Les femmes autochtones et l'indifférence

Les femmes autochtones sont assassinées, violées, kidnappées et généralement violentées à un rythme effarant au Canada. Au moins 582 ont disparu ou ont été assassinées depuis 30 ans, selon l’Association des femmes autochtones du Canada.  Amnesty International a publié un rapport très documenté et critique en 2009. On s’indigne de temps en temps dans les média et la classe politique, et puis on passe à autre chose.

Il y avait un bon dossier d’Isabelle Hachey dans La Presse à ce sujet cette semaine (http://www.cyberpresse.ca/actualites/201111/07/01-4465568-des-centaines-de-femmes-autochtones-tuees-dans-lombre.php?utm_categorieinterne=trafficdrivers&utm_contenuinterne=cyberpresse_B4_manchettes_231_accueil_POS4) (c’est de là que vient le chiffre ci-dessus). Le problème, c’est que Hachey n’avait rien de nouveau à nous apprendre. Elle nous a mis à jour sur la disparition en 2008 de deux jeunes filles de Kitigan Zibi, dans la Haute Gatineau, et sur la frustration de leurs proches. Elle nous a rappelés des cas classiques, au Manitoba et en Colombie Britannique. Elle a souligné le contraste surréaliste entre le cirque médiatique à l'occasion de la fuite de Kitigan Zibi d’un jeune lion, aussi en 2008 (que lui a rappelé le Chef Gilbert Whiteduck), d’une part, et l’indifférence dans laquelle baignent généralement les disparitions de femmes autochtones, d'autre part.

On imagine qu’Isabelle Hachey a travaillé fort pour convaincre ses patrons de la laisser travailler sur le dossier, et ensuite de le publier en bonne place; elle mérite sans doute des félicitations pour ces efforts. Et paradoxalement, ses textes dans La Presse portent presque autant sur le silence et l’indifférence des média que sur les femmes autochtones elles-mêmes.  Elle répète que ces femmes sont « assassinées depuis 30 ans… (d)ans l’indifférence des médias, de la police et de la population en général »; que « la réponse était toujours non, non et non » quand les familles demandaient aux média de parler de leurs filles et sœurs disparues; que « les médias ont largement ignoré la nouvelle » de l’assassinat de Tiffany Morrison, de Kaahnawake; que « presque personne n’est venu » à une conférence de presse à Kitigan Zibi.

Rien de nouveau, donc, dans La Presse. On n’apprend rien, strictement parlant. Alors pourquoi le dossier? Isabelle Hachey a l’air de trouver ça important, et peut-être quelqu’un d’autre aussi dans la salle de rédaction du journal. On peut voir le dossier comme un effort pour y mettre fin, à l’indifférence générale. On peut penser que cet effort ne peut sûrement pas faire de mal. Mais en fait, et encore paradoxalement, le dossier peut faire du mal – et il en fera s’il n’a pas de suites dans La Presse et si d’autres médias n’en prennent pas non plus acte. S’il est le début d’une campagne de presse pour faire la lumière sur ce scandale, il aura fait du bien. S’il n’est suivi par rien d’autre que le retour du silence et de l’indifférence médiatique, il n’aura servi qu’à donner un alibi à La Presse et à faire vendre des copies le 8 novembre. L'indifférence se nourrit de moments comme celui-ci: elle se donne bonne conscience en se scandalisant de l'horreur, et elle retourne à ses affaires.

Moderation and the slow boil

If you’re the frog that’s been boiled slowly in a pot that started at room temperature, are you any less cooked than the one that was thrown in an already boiling pot? The story goes that, in fact, the other frog jumped out: of the two, you’re the only one that ends up dead and cooked. There is, in other words, nothing moderate about the goals of the smart cook who put you in tepid water and gradually turned up the heat: you are going to boil, baby!

So, long-time CTV correspondent Craig Oliver was right this week when, in conversation with the CBC’s Anna Maria Tremonti of The Current, he burst out: Stephen Harper « is very determined to change the nature of the country, very determined. » (Nov. 1^st, 2011) And there clearly is nothing moderate about that Harper goal. Contrast this with Andrew Cohen’s column of the same day that can’t seem to differentiate between gradualism and moderation: almost everything in this piece is on target, except for the headline that calls Harper’s majority “timid” and the last sentence that characterizes the Conservative government’s approach as “moderation with a message.” (see http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Harper%2Btimid%2Bmajority/5635688/story.html.)

I was being too nice to Cohen, just now. I’m not pleased, in fact, by his casual assents to Conservative militarism, crackdown on immigration/citizenship standards and goals, and rightward turns in the promotion of Canadian historical knowledge. Truth be told, Cohen’s timeline also deserves some tweaking – in particular the notion that the government’s monarchism “makes 2011 look like 1961.” He probably picked this ancient (!) year of 1961 more or less at random, figuring that 50 years into the past was long enough.  In fact, you have to go back to before WWII to find the proper analogue, that is, before Keynesian economic policy and the development of the social state. Considering the current global economic crisis and this government’s continued neo-liberal preferences, you have to think that Harperism would be right at home in 1932: in the throes of global economic catastrophe, a Canadian government that can think of nothing better than giving market forces free rei(g)n and keeping public economic intervention to a minimum.

In context, these are minor complaints. The thrust of Cohen’s piece is that the government aims to create a Conservative Canada, and is going about it “step by step, through soft, incremental change, a long march of patience and persistence, hoping your idea gains purchase over time. “ This is almost exactly right. I’d quibble with “soft” and I would add that if the ideas don’t “gain purchase over time,” well, too bad but the Canadian state will have changed anyway, bringing along society’s material relations. Three outcomes can ensue: after further delay, the ideas will gain purchase; or the Conservative party will be defeated and its policies will be rolled back; or the gap between the governed and the government will grow and harden… until something snaps.

Cohen’s last sentence about the Harper government: “moderation with a message is their mantra.” But gradualism is not a synonym for moderation. Harper is not being timid; he’s being prudent and deliberate.

I have been increasingly puzzled over the past couple of months by the absence of a big blow-up that would have prompted me to blog. It’s tempting to say that, having gained his majority, Harper has calmed down and finally succeeded in avoiding the impulsive rightward jerks that cost him so much in his years as a minority Prime Minister. But I’m not sure, now that I think about it, that it’s Harper who is acting differently. It might rather be that Conservative jolts are being absorbed differently by the opposition and the media (and me, among others): with no possibility of another election soon, the opposition doesn’t muster quite the same degree of indignation, perhaps out of resignation or of a sense that these things just don’t matter all that much; and the media can’t get quite as interested as when even small mistakes can cause the government to fall.

There have been, clearly, a number of issues debated in and around Parliament that are relevant to this space’s concerns and that display the Conservative government’s radical colours at their shiny best . To name just a few: the government’s completely irrational crime bill that will force big expenses by the provinces and that is being fiercely resisted by a number of provincial governments, including (of course) Quebec’s; the elimination of the long-gun registry and the destruction of all its accumulated data, and the government’s refusal to allow provinces (including, of course and particularly, Quebec) to maintain access to those data; the nomination of a unilingual (English, of course) Supreme Court Justice and, this week, of an also English-only Auditor General; I’ll pass on such petty but significant things as the attack on Justin Trudeau’s insufficiently obedient Catholicism.

All that and more, and I haven’t blogged. Blame (or credit) part of it on the academic calendar, but really the main reason is that none of it has gotten me aggravated enough to start writing. I guess it’s time to pay more attention to the pot’s rising temperature. Andrew Cohen might want to jump out too, right about now, before he is fully cooked.