I had expected the program to be bad. I had not expected it to be this bad. Even for the CBC, this was atrocious: a program so transparently biased, so comically one-sided, and all in the guise of a trial, in a court, that holiest of shrines to our ideals of fairness and impartiality.
Perhaps the CBC thought it was being balanced. Or perhaps it was making an ironic joke: Riel's first trial was rigged, so we'll rig this one to put things right. Whichever may be the explanation, consider the terms on which this "trial" was held.
On the first night, we prep viewers with a one-hour paean to Riel, drawn from the CBC's Canada: A People's History. In legal circles, this is known as "tainting the jury pool," implanting preconceptions of guilt or innocence in the minds of the public.
On the second, we have the trial itself. This features three (3) advocates for Riel, arguing why he should not be found guilty of the charge of high treason, and one (1) for the prosecution. Three to one: Even the infamous post-Sept. 11 Town Hall ("Did the United States have it coming, or what?") had a better ratio than that.
And check the lineups! For Riel, you had Edward Greenspan, Canada's foremost criminal lawyer, as defence counsel. You had Guy Bertrand, a lawyer by trade but an actor by calling, cutting a compelling figure as Riel himself. And you had Thomas Berger -- Thomas Berger! -- as the judge. Perhaps Judge Berger's lifetime of passionate commitment to native causes should not have disqualified him to hear the case -- though try to imagine a passionate opponent of native rights, or even a mild skeptic, being assigned the same role -- but his charge to the jury, in essence a second summation for the defence, surely would.
And for the prosecution? An eminent Crown counsel? A noted historian? No, a securities lawyer. Alan Lenczner acquitted himself well enough, I suppose, but it was clear that his role was to be the cartoon baddie of the piece, the avatar of heedless "progress." Last, just in case anyone didn't get the message, on the third night we bring in Riel's relatives: a granddaughter, a great-nephew, a distant cousin, plus every known Metis politician, Metis ideologue, or Metis lawyer. No one else. Oh, the host, Ann Petrie, but she was there strictly to personify white guilt. All agreed Riel was not merely innocent, but a saint. (Which settles the question of Riel's madness, I suppose: Riel thought he was divinely inspired, the "Prophet of the New World," and his latter-day apologists agree.) Dissenting voices -- historians, say, or descendants of Riel's victims -- were notable by their absence.
And then, after this three-night Rielathon, this induction into the Rielian cult, this exercise in virtual Rielity, then they announce the "verdict" -- the results of an online poll. Let's see. Start with the universe of CBC viewers. Narrow this wildly unrepresentative group to those with a burning interest in historical Metis grievances.
Narrow it further to those sufficiently motivated to vote in an on-line poll, after three hours of heavy indoctrination. Let me go out on a limb. I predict -- in fact, did predict -- a 90% vote to acquit. Damn: only 87%.
With this mandate in hand, an excited Mr. Greenspan vows to petition Cabinet to overturn the 1885 verdict. He needn't trouble himself. There's already a bill before Parliament to exonerate Riel. And not only that: Bill S-35 would honour him as a Canadian hero. It would even name a national day (May 12, the anniversary of the Battle of Batoche) after him. There is no Sir John A. Macdonald Day, you understand, but there would be a Louis Riel Day.
But of course. If Riel is innocent -- if, as Mr. Greenspan argued, Riel did not make war on the government, the government made war on him, and executed him in the bargain -- then it follows that Sir John A. was a war criminal. Perhaps we should put him on trial next. Let's just take him off the $10 bill and put Riel in his place.
Look: I don't believe they should have executed Riel. (But then, the same might be said for Thomas Scott, whose trial, as the historian Jack Bumsted has written, "observed none of the normal rules of justice of either English or French non-military law, and was not even entirely recognizable as a summary court martial.") It may even be that his cause was legitimate. But that does not excuse or erase what he did.
Here are the salient facts about Riel, as far as the law is concerned. He raised an army against the government of Canada -- twice. He declared a provisional government, without lawful authority --twice. He was responsible for the deaths of scores of people, in two separate armed rebellions. Overthrowing the government by force of arms, or attempting to, is the definition of treason.
The issue that absorbed so much of the mock trial's time -- whether Riel meant it when he declared, in a letter demanding the surrender of the North West Mounted Police garrison at Fort Carlton, that he intended to wage a "war of extermination" on them and all who opposed him, or whether he was just having them on -- is beside the point. On the known facts, on the historical record, on the basis of acts that not even his defenders dispute he committed, he was plainly guilty as charged. As the historian Howard Margolian, author of the forthcoming Beware the False Prophet: The Life and Legacy of Louis Riel, writes, "the rebellion Riel launched in March 1885 ... was treason, pure and simple." If not, the word has no meaning.
Whether he achieved some larger good is another argument -- though had he succeeded, it is doubtful there would be a Canada today. I call to the stand Donald Creighton, our greatest historian. Riel's 1869 coup, he writes, beyond blocking the westward expansion of Canada, greatly increased the risk that the territory might be seized by the Americans instead. Indeed, he "may seriously have considered the alternative of annexation to the United States" himself.
As for Riel's storied return to Canada in 1884, Prof. Creighton writes: "although in public he professed that his sole aim was the redress of the Metis grievances, in private he was quite ready to promise that if the government made him a satisfactory personal payment of a few thousand dollars he would induce his credulous followers to accept almost any settlement the federal authorities desired, and would quietly leave Canada forever." Others will have different views, as is their right. Debate -- genuine, open debate -- is to be encouraged. That's what's truly appalling about this exercise: not so much the verdict, as the process. Indeed, this isn't about Riel. It's about a decent respect for the truth. If the CBC wants to indulge in historical revisionism, nothing's stopping it (it wouldn't be the first time). But let it do so, as it were, honestly: not go to such elaborate lengths to pretend it is presenting "both sides." This is history as therapy; history, not as it was, but as we wish it to be; history, mined for grievances to fuel present-day political agendas; history, twisted this way and that to prove that words have no meaning and facts are mere instruments of oppression. More than an intellectual fraud, this has real-world consequences. To the young natives on the barricades, the message is that violence is acceptable in a democratic state, so long as you feel strongly enough about your cause; that the institutions of Canadian law are illegitimate, the Canadian state an occupying power, to be repelled by force of arms if necessary.
Who do we blame for this grotesque miscarriage of justice, this Dreyfus trial in reverse?
The CBC, certainly. But also its partners in revisionism: the Dominion Institute, whose purpose is to promote the study of Canadian history, not the rewriting of it, and, sadly, inexplicably, the National Post.