I'm referring, of course, to Hal Niedzviecki's editorial in The Writers Union of Canada's magazine Write. Since I'm one of the writers who first brought up the problems in this editorial, let me do what few of those harping about "free speech" have done: offer you context.

I was informed that Write would be accepting pitches for essays specifically from Indigenous authors for an issue dedicated to us and our writing. I pitched an essay that eventually became "On Seeing and Being Seen: The Difference Between Writing With Empathy and Writing with Love." Mr. Niedzviecki accepted this pitch, gave some suggestions on what he'd like me to focus on — specifically the impacts on myself as a writer and my writing — and edited the essay. He made the editorial choice to change my title to "On Seeing and Being Seen: Writing With Empathy." I thought that this was a strange decision, as it changed the meaning of my original title, but I still approved it. He must have known something about titles I didn't. After all, he was an established writer and editor — I wasn't. That was all of the interaction I had with Mr. Niedzviecki.

Then I got my copy of the magazine and saw the now infamous "Winning the Appropriation Prize" article. In his editorial introducing my work and the work of other Indigenous writers, Mr. Niedzviecki encouraged the "white and middle class" producers of CanLit to "write what they don't know" and even went so far as to call for an "Appropriation Prize." According to Niedzviecki, "There's [nothing] preventing us from incorporating a culture's myths, legends, oral histories and sacred practices into our own works...If we steal stories or phone in a bunch of stereotypes, readers will know."

That's when I utilized my free speech to call out Mr. Niedzviecki's inappropriate framing of my work. Of course, given the history of this country, that was always going to be a problem. I'm an Indigenous woman living in Canada. I'm "not allowed" to say no. This country has made its position on that clear countless times. Our land, language, culture, children and lives have been and continue to be taken without our consent. Our attempts to stop this are often criminalized. When we point out Canada's continued attempts at our genocide, we're dismissed as "identity politics fundamentalists run riot."

But that's not enough context. Let's go further. I'm currently writing this article in Brantford, Ontario. This is a city that, in the past ten years, has successfully asked the courts to grant an injunction against members of my family specifically and members of my community generally for trying to stop construction on our territory that is still under claim. I went to high school at Pauline Johnson Collegiate & Vocational School, where I was never taught the work of a single Indigenous author, despite the school itself being named after one. I'm currently a ten minute drive from the Mohawk Institute, or as those who survived refer to it, "The Mush Hole." This school made my grandmother uproot her entire life on Six Nations and move to New York just so she could be sure her children would never attend. "The Mush Hole" never came up in school curriculum. Right now I'm writing and thinking in English. I have no choice. The language in my family was lost with my grandfather, who was murdered by a white man over $10.

However, forgetting context is a privilege far too readily indulged in by many white politicians, writers, editors and people. They don't have to live with the knowledge that this country was built through the systemic genocide of their ancestors — because it wasn't. They can refuse to read the Truth and Reconciliation Committee's Report and still make sweeping, false statements about it because that's all the TRC report is to them: a report. They don't live with its intergenerational trauma the way we do. They never will.

Canada has never worked in the best interests of all of its citizens. The Indian Act certainly wasn't created to benefit my people. The Chinese head tax wasn't enforced to help Chinese people. The proposed hijab ban wasn't graciously granting Muslim women freedom to choose. The continued carding policies of the police are not protecting the liberties and dignity of black people. Forcing transgender people to use bathrooms that make them feel unsafe is not upholding their human rights.

But the people who are benefiting from these discriminatory policies? They're the ones fighting so hard to keep them in place. And Canadian institutions are giving them columns, editorial positions, judge appointments, prestigious positions in the police force, political power. These people — who never have to reflect on the historical context which has made their voices so powerful to begin with — seem to think we all live in a perpetual present, where societal issues are not the result of a country's history bearing down on individuals, but the result of individuals' decisions alone. And yet, when faced with the consequences for their own decisions, these same people cry out about "craven, unprincipled times."