By Red Ghetto Rebel

Dakota Treaty Territory

April 11, 2018

The Oglala Sioux Tribe has survived a lot of traumatic history to protect the sovereignty of their tribe. The State of South Dakota and the local municipalities that make up the counties that surround and overlap the reservation test the tribe’s sovereignty consistently, and its people.

Over the years we have seen the leadership roles change. From the era of Chiefs to the contemporary reality of tribal councils, a lot has changed through the influences of assimilation. Tribal councils now form this embodiment of responsibility; they now manage the civil jurisdiction of the people.

No longer a meritocracy, leadership is elected by the people, it is these tribal individuals who made the personal choice to sit on these governing councils, that now lead the people forward.

Over the years there have been many generations of Chairman and Tribal Representatives who threw in their ideas into the pot of reservation politics to move the tribe forward, doing so while maintaining a semblance of sovereignty, or independence from local state encroachment.

But Tribal “Sovereignty” isn’t just a responsibility of the tribes governing body it is also the responsibility of the individual tribal member to protect. Individual Sovereignty is as essential to the whole of a Native Nation as that of the Tribal Nation itself. 

Over the years, since the inception of the Reorganization Act of 1934, our reservations have had to adapt to the ongoing changes in the mainstream. The Tribal Councils had to adjust to the policies and legislative attacks from States and Non-Indian Individuals or Companies. 

But the most significant threat to a tribe’s sovereignty is so insidious and socially amoebic that it molds into the fabric of the reservation-ism that exists everywhere. This threat exists within our people. 

There are some that dwell within our tribes who have no value or respect for the sovereignty of the tribe. Their actions put into risk the very core of our Native Nation Individuality. 

The policy of autonomy that protects us all can be rotted from the inside out by the actions of nefarious individuals who have no care for the protections that guard our future against the jurisdiction of the States.

Their disturbing actions or choices weaken us as a Native Nation when they hide behind Tribal sovereignty after they commit a criminal act against children. This inherent independence, which protects the survival of the people, shouldn’t be used to safeguard perverts.

Social immorality and the lack of self-respect devalue any Native Nation, just take a look at the national environment that we are witnessing today. 

The MeToo movement, the Presidential Porn Star scandal, the Harvey Weinstein assaults, the Nassar Figure Skating scandal all have one commonality, young girls and women sexually assaulted, trafficked, and or harassed by unethical men.

When will the Reservation people realize that there are circumstances that shouldn’t be so easily disregarded or ignored? What is it going to take to show the Reservation people that sexual assault of a child is so horrible that it should never be condoned?

When do we stop looking at just face value and see what is behind the mask that some perverted people wear?

Recently there have been columns and opinion pieces written against the tribal council by one person in particular. An immoral character blemished by his socially immoral crime, child molestation.

Criticism comes with the territory in the profession of politics; when you put your self out there in front of the public eye, your constituents will either criticize you or compliment you. 

Many times the give and take of criticism play out in the court of public opinion. This banter is healthy to each side; it creates a balance between the public and the elected.

But in every dialog, there is an unspoken code of ethics that exists and is mutually acknowledged by both sides. This unspoken but accepted code of ethics is individual morality and integrity. Any person in their right mind wouldn’t take the word of a known drug addict criticizing others who use drugs as genuine. Then why would anyone acknowledge a registered sex offender, convicted of raping a young underage girl and sent to prison for it as the moral watchdog on any tribe or any issue of the tribe for that matter? 

Granted there may be issues that do need discussion, and many people share a commonality on many political issues that concern their tribal governments but where do we draw the line on who has the MORAL right to speak on behalf of the tribal membership or criticize the tribal leadership or employees of the tribe? 

Indeed, any “sane” person wouldn’t let a known sexual deviant babysit their child, why then is it accepted as a norm on the Oglala Reservation to acknowledge, publish, print, and give space in a Native publication to a known pedophile, currently registered as a sex offender?

Has reservation society declined into such disillusionment, violence, and immorality that a child rapist’s opinion is sanctioned as a moral compass?

The criminal act of child rape should never be rewarded in any society or by any publically endorsed newspaper just because this opinion fits the political agenda of the Native publisher. 

A pedophile who is a regularly contributing columnist to a publication has nothing to lose but a lot to hide. Like a dog that craps inside a house but isn’t punished for it, it will continue to crap in the house if the people see nothing wrong with it, this is called Negligent and Irresponsible Journalism.

Negligent journalism devalues a publication, Indian or Non-Indian. The fact that a Native publication would defend a pedophiles right to free speech within their Newspaper is condoning their actions. 

With the world focused on the rights of women and girls to stand up for their fundamental human rights to liberty, and equality, on the reservation, the native press publishes the opinion of a pedophile and calls it ethical. 

If a periodical publication defends the opinion of a pedophile what does that say about the editorial leadership of the Native Newspaper? 

Shouldn’t they be protested for perpetuating the rights of a child rapist over that of the victimized? I surely wouldn’t return to advertise with this sordid substandard, and unethical publication. I would expect more from any newspaper.

It would seem that if the columnist in question were discovered at a later time to be a registered sex offender, who raped a child in their past but was, then, given an editorial platform, the healthy response would be to remove him from contributing. But this Native publication did the opposite they defended the sexual predator by saying that he “paid for his crime” and that his voice counts. 

Breaking an entering and going to jail is paying for your crime, DWI and going to jail is paying for your crime, but raping a child and going to jail? I don’t think this fits into this category of “They paid for their crime” not while they are still required to register as a sex offender. Belittling this type of behavior encourages sexual predators to re-assault, giving them a platform, simply put, is IMMORAL.

Certain social rights are relinquished by a sexual perpetrator once they are prosecuted for their perverted crime, this is why they are required to register as a sex offender to inform the community that a dangerous sexually deranged, pervert, deviant lives in the community. 

A newspaper defending a pedophile and having them as a regular and returning writer devalues a publication to ass wipe, which is more or less a fake news source. 

In this country, fake news is protected as a right to free speech, just as violent lyrics are protected. But pedophile political opinions should never be permitted by any publisher; it’s not a violation of the first amendment to refuse a pedophile print space, its just common sense, but it is a violation of human ethics to print it. No one can be that stupid as to call a pedophile a columnist in their newspaper and then defend them, but apparently, there is one.

Does a pedophile have the legitimacy to criticize others in the press? I would say NO, why? Because a man who has raped a child doesn’t deserve any space in the universe. They should be dis-enrolled and banished from humanity if not the tribe.

What kind of reservation society has the majority fostered if the word of a child molester is taken seriously? In itself, the fact that a newspaper would give any pedophile a podium to spew any opinion speaks volumes to the lack of integrity of the publication. 

Even if they are writing a small piece on the weather, knowing that the writer is a registered sex-offender of a child, is not only unethical but reckless. 

No one in their right mind would bath in feces, so why publish the opinion of a pedophile in the local Native newspaper? 

Who cares what he writes about, HELLO!!! he raped a child! 

If an unethical, immoral person wants to speak ethics, then we should address precisely what the meaning and definition of ethics are, which doesn’t include pedophilia. 

Pedophilia is by definition a mental disorder that one suffers where they have a sexual attraction to children, it is un-curable..

Recently there have been editorials that have been accusing the tribal leadership of primarily criminal acts written by a pedophile. Everyone has the right to their opinion but does a pedophile have a valid opinion? You must ask yourself; are you condoning pedophilia by agreeing with his opinion? 

But where does the line cross with news and pedophilia?

A columnist is defined as a journalist contributing regularly to a newspaper or magazine. 

Whereas an editorialist is an article in a newspaper or other periodical or on a website presenting the opinion of the publisher, writer, or editor. 

An editorial is a newspaper article written by or on behalf of an editor that gives an opinion on a topical issue.

A pedophile rapes children.

If this is so then the moral character of the pedophile that is protected by the newspaper staff and publisher who know he is a registered sex offender must be complicit in his immorality.

Freedom of Speech is protected by the First Amendment. However, speech that is directed to incite or produce lawless action and is likely to incite and create such action is not protected by the First Amendment. 

But in the circumstance of on-reservation sovereignty, the First Amendment does not apply. The tribal law applies to negligent journalism and violently inspired opinions if the negligent story or column goes against tribal custom. Last I knew tribal custom banished or removed child rapists permanently.

The US Constitution in some cases does not apply to Native Nations if the Constitution Amendment breaks with the custom of the tribe. The Supreme Court cannot intervene or rule against a tribal custom that existed before the first contact.

In tribal court, it would seem that negligent journalism, which incites violent acts against the tribal council, does have jurisdiction over the periodical business that operates within the tribe’s jurisdiction. The tribe has the right to terminate their business license and advertising contracts.

Though the tribe does not have jurisdiction over non-reservation or non-Indian publications, they do have jurisdiction over local newspapers and magazines, which operate within their boundaries and have advertising contracts with the tribe. A tribe can define what is an unethical practice. Allowing a registered sex offender to have a regular column within their publication is an unethical practice, and it makes no difference what subject he writes about.

Pedophilia is illegal and is defined by the DSM-IV as a psychiatric disturbance. Maybe the publication that regularly prints the words of a child rapist should re-evaluate their ethical standards. Maybe tribal governments shouldn’t advertise in unethical businesses? Maybe the editor and publisher should let him babysit their minor children?

Long Live The Fighters!!!!!