Two of the convenient myths pushed by some native leaders (and select others) in British Columbia is that the proposed referendum on principles for treaty-making is either A: a vote by the majority on minority rights, or B: an attempt to take away constitutionally protected native rights. The charge of racism is also thrown in the mix.

Much of the aforementioned is easily disposed of. Constitutionally protected rights cannot be taken away: not by referenda and not by legislatures or parliament. That's why they're called "constitutional" rights. As for the majority voting on minority rights, that assertion implies an unchanging never-to-be-redefined "minority;" it also assumes that everyone in the said minority thinks, acts, votes, and believes the exact same thing about treaties, or any other issue.

For example, if one is a Korean-Canadian or Ukrainian-Canadian, one is theoretically a member of a minority group. But an individual may more closely identify with their faith community, their soccer club, or a political party as opposed to their ethnic or cultural heritage. So what constitutes a minority group then And why is it assumed that individuals who share some minority trait agree with others in the presumed minority For many people, their own views are generally more diverse than any one label can accurately describe.

True, insofar as native Canadians go, certain traditional rights to hunt and fish are constitutionally protected for native peoples, but those who go beyond that and assert broad "minority rights" (about any group) are making political and philosophical claims, not constitutional ones. Thus, no matter what the majority (itself a fluid and ever-changing concept) votes or decides via its elected representatives, constitutionally defined and protected rights - whether for individuals or minorities as they are explicitly defined - cannot be removed.

Logically then, any privilege or exception that would set apart one individual Canadian from another in terms of either rights or responsibilities and not embedded in the constitution are legitimately the subject of debate. And that is where the racism charge enters in.

When those who slap the racism label on those with whom they disagree, they engage in verbal recklessness, and they do it for the end of creating room at the bargaining table for their political - not constitutional - position. And such language, when not actually accurately describing a policy but instead used as a verbal weapon, weakens the credibility of those who use throw around such epithets. Fact is, most British Columbians are not racist. And when some leaders throw such charges around, they employ the rhetoric precisely because they know that.

Look at this another way: If in fact most British Columbians (or Canadians in general who spend $7 billion every year on native-specific programs) were racists, then nothing native leaders could say or do would have any effect upon citizens, period. The extreme rhetoric does work on occasion to silence criticism of the status quo position of some native leaders. But extreme rhetoric is not helpful and eventually it becomes counterproductive because the listeners eventually become tone-deaf and then begin to turn a deaf ear even when they ought not to.

One can have strong opinions on treaties, and there is nothing wrong with using even strong language to describe existing or proposed policies with frankness: some past Canadian laws were indeed racist and some current proposed policies might accurately be described as race-based. But the easy charge of racism against most people in this debate -most of whom are well-intentioned - should be avoided.