinction is premised on what he does and where he does it," the court ruled. "Both of these are within his control."

They are? Jenkinson can fix his problem by simply setting up shop on a reserve?

Obviously not.

None of this really matters, anyway. Because the fact we have two sets of laws for two sets of people based on their race has been settled years ago.

Courts can call it whatever they want and claim this type of segregation has nothing to do with race, but we all know it does.

Even without the province's smoking ban exemption for Indian reserves, First Nations -- under the Indian Act -- can still bring in their own smoking bylaws that would override the provincial ban.

They've been doing it in places like Yorkton, Sask., -- which has an urban reserve -- for years.

One set of laws for one race, a different set of laws for another.

This is not about race, the author is clearly ignorant of something called legal jurisdiction. Reserves are self-governed and akin to a province, meaning provincial laws have no jurisdiction. The only laws that apply are federal laws and local laws. It would be beyond the scope of the provincial government legal authority to enforce their laws on another jurisdiction. This is the equivalent of a Dauphin bar owner claiming a local bylaw imposing minimum drink pricing was discriminatory because the bar owner in Brandon doesn't have to follow such a rule.

I can understand the common person not have such an understanding of the reality of the laws concerning First Nations, but we should expect more from journalists.