Premier Ujjal Dosanjh's recent attack on a referendum on treaty principles as "the blunt instrument of majority rule," and his comments that mentioned "ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia, the horrific slaughter in Rwanda, and the Nazi Holocaust," is a pathetic attempt to divert attention from his government's sorry record on the land claims issue. And his hyperbole also betrays his oft-stated desire to steer clear of dividing British Columbians.

Unfortunately, Mr. Dosanjh is not alone in his specious attack. The Vancouver Sun recently argued that referenda could be a dangerous measure wielded against fundamental human rights.

As it concerns referenda in general, they are initiated around the world by governments and citizens to debate and settle issues - almost all of them contentious - else why would such votes occur? Last month, Swiss citizens initiated a referendum on European Union integration and rejected the measure. In the past, they voted in favour of immigration and against abolishing the army. Californians once voted to cut property taxes and limit their future increases. And Canadians have also voted on controversial issues, including wartime conscription and the Charlottetown Accord, the latter of which a vast majority of British Columbians rejected.

As for the argument that referenda are dangerous to minorities, British Columbians voted on just such rights in a 1916 all-male referendum, and gave women the vote by a wide margin - 51,832 in favour with 24,606 opposed. But history aside, fundamental rights are now guaranteed by the Constitution and as such could, correctly, never be taken away.

Thus, stripped of that straw man argument, one is left with the obvious question: Does the premier believe that a majority of modern-day British Columbians would attempt to strip core rights away from natives (or anyone else) in the manner of the historical examples he raised in his Legislature speech? If that is really his view, then he should frankly state it. The "I-think-the-majority-of-British-Columbians-are-racist" stance would be an interesting election platform but it does seem to be the logical corollary of his position.

As for the land claims issue itself, there surely is a division between British Columbians over how to best finalize treaties, but whose fault is that? It was governments, not citizens voting in a referendum, that divided non-native and native fishermen in BC's coastal fisheries. Until politicians prevented people from fishing on certain days because they were the "wrong" colour, racial tensions in Canada's fisheries were almost non-existent.

And politicians have also pushed further than the courts have required on this one. In 1996, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled against the wishes of the Nuu-chah-nulth tribal council for a private commercial salmon fishery based on an alleged aboriginal right. Despite that ruling, federal and provincial politicians will soon sign an agreement that delivers precisely such a race-based privilege. Once again, governments will have divided Canadians based on skin colour.

A referendum on treaty principles is a danger to no one, but it will expose the real divide in BC. One view, probably the majority, is that individual rights and individual ownership of property should reign supreme, treaties should be truly final, and ultimately, laws ought to be as racially blind as possible given certain exceptions imposed by courts. The other position, to which this writer is opposed, is one where group rights and group definitions will instead take precedence, and Canada will splinter into a multiplicity of miniature nation-states, some based on race, some not, with selected governments forever supported by other taxpayers who will have little or no say in the affairs of such racially-based territories.

As it happens, some of us would like nothing better than to live in a world without racial division, where the laws are blind to colour and race. That is why the constant attempt by some to define Canadians by race in terms of laws, treaties, and racial set-asides and quotas is so maddening.

Once the straw-man arguments are cast aside, Mr. Dosanjh's beef with majorities is curious for one other reason. His government was elected with a minority of the vote (39 percent) in the last election, and has never hesitated to impose its minority views on many issues on an unwilling public. It is thus just a tad hypocritical for the premier to argue that the majority of British Columbians - acting wholly within the Constitution and not desirous of attacking anyone's rights should never to be allowed a vote on such an important matter such as treaties.