Makayla Sault’s death is not an indigenous rights issue

Makayla Sault, the 11-year-old Ontario First Nation girl who refused chemotherapy to pursue traditional indigenous medicine has died.

I have heard and seen several commentators who insist on making this an issue of indigenous rights, or at least describe it as such. It’s not. It’s a parental rights issue. In this case, the parents happen to be from the New Credit First Nation but this fact is not relevant to a determination of their right to choose between chemotherapy and other treatment options.

Ontario Minister of Children and Youth Services Tracy MacCharles said, “There are times when parents' or guardians' wishes for treatment conflict with those of doctors. In these cases, we rely on the expertise of the local children's aid societies to investigate concerns and determine if intervention is needed.”

To paraphrase, Ontario was prepared to deliver whatever treatment was required provided that either the parents or the children’s aid society choose this path. 

And, executive director of Brant Family and Children's Services Andrew Koster said, “Makayla was a wonderful, loving child who eloquently exercised her indigenous rights as a First Nations person and those legal rights provided to her under Ontario's Health Care Consent Act. The parents are a caring couple who loved their daughter deeply.”

Koster clouds the issue by referring to indigenous rights but he gets it right with his final thought. Makayla had loving parents who, after consulting with her, did what they believed was the best thing for their delicate daughter. And this is the right of any parent. It’s not limited to First Nations. 

Constantly bringing First Nations into this dialogue is confusing the issue. Not that there isn’t a dialogue to be had around First Nations’ people and their relationship to the health care system. But the choice to stop chemotherapy, in absentia of other facts, has nothing to do with being First Nations or not.

Perhaps, if First Nations people were treated differently by the health care system, Makayla’s parents might have made a different choice. The context in which they decided to stop chemotherapy in favour of traditional indigenous treatment matters. Their unique First Nations context may explain why they perceived chemotherapy as hurtful. Their context informed their decision. But, their decision what not a matter of indigenous rights.

I have the deepest sympathy for Makayla’s parents. Their beloved daughter is dead, despite their best efforts to provide her with health and security. I would not have made the choices that they made but that does not diminish my sympathy for their plight.

I am reminded of Tyrell Dueck in Saskatchewan. Tyrell died in 1999 after refusing conventional cancer treatments including chemotherapy and amputation to treat a tumour on his leg, instead, traveling to Mexico, where he was treated at a clinic in Tijuana. 

The villains in these sagas are the charlatans who operate the Hippocrates Health Institute in Florida and the American Biologics Clinic in Tijuana. Institutes that preys upon people’s simple, natural desire for health and happiness. That take money in exchange for snake oil. Brian Clement, the director of Hippocrates, is part of the context in which decisions around Makayla’s future were made. He not only provided a false alternative to chemotherapy he actively promoted it and took money for it. He enriched himself, preying upon a family in their darkest hours. Disgusting.  

My self-perception was shaken yesterday

I think of myself as an open minded, logical, empathic, progressive thinker. I try to be free of all the negative “isms.” I am not a racist, sexist, bigot, or homophobe. Still, I am occasionally confronted with something that abruptly reveals some personal bias. Yesterday was such an occasion.

I was listening to CBC Radio. With apologies, I cannot remember the show or the host. It was a long day. The segment was on the changing climate for Jews in Europe since the Charlie Hebdoe massacre.  Several Jewish interviewees were commenting upon their need to be ready to leave Europe on short notice for the safety of themselves and their families. These interviewees perceive a growing anti-Semitism in Europe and even in Britain where the Jewish population of 270,000 has long felt more secure than European Jews. One of the interviewees said something which stopped me cold. I paraphrase:

I wonder what the reaction would have been if, instead of journalists at Charlie Hebdoe, the victims had been Jews at a kosher market. Would millions have marched then? Or, would it have been seen as another attack on the Jews. A crime, yes, but not of the severity as the attack on Charlie Hebdoe.

A powerful thought.

Just as we embrace freedom of expression in liberal western democracies, so do we embrace freedom of conscience and religion. Yet, I am willing to bet that millions of marchers would not have turned out in solidarity if Parisian Jews had been killed to avenge the Prophet Muhammad instead of journalists. Speaking personally, I would have been very moved, as indeed I was when Jewish schools were attacked in Montauban and Toulouse in March 2012, but I would not have been as moved as I was with the Charlie Hebdoe attack. Why is this?

This is not anti-Semitism. This is a flaw of human nature. Tragically, attacks on Jews are nothing new. We have seen this countless times over the course of our lives. I think the interviewee quoted above is correct. We would not have reacted with such vigor to Jewish only victims. Why? Because we have been conditioned. But, the murder of twelve people – some, cartoonists – felt like an attack on us. On me. The Charlie Hebdoe massacre represents something new. A new threat. And, humans react powerfully to things that are new, particularly perceived threats. I know this of myself but frequently ignore it.

Consider the reaction of the western world to the 9-11 attack on the World Trade Centre. On September 11, 2001, 2,977 victims and the 19 hijackers died. The world changed that day. A very new and capable threat was revealed. Contrast this with Rwanda. From April to July 1994, members of the Hutu ethnic majority in the east-central African nation of Rwanda murdered as many as 800,000 people, mostly of the Tutsi minority. Murder and genocide on a scale that dwarfs 9-11. The world did not change, though. This was regional and not threatening to the individuals that make up liberal western democracies.

Consider the Parliament Hill attack of October 22, 2014. It could be viewed simply as the murderous act of one man. There were nine murders in Ottawa in 2013, none with the emotional resonance of Michael Zehaf-Bibeau’s murder of Corporal Nathan Cirillo. No media in Saskatchewan phoned me for my thoughts on any of these other murders. The October 22 attack represents something new. It was not attributed to gang violence or inner city alcohol and drug abuse; it was attributed to terrorism and radicalized youth here on our own doorstep. Suddenly we each perceived a new threat. Indeed, some have felt that this threat is palpable and that innocent Canadians are no longer safe.

Radical Islamic terrorism is continuing to shock us. Beheadings, the murder of journalists, and the execution of hostages is new and terrifying.Whether intentional or not, these terrorist understand that to be terrifying they must constantly present a new threat.

Is the battle for hearts and minds a matter of religious faith?

On January 7, Chérif Kouachi and his brother Saïd murdered 12 people at the Paris offices of the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdoe, ostensibly because the magazine had portrayed the prophet Muhammad in an unflattering way.

On January 11, 1.6 million people took part in a unity march Paris to express condolences and solidarity with the ideals of freedom of expression. The Paris march was one of many in France. The total number of participants may have reached 3.7 million. Although secular, these French marches included people from all religions represented in French society. French leader Francois Hollande said, “Paris is the capital of the world today.” There were no organized speeches, though. 

On January 20, 800,000 people took part in the “Love to Prophet Mohamed” rally in Grozny, Chechnya. It should be noted that the Kremlin-backed regional government declared a holiday for people to attend the demonstration. Ramzan Kadyrov, the Chechen leader, issued an emotional on-stage address, “If needed, we are ready to die to stop anyone who thinks that you can irresponsibly defile the name of the prophet… You and I see how European journalists and politicians under false slogans about free speech and democracy proclaim the freedom to be vulgar, rude and insult the religious feelings of hundreds of millions of believers.”

Muslims also rallied in Bannu, Pakistan where they chanted “Death to France” and erroneously burned an Italian flag. And in Tehran, Iran where they demanded that the French ambassador be expelled.

One murderous event and two radically different reactions involving hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of people. Are these different reactions explained by something fundamental to the Muslim faith? No. They are not. This is not about faith. This is about culture. 

Muslims in Canada did not rally against France and Charlie Hebdoe (at least not in any remotely substantial number). Or in the United States. Or France, the U.K., Germany, Denmark, Italy, or Sweden. Muslims in liberal western democracies did not rally against France despite taking offense at the Charlie Hebdoe cartoons as, indeed, some did. 

If this was only about a deep, legitimately held religious belief then we would see Muslims all over the world as angry as those in Chechnya, Iran, Syria, and Iraq but we don’t. Why? Because this is not exclusively about faith. Western Muslims aren’t all that angry. This is about a deeply held, broad cultural bias which involves religious belief but is not exclusive to religious belief. The rally in Grozny is about culture and geography. 

I note that the Muslim world doesn’t seem too upset about China which is not exactly Muslim friendly.

And this is why the battle for hearts and minds will take decades. Probably centuries. There has never been a time in human history where we basically like and trust one another on a global scale. We are always instilling hatred and anger against our neighbours, on a macro scale. We are good at collecting in communities and getting along but we are also very good at disliking the community next to ours.

As globalization has taken hold, the scope of anger and geography has changed. We are no longer Athenians sowing distrust towards Spartans a scant 200 kilometers to the west and south. We are now secular liberal democracies bombing Muslim totalitarian states on the other side of the earth. And, we are totalitarian Islamic states teaching our children that westerners are bent upon the destruction of our faith and that we should rocket all of Israel into oblivion. 

This is the same vilification of the enemy as has gone on in human relations for 2500 years dating back to Greece. Um, no, let’s be realistic. It’s more like the same vilification of the enemy that has gone on for 45,000 years when modern humans encountered Neanderthals in Europe. Or, more like 130,000 years when we first see Neanderthal emerge in the fossil record. The human animal seems to have a deep need to like the humans on this side of the valley and distrust that bunch on the other side of the valley.

The advantages that we enjoy in the 21^st century are education, communication, and wealth. The level of anger and distrust in the world, today, is shockingly less than just 200 years ago. Measured against human history, things are changing very quickly and we are hating less and less. 

The battle of hearts and minds will be won. The world will reach a broad, lasting peace. And, on a cosmic scale this well happen very quickly. On the scale of a human lifetime, though, hatred and distrust are here to stay and it’s not about religion. It’s about the human animal’s ability to vilify the supposed enemy with whatever reasons we can come up with.

As a recent Paul Noth comic states: “There can be no peace until they renounce their Rabbit God and accept our Duck God.” We’re getting there.