On March 20th Conrad Black penned an article for the National Post asking why the dreaded TRC and its ridiculous recommendations haven't gotten any major pushback.
It is shocking and dangerous that the final report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, published in 2015, has been so widely accepted as a full accounting of Native grievances and the basis for policy changes and reparations to accommodate those grievances. Almost the only serious critical analysis that has been given to this massive report is the excellent and very readable book, “From Truth Comes Reconciliation,” which was edited by Rodney Clifton and Mark Dewolf, and published by the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.
That there are major issues with the TRC report shouldn't really be new ground for even casual readers: five and a half years ago I demolished every single TRC recommendation including the preface and the underlying (false) assumptions. You can read Clifton with Hymie Rubenstein (no, seriously, that's his name!) in the National Post six years ago looking (as I did) at some of the fictional narratives that the TRC authors decided pleaded their case better than the truth. (The actual book is available for purchase but not even clips available online).
Black's article is pretty good. I take issue with a few of his passages: for such a detail-oriented guy he sure skims over the "notorious violations"...it seems nobody is interested in actually explaining to Canadians which "violations" actually took place and which part of the treaties they supposedly violated.
Many of the treaties were notoriously violated by the white co-contractants, but there were also many judicial decisions that made reasonable attempts to ensure the Aboriginal parties were treated fairly.
Most of the article was actually just a bland historical primer, Lord Black didn't provide very much of any analysis of the events he described, and almost no opinion. He did, at the very least, tease a sequel at the end like he's Avengers: Age of Ultron or something.
It was on the foundation of this policy quagmire that the fearful misnomer of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission report was based. If no overarching event intervenes, this report will be reviewed in detail here next week. The sooner Canada stops shadow-boxing with its conscience and gets to grips with the implications of what is afoot, the better.
So the presumption was that after setting the rather anodyne stage with the background, his March 27th column would flesh out his points and his argument (which again he didn't really provide this time 'round).
Which brings us to a chick named Ubaka Ogbogu. She's a Faculty of Law professor at the University of Alberta who is getting free money from taxpayers to blow her ovaries off at the very notion that Conrad Black and the National Post will have a discussion about the TRC from a perspective other than "rah rah Injuns are awesome isn't it a shame we educated them".
Ogbogu (fortunately?) isn't on the University of Alberta sunshine list, so it's unknown exactly how much Alberta taxpayers are robbed every year so this dumb nigger can refuse to engage in media outlets for the "crime" of providing the public discourse that the UofA should be engaged in but isn't. This is the same Ubaka Ogbogu who wrote a recent "summary paper" where she argued the media wasn't doing a good enough job at explaining why questionable Wuhan Flu lockdowns skipped arbitrary "essential services", by the way. Yet when the National Post decided to, to borrow a phrase, have a globally recognized opinion article author write a pair of articles "shaping and influencing public opinion and simplifying and amplifying policy messages", Ogbogu got her panties in a bunch.This is the last straw for me. I will not publish anything ever or provide commentary on anything that goes in the National Post. I can't be part of any discourse from an institution that foregrounds racism. pic.twitter.com/JXHYbcYMtZ
— Ubaka Ogbogu (@UbakaOgbogu) March 21, 2021
Would it be too much to ask for a single quote from Conrad Black that supposedly "foregrounds racism"? How about an explanation of exactly what "foregrounds racism" even means? Outside of her tweet, other scholars who use the phrase seem to think of it as a positive thing to embrace. Also, isn't Ogobogu drawing a salary from the University of Alberta? That same institution just last year admitted to being itself guilty of "systemic racism". Shouldn't Ogobogu be disengaging from the University of Alberta? It seems less like a principled stance based on an idiotic (but purely held) belief structure and more like a dejected sorority girl from Alpha Gamma Delta who is upset I wouldn't make out with her behind the AgFor building...er, I mean, that National Post wasn't returning her endless requests to publish more drivel about how even questioning the dominant media narrative about our excellent Residential School System is a crime against humanity.
It's hardly the place here to re-affirm that Residential Schools were awesome and we should bring them back, having already interrogated and affirmed this position so many times over the past few years. Still, it's nice that Lord Black is taking it on himself. Unfortunately, readers on March 27th were deprived of his promised followup piece, and instead got a completely ridiculous "rebuttal" by the serial liar Taylor C. Noakes (previously pushing his false narratives about the Wet Soup Tribe who didn't want a pipeline running through land that their ancestors probably never knew existed). Noakes' column is his usual drivel and will be addressed on a line-by-line basis later.
However, unlike the lame nigger from the UofA, at least Noakes is pretending to appear in a discussion. Ogbogu just wants a forum to pollute students' brains with his woke bullshit without risking them hearing the other side that proves she's just a fraud. Conrad finally got around to his own column briefly scoffing at Noakes on Saturday appropriately enough titled A serious conversation for a serious country:
Canadians should consider much more seriously than they have the implications of the charge against us and our forebears of genocide against Indigenous people. It is the most heinous charge that can be made and there is no evidence whatsoever that any Canadian authority ever advocated or imposed any policy on Natives or anyone else that was designed to eliminate or shorten lives or truly eliminate their culture. As I’ve written here before, the Native victimhood industry, pushing on an open door and frequently incited and echoed by self-hating English- and French-Canadians, has propagated the implicit notion that the presence of the Europeans in Canada was an intrusion and occupation that was morally almost indistinguishable from Hitler and Stalin’s subjugation of Poland in 1939, though not as violent. The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples recommended in 1996 that approximately one-third of all of Canada be carved out and given to the sovereign rule of the four per cent of Canadians who qualify as Indigenous people, without any burden of taxation, to be sustained for all eternity by the taxpaying residents of this country. To call things by their rightful names, this would be national suicide.The former chief justice of the Supreme Court, Beverley McLachlin, in accepting a humanitarian award from the Aga Khan several years ago, took it upon herself to confess on behalf of this country that it had practised “cultural genocide” against Native people and that “slavery was not unknown” in Canada. Every application of the suffix ”cide” means the physical killing of a living organism, from homicide to pesticide. Cultural genocide is nonsense, sophomoric pyrotechnics to elicit unmerited shame and what is meant is deculturation or cultural deracination, which have never been a priority of any Canadian government. There were never very many slaves in Canada in the English and French communities and there were none after the abolition of slavery in the British Empire in 1833. Canada generously received more than 40,000 fugitive slaves from the United States in the 30 years prior to the U.S. Civil War, and one of Canada’s greatest statesmen, Gov. Guy Carleton, refused to hand liberated American slaves back to Gen. George Washington at the end of the Revolutionary War in 1783. The former chief justice should be ashamed of herself, but more importantly, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has accepted on behalf of this country the guilt of Canada on the charge of cultural genocide. This is an unauthorized and inexcusable profession of false guilt; the prime minister has arraigned this country for anti-humanitarian crimes it has never committed. Such a monstrous collective self-defamation morally disqualifies him from holding his great office. Unless he retracts and apologizes for this falsely imposed blood libel on all of us, he should be dismissed.Essentially the same unrigorous reasoning afflicts our entire policy debate. Throughout these Trudeau years, there has been no exploration of innovative policies in the principal areas of government, but excessive vapid concentration on insubstantial questions of gender, climate and First Nations. There are only two sexes, and all people are free to sort out their own sexuality, without coercion or harassment of anyone else. These are personal matters. Anything that is not actively sociopathic, destructive of the rights of others or an offence to public decency is acceptable. No group has any right to prescribe for anyone else a vocabulary in which they must be addressed, such as trans-gender people notoriously attempted to inflict upon my distinguished friend, Prof. Jordan Peterson, at the University of Toronto several years ago. People can change sex, but not by just declaring that they identify otherwise than how they were born.
[Fun fact by the way: unrigorous, as so often happens when you copy-paste a Conrad Black story, sets off spell check even though it's a real word. -ed]
Conrad calling for a serious conversation is obviously balanced against Ubaka Ogbogu who isn't capable of serious conversation. Last November she ran and hid after being "attacked" by getting a couple angry emails while demanding millions of Albertans suffer at the hands of their government. Those hoping to slide a copy of Saturday's National Post under her office door to ensure Ogbogu actually gets exposed to our superior side of the story will be disappointed (though it wouldn't work anyways, UofA offices are pretty much deserted these days as I was shown photos of a couple weeks ago).
Yet taxpayers continue to pay Ogbogu's full salary even though she doesn't keep office hours or deliver in-person instruction. It's shocking that some UofA students are even interested in paying money for this "service" and it's outright disgusting that hardworking Alberta taxpayers are having to provide fulltime funding to this piece of third world trash who has no real defense of "cultural genocide" that Conrad Black so effectively challenges.
We keep asking for conversation, and inferior morons like Ubaka Ogbogu keep running and hiding rather than losing to us in debates.
