Ensuring that history properly recognizes the contributions made by disabled lesbian lumberjacks of colour;

As part of a “rebranding” exercise, Vancouver City Council is scheduled to consider today a report on the many “challenges” associated with the continued use by the municipality of its coat of arms as the city’s main visual identity. But in truth, there is really only one challenge facing Vancouver’s politicians: How do they get rid of whitey?
The report, by Vancouver’s communications director Catherine Clement, argues that the municipality’s existing coat of arms “does not help humanize the organization” and “does not reflect the progressive organization the city has become.” Rather, the report argues, it “undermines the image of an innovative government.”
Those are very serious allegations to hurl at a coat of arms that has graced bridges, city hall and municipal documents for more than a century without incident. So what is it about the coat of arms that is suddenly harming the image of Vancouver’s “innovative government”?
After making the case that a truly effective identity for the City of Vancouver would communicate to residents “the myriad services they receive from their local government, and improve awareness of the value they get for their tax dollars,” the report finally gets to the point. According to Ms. Clement, “the present coat of arms uses two Caucasian, male ‘supporters,’ when other cultural groups also played a significant role in the development of Vancouver.”

In googling around on the Keeseekoose story, I ran across this oddly presented quote in the Star Pheonix on Oct.28.

And while hundreds of people are being flown out of a remote northern Ontario First Nation because of an E. coli outbreak in the water, Health Canada says six Saskatchewan reserves are under a boil water advisory. Segments of the Peepeekisis, Standing Buffalo, Poundmaker, Sweetgrass, Keeseekoose and Cumberland House First Nations are under the advisory, but don’t have E. coli contamination.
“I think if anything, the Native situation in Saskatchewan is better than the (Caucasian) situation,” said Hans Peterson, executive director of the Safe Drinking Water Foundation.

Emphasis mine.
Notice the parenthesis around the word “Caucasian” – in a quote, no less.
Why? Did Hans Peterson skip a word? Or did the writers – Janet French, Julie Saccone and Dan Jungwirth – decide to use “Caucasian” in place of something else?
Could it be that “white” has joined the growing list of words considered too politically incorrect to grace the pages of our fair paper, even for use in a direct quote?
I’d love to hear an explanation.