European suspicious of Canada's intent

Dear Editor:

My name is Peter Schwarzbauer and I am an active member of the human rights organization "Society for Threatened Peoples - Austria" in Vienna. Over the last decades, I have been closely following Canadian politics regarding Aboriginal peoples. Our group's activities have focused mainly on the Lubicon Cree.

I am quite surprised by the recent developments in Canada (Supreme Court decision [Delgamuukw], response of the feds to the RCAP report). While I consider all of this as positive, I do have some reservations on parts of the terminology involved. Nowhere in the Statement of Reconciliation can the word "apology" be found, only "profound regret" and that the feds are "sorry." This is not the same as an apology. I am no lawyer and cannot really assess the legal and political aspects of that distinction. But I remember that in 1990, the Lakota people in the United States tried to get the US Congress to apologize for the awarding of 26 medals of honor to soldiers who participated in the Wounded Knee [battle] a century before. What they got was not an "apology," but also a statement of "regret." They were not really satisfied.

I also understand that the Australian government is not willing to make an apology (not even a statement of regret) to the Aboriginal peoples in Australia, because they are afraid of laying the basis for Aboriginal law-suits against them.

Why have the media, and also the international media, used the term "apology?" Because it was understood that way by the Aboriginal peoples of Canada?

I am more than suspicious towards anything the Canadian government says or writes on paper before it is proven that it is really acting on it. That is the reason behind my reservation regarding that generally positive development.

Peter Schwarzbauer - Vienna, Austria