On choosing one's words

CanWest reports on a focus group analysis discusing attitudes about Canada's First Nations. But while there's plenty to be dubious about the content of the analysis, a particular element of the structure of the focus group strikes me as even more questionable.

According to the article, the focus groups were held between November 7 and 21, 2005, and discussed in large part the question of aboriginal "entitlements", including issues such as housing and education within the scope of that term.

Technically, the use can be seen as accurate. But the choice of the word "entitlement" seems rather curious in light of the other way in which the term was making headlines around that time, referring of course to the Libs' "culture of entitlement" (with of course very little of the associated commentary being positive). For examples of the phrase being used in the time not long before the focus groups were conducted, it appears to have spread widely around May 2005 (see e.g. this column crediting Chantal Hebert with the phrase), appeared in an October 16 editorial in the Toronto Sun, and of course figured prominently in the first Gomery report released on November 1.

In case one wanted to argue that the term was likely drawn from another source, consider that the word "entitlement" doesn't seem to be used to any great degree by First Nations leaders in defining either treaty rights and commitments or Canada's general fiduciary duty. On a quick search of the AFN website, for example, the word "entitlement" is used primarily with respect to either individual pension entitlements or the formal Treaty Land Entitlement process - and hardly ever with respect to general funding for First Nations initiatives.

It's hard to say what impact, if any, the terminology would have had, though it seems likely to have had at least a slight effect in a couple of respects. First, it could easily have put a negative face on First Nations issues for the focus group participants. Second, and most dangerously, it could have presented an impression that necessary programs for First Nations should be classified under the same general title as Liberal Party corruption - which, needless to say, both unduly flatters the Libs in light of the sponsorship scandal, and unduly diminishes the importance of First Nations issues. And unfortunately, this latter effect is only amplified now that the focus group analysis has been made public and the label included in the headline.

It could be that the use of "entitlement" was unintentional, or indeed influenced unconsciously by the presence of the term in the media around the time the focus group was conducted. But nonetheless, the unnecessary inclusion of loaded political language in a study on attitudes about First Nations seems likely only to feed into the unfortunate tendency of many to minimize the importance of the issues in question.