About that memo from Attorney General Ted Flemming
So what do you make of this directive from Attorney General Ted Flemming that government employees should not use the words “unceded” or “unsurrendered” in ancestral land acknowledgements?
The acknowledgement is both historically accurate and a sign of respect. Flemming though, wants none of that. In his leaked memo he directs anyone working for the government to use a sanitized version – one that doesn’t mention that the land we are on is unceded and was never surrendered. He will allow them to say it’s ancestral land but that’s about it.
Chief Ross Perley of the Neqotkuk First Nation speaking to reporters on the lawsuit his and five other First Nations launched seeking a declaration of title for their traditional lands, which include much of the western half of the province. Photo Credit: CTV
Why would the government do this? I don’t know definitively, but I can offer a guess that I will bet dollars to donuts is exactly what happened.
Flemming has acknowledged it has to do with the land claim launched by First Nations over a considerable part of the province.
Here is what I fully expect happened. A lawyer somewhere told Flemming that government employees should not be acknowledging that the land is unceded and was never surrendered, apparently because of a concern it would hurt their case. Government communications people I hope fought that, and here perhaps I am giving them more credit that they deserve, and in fact if they didn’t they should be fired for incompetence. But for the sake of argument and giving them the benefit of the doubt, I’ll assume they fought against the memo because they understood the damage it would do to both the government’s reputation and to its already tenuous relationship with First Nations. But at the end of the day the legal advice trumped the communications advice so the directive was sent out.
National Indigenous People’s Day, New Brunswick Photo Credit: blogs.unb.ca
Why do I assume this? Because in 25 years of working in crisis communications I have seen this scenario play out over and over again. In too many organizations and in too many corporate board rooms, the legal guy is further up the bureaucratic food chain than the communications guy, so it is the legal advice that carries the day. Then I would be called in to try to fix the reputational damage done from following legal advice that failed to consider its Public Relations ramifications. This pattern has paid for a lot of our groceries over the years so I know it well.
In this case, Flemming is back-peddling so fast with damage control he’s all but tripping over himself with assurances they are not going to enforce his directive. He is now also saying there will be no consequences for civil servants who continue to mention unceded land, which begs the question why then did he issue the memo in the first place? But let’s face it – the message has been sent and the take away for some civil servants is that mentioning unceded land may not be the best career move.
So what was the point of this toothless memo? Legal scholars have been quick to point out that legally it means absolutely nothing. It’s not as if a judicial ruling on the interpretation of the Peace and Friendship treaties of the 1700’s will be found in favour of the First Nations because a civil servant said before a meeting somewhere that he or she was standing on unceded and unsurrendered ancestral land of the Wolastoqey, Mi’gmaw and Pestotomuhkati peoples. That’s not the way the law works. Never mind that there is general consensus among indigenous law scholars that the land is indeed unceded and was never surrendered.
So what exactly was Flemming thinking? What was his motive for issuing such an ill-advised memo?
As might be expected the response from First Nations is that it was disrespectful and amounted to a slap in the face. A story on the CBC quotes a law professor saying the memo could undermine the opportunity for meaningful reconciliation with New Brunswick First Nations.
This memo, when combined with a whole lot of other actions by this government over the past couple of years, paints a picture of an administration that doesn’t seem to value a good, healthy, respectful working relationship with First Nations. This memo is just the latest example.
As should have been expected, and is the positive side of this issue, the push-back has been considerable and widespread. It is coming from all manner of circles from the RCMP to the New Brunswick Association of Social Workers, to other associations, boards, companies, institutions and individuals, all standing in defiance, and in a loud, united, and uncompromising voice, basically telling Ted Flemming to stuff his memo where the sun don’t shine.
In short, just one more example of how out-of-step the government is with the public attitude toward First Nations.
