JWR and our democracy

[hobbyguy]

I found this interview quite interesting...https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politic ... -politics/

In particular I found this section about our democracy and worldviews to be thought provoking:

"I’m proud to be an Indigenous person from the West Coast and when I was elected an MP, and certainly when I was appointed [minister of justice and attorney-general], I came to it with a fundamentally different world view. One of the bases of that, coming from Indigenous politics, is that we don’t have political parties. I function and have been taught values and principles of making decisions as much as possible by way of consensus, and that all people have roles and views that are important in society in order for society to function well, that those roles need to be fulfilled. And those views need to be heard to make sustainable long-term solutions. I came to those roles of MP and being the minister of justice with that background and it was my view that diversity mattered. And that different opinions mattered. But like the title of my book, “Indian” in the Cabinet, I found that I was simply an “Indian” in the cabinet and that my Indigenous world view was something that was good for checking off boxes, but certainly wasn’t something that was incorporated into decision making."

SNIP

If you listen to those diverse experiences, that’s the world view that I come from. You make better decisions, more sound decisions when you take into account all views and not create artificial barriers between good ideas. For example, because a good idea comes from a different political party, it should be cast aside. I don’t subscribe to that philosophy."

[Gone_Fishin]

Damning. All along the Liberal jockeys on here have been saying what Trudeau did was not illegal.

Well, it was. Coercion to break the law is illegal.

My view is very different from his. He did change his lines over and over again at the very beginning. But I mean, the Ethics Commissioner confirmed all of what I said in my testimony before the justice committee. The Prime Minister was in a conflict of interest for inappropriately pressuring me.

I think the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister’s Office have their own interpretations of what they feel transpired. One of them you’ve already mentioned is how there was a breakdown of trust between Gerry and I. I don’t ascribe to that rationale. I certainly don’t think that people – as they say – experience things differently. There is no way to experience pressuring the independent attorney-general to do something that’s against the law – there’s no way to experience that differently in my view.

[rustled]

I found this interview quite interesting...https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politic ... -politics/

In particular I found this section about our democracy and worldviews to be thought provoking:

"I’m proud to be an Indigenous person from the West Coast and when I was elected an MP, and certainly when I was appointed [minister of justice and attorney-general], I came to it with a fundamentally different world view. One of the bases of that, coming from Indigenous politics, is that we don’t have political parties. I function and have been taught values and principles of making decisions as much as possible by way of consensus, and that all people have roles and views that are important in society in order for society to function well, that those roles need to be fulfilled. And those views need to be heard to make sustainable long-term solutions. I came to those roles of MP and being the minister of justice with that background and it was my view that diversity mattered. And that different opinions mattered. But like the title of my book, “Indian” in the Cabinet, I found that I was simply an “Indian” in the cabinet and that my Indigenous world view was something that was good for checking off boxes, but certainly wasn’t something that was incorporated into decision making."

SNIP

If you listen to those diverse experiences, that’s the world view that I come from. You make better decisions, more sound decisions when you take into account all views and not create artificial barriers between good ideas. For example, because a good idea comes from a different political party, it should be cast aside. I don’t subscribe to that philosophy."

One of the local elders explained this to me years ago. Her point was that with a traditional democracy, the majority can make choices regardless of the consequences for the minority, whereas in a consensus-based community, everyone has to keep working together to achieve a solution that does consider everyone.

While not everyone will be happy with the outcome, those in the minority will not have their basic needs trampled by a majority's "wants". She put it better than that.

The "majority rules" attitude leads to entrenchment of position and "soapboxing" for that position, instead of active listening and the cultivation of a respectful relationship. This, to me, epitomizes the problem we continue to see in Canada, in British Columbia, and in our communities. It's built in to all of the conversations we have.

[d0nb]

It's nice fantasy that everyone in Jodie's Kwakwaka'wakw society once had a say in formulating the ruling consensus, irrespective of whether they were a member of the aristocracy, noble by birth, a commoner, a slave, rich or poor, etc. But viewed objectively, JWR’s tribal heritage should have prepared her very well to deal with whatever Trudeau and his cabinet could throw at her.