You are currently browsing the monthly archive for September 2025.
In a recent post, I criticized Orange Shirt Day as a ritualized form of national self-loathing. That critique stands — but I have to admit I fell into a trap myself: I repeated elements of the story of Phyllis Webstad without checking the details.
Her now-famous account is that, as a six-year-old, she was sent to St. Joseph’s Mission, where her brand-new orange shirt was taken away on her first day. That image — the innocent child stripped of her identity by cruel authority — became the symbolic foundation of Orange Shirt Day and, in turn, the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation. It is powerful. It moves people. It creates policy.
But is it literally true in every detail? The answer is murkier than most Canadians are led to believe. Critics such as Rodney Clifton, a former residential school worker and researcher, have pointed out that Webstad attended St. Joseph’s when it was functioning as a student residence — not a traditional residential school — and that she attended public school in Williams Lake. Others note that staff were often Indigenous lay workers rather than the stereotypical “nuns with scissors.” Even Webstad herself has described that year as one of her “fondest memories,” a detail that vanishes from the public retelling.
In other words: the story has been simplified, polished, and repeated until it no longer represents the whole truth. This is how narratives work. They take a fragment of reality and expand it into myth — and then the myth becomes untouchable. Questioning it, or even pointing out inconsistencies, can make one a “denier” or a “deplorable.”
That is the lesson here. I fell for the narrative too, because it was convenient. It had emotional force. It seemed to explain everything at a glance. But truth — especially historical truth — is rarely that neat.
If Canadians want real reconciliation, it has to be based on facts, not fables. We do Indigenous people no favors by sanctifying selective memories while ignoring the messy, complicated realities of reserve life, family breakdown, and the mixed legacy of institutions like St. Joseph’s. Nor do we honor our own country by allowing symbolic stories to become instruments of guilt rather than prompts for genuine understanding.
References
-
Orange Shirt Society: Phyllis’ Story — orangeshirtday.org
-
Rodney Clifton, They Would Call Me a ‘Denier’ — C2C Journal
- UBC Indian Residential School History and Dialogue Centre, About Orange Shirt Day — irshdc.ubc.ca
- Troy Media, Clifton & Rubenstein, The Truth behind Canada’s Indian Residential Schools — troymedia.com
This feature length investigative documentary, about the aftermath of the Kamloops mass grave deception, was produced by Simon Hergott and Frances Widdowson. The backdrop is the March 30 talk that Frances Widdowson gave in Powell River about “Uncovering the Grave Error at Kamloops and its Relationship to the [Powell River] Name Change and UNDRIP”. Hergott and Widdowson use the issues raised in the talk to explore a number of aspects of the deception: claims about “missing children”, a lack of journalistic objectivity, and the misleading use of Ground Penetrating Radar. The role played by the Aboriginal Industry – a group of mostly non-indigenous lawyers and consultants – in instigating grievances to divert funds away marginalized communities is also examined.
Every September 30th across Canada, Orange Shirt Day (now National Day for Truth and Reconciliation) is observed with solemnity. Citizens wear orange, school announcements, flags, ceremonies, all to remember Canada’s residential school system. It’s portrayed as a day to heal, teach and reconcile. But when you scratch beneath the surface, something troubling appears: decades of government dependence and ritual symbolism have not ended the suffering of Indigenous peoples; instead, they may have become a vector for grift, misdirection, and a self-hating narrative that benefits activists more than the communities they claim to help.
The origin story is widely told: Phyllis Jack Webstad, a six-year-old Indigenous girl, arrives at the St. Joseph Mission Residential School wearing a new orange shirt her grandmother bought, only to have it stripped from her, never to be returned. That orange shirt became a symbol: a signifier of loss, assimilation, the shaming of identity. The symbol is powerful. However, many of the policy promises, social programs, treaties, financial transfers, and activist campaigns tied to this narrative have failed to produce meaningful outcomes. Indigenous communities still suffer high rates of poverty, addiction, substandard housing, educational deficits, health disparities. Charities, NGOs, and governments use the orange shirt repeatedly — for visibility, for fund-raising, but without accountability or measurable improvement. The result? A recurring narrative of victimhood and dependence that seems endless.
Worse, this narrative is used to silence dissent. If you question the efficacy of current reconciliation policies, or ask why measurable metrics remain so poor, you are accused of “denial,” “insensitivity,” or “racism.” If you point to failures of governance, internal corruption, or poor leadership within Indigenous administrations, you are told you are denying colonial oppression’s continuing harm. The universal assumption is that the only problem is insufficient funding or lack of heartfelt apology — never that the policies themselves, or their administration, may be part of the problem. This is pernicious because it stifles honest discussion, innovation, and real solutions. Orange Shirt Day is no longer just a remembrance day; it’s become a sacred narrative that many are afraid to critique — and in a liberal democracy that prides itself on free speech, that should set off alarm bells.
Suggested Improvements / Alternatives
- Shift the emphasis from symbolism to outcomes: Measures of educational attainment, health improvements, housing quality in Indigenous communities compared over 10, 20, 30 years.
- Hold those in authority accountable: Indigenous governments, federal & provincial governments, NGOs — what have they done concretely?
- Allow critique: Encourage the voices of Indigenous people who say reconciliation policy has failed, rather than centering only activists’ rhetoric.
- Reduce dependency: Focus on policy reform that encourages independence, local governance, entrepreneurship, merit-based support, not perpetual victimhood.
References
- Orange Shirt Day, The Canadian Encyclopedia. Details on the origin with Phyllis Webstad, residential schools system, “Every Child Matters.”
- Al Jazeera: “What is Orange Shirt Day and how is it commemorated in Canada?” — background, statistics, origin story, ceremony and observance practices. (Al Jazeera)
- Centennial College Library Guides: institutional summary of Orange Shirt Day history & schooling context. (Centennial College Library Guides)
- Peace Arch News: Orange Shirt Society founder’s concern about Orange Shirt Day being co-opted, misremembered, or replaced in official messaging. (peacearchnews.com)
- Montreal CityNews: issues with merch, designers, t-shirts, people profiting off the symbol. (CityNews Montreal)
The UK government under Prime Minister Keir Starmer has introduced the so-called BritCard proposal: a mandatory digital identity (ID) scheme set to roll out by 2029. According to Reuters and other major outlets, the idea is that workers will need this digital ID for right-to-work checks, and over time it may be extended to access public services like tax records, childcare, welfare, etc. (reuters.com) Critics argue it creates centralized databases, raises risks of surveillance, invites overreach, and may pave the way for a social credit framework. (theguardian.com)
A social credit system, like the one China is implementing, is where citizens are monitored, graded or blacklisted for various behaviors (both major and minor), and then rewarded or punished accordingly. In China, examples include: blocking millions of people from buying airplane or train tickets due to “discredited behaviour” (which might include unpaid fines or minor public misbehavior); preventing access to education or luxury purchases; placing people or companies on public blacklists affecting their livelihoods; and using facial recognition and wide surveillance to monitor compliance. (theguardian.com) Such a system curtails freedoms: freedom of movement, career opportunities, public participation, and even speech if one criticizes the state or fails to conform to expected norms.
The UK’s BritCard digital ID proposals, alongside other legislative trends, are troubling signs of creeping authoritarianism—where government tools offer the capacity for control as much as for convenience. Canada shows similar risks: its proposed Combatting Hate Act includes expanding definitions of hate speech, creating new offences for obstruction, intimidation, and streamlining hate-speech and propaganda prosecutions. (canada.ca) While aiming to protect vulnerable communities, such expanded powers risk chilling free speech, targeting dissent, and giving the state too much discretion over what is or isn’t allowable expression. As free societies, the West must resist anything resembling social credit systems dressed up as digital ID or online-hate regulation.
The Panopticon come to life.
What Social Credit Means for Freedom
Here’s what is at stake if systems like China’s are ever adopted in the West:
- Freedom of Movement: Bans on travel by air, train, or road for those with low “scores.”
- Freedom of Speech: Criticism of the government or “unharmonious” views can lower your score.
- Economic Opportunity: Blacklisting can prevent people from starting businesses, holding jobs, or receiving loans.
- Privacy & Autonomy: Facial recognition, mass surveillance, and data collection track daily life in detail.
- Access to Education & Services: Children of “blacklisted” parents have been denied access to private schools.
- Social Participation: Public shaming lists and score rankings reduce citizens to state-monitored reputations.
- Rule of Law: Arbitrary and opaque standards allow punishment without due process.
References
- Reuters – Britain to introduce mandatory digital ID cards
- FT – Digital ID: what is the UK planning, and why now?
- The Guardian – Digital ID plan for UK risks creating an ‘enormous hacking target’
- The Guardian – China bans 23m ‘discredited’ citizens from buying travel tickets
- CNBC – China to stop people traveling who have bad ‘social credit’
- Sohu – Examples of Chinese blacklists and restrictions
- Government of Canada – Combatting Hate Act – proposed legislation
In a significant move, U.S. President Donald Trump announced on September 17, 2025, his intention to designate Antifa as a “major terrorist organization.” This decision follows the recent assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, allegedly by an individual with left-wing affiliations. While Antifa is a decentralized movement without a formal hierarchy, Trump described it as a “sick, dangerous, radical left disaster” and called for investigations into its funding sources (The Guardian).
Following the U.S. announcement, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán declared that Hungary would designate Antifa as a terrorist organization, citing a 2023 incident in Budapest where Antifa activists allegedly assaulted attendees of a far-right event. Orbán criticized the European Union for not taking similar action and urged EU officials to align with the U.S. stance (AP News).
These designations have sparked debates about the balance between national security and civil liberties. Critics argue that labeling a loosely affiliated movement as a terrorist organization could infringe upon free speech and assembly rights. Supporters contend that such measures are necessary to address the violent actions of certain factions within the movement. As discussions continue, the implications of these designations on domestic and international policies remain to be seen.
References
- Reuters: Trump designates anti-fascist Antifa movement as a terrorist organization
- AP News: Hungary, following Trump, will designate antifa a terrorist organization, Orbán says
- The Guardian: Trump says he plans to designate antifa as ‘major terrorist organization’
- Al Jazeera: Hungary urges EU to classify antifa as a ‘terrorist’ group
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…