All Things First Nations - CF help, protests, solutions, residential schools, etc. (merged)

[kratz]

The public is aware:

Instead of going to work on my normal route, we are all taking the other bridge.
Instead of taking the fast route to our long weekend vacation, we are all taking the ferry.
Instead of heading out, we are staying home and enjoying the company of our local friends and family.

The protest, as stated is meant to be a disruptive / economic protest and the public is responding in kind by not letting it affect them.

 

[Greymatters]

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2007/06/17/4268111-cp.html
Highlights are mine, to show plain and simple these are the actions of a TERRORIST, and this IS DOMESTIC TERRORSIM.  This sob Brant is agitating for a violent confrontation, and is taking steps to ensure it happens.  Why is this scumbag still free? We have thrown people in the clink on terrorsim charges, and they haven't done half the crap this ******* has done (not to say they are innocent or guilty, but to show, the huge double standard out there).  This is sickening and pathetic, that our governments allow this crap to continue on.  So far Fantino's all bark and no bite.  And so much for equal rule of law.

We already have a significant problem in this country with people speaking in public venues and getting the definitions of criminal acts and terrorist acts mixed up.  Dont add to it.

 

[The_Falcon]

We already have a significant problem in this country with people speaking in public venues and getting the definitions of criminal acts and terrorist acts mixed up.  Dont add to it.

I am not getting anything mixed up, here are the terrorist activity laws straight from the criminal code


http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/C-46/bo-ga:l_II_1-gb:s_83_18//en#anchorbo-ga:l_II_1-gb:s_83_18

83.01(1)
"terrorist activity" means

(b) an act or omission, in or outside Canada,

(i) that is committed

(A) in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause, and

(B) in whole or in part with the intention of intimidating the public, or a segment of the public, with regard to its security, including its economic security, or compelling a person, a government or a domestic or an international organization to do or to refrain from doing any act, whether the public or the person, government or organization is inside or outside Canada, and

(ii) that intentionally

(A) causes death or serious bodily harm to a person by the use of violence,

(B) endangers a person’s life,

(C) causes a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or any segment of the public,

(D) causes substantial property damage, whether to public or private property, if causing such damage is likely to result in the conduct or harm referred to in any of clauses (A) to (C), or

(E) causes serious interference with or serious disruption of an essential service, facility or system, whether public or private, other than as a result of advocacy, protest, dissent or stoppage of work that is not intended to result in the conduct or harm referred to in any of clauses (A) to (C),

Facilitating terrorist activity

83.19 (1) Every one who knowingly facilitates a terrorist activity is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years

I don't know about you greymatter, but to me, their actions fit perfectly with the areas I bolded.  They (Brant and his followers) caused serious interference/serious disruption of an essential service, facility or system when they blockaded the 401, Highway 2, and the CN Rail line,  they have endagered peoples lives, had the potential to cause serious risk to public safety, by openly declaring they were ARMED and threatening the use of violence should the police attempt to disperse them, as well these tactics can very be seen as intimitated the public (army clothes, face masks, weapons), and the publics economic security (VIA rail cancelling train service, CN stopping frieght, transport trucks unable to deliver good, because the main highways are shut down).

Thanks for the lecture but do your homework first, they have committed CRIMINAL TERRORIST ACTS, whether people want to acknowledge it or not. And it will continue and get worse so long as our governement and their respective law enforcement agencies pussy foot about, and not hold them to accout for their actions.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Hachetman,

So what would you have us do, then- call in airstrikes from Bagotville?  Or turn JTF-2 loose on them?  Just because a highway and a rail line got blocked for 24 hrs (and no one was hurt)? How, exactly, do you think that would play out?  Do you think it would:

a) escalate a touchy situation? or
b) deescalate a touchy situation?

Take your time in answering...

Look- sometimes, the right thing to do is nothing.  While I do not support violence in getting your political message across, I do think the First Nations have (in general) some justification to be unhappy with the land claims settlement system in Canada (that said, I also think Shawn Brant is a publicity seeking hothead).  Going off half-cocked and rushing in guns blazing makes the Natives victims and creates the conditions for a rallying point that could lead to an armed insurrection the likes of which North America has not seen since the end of the 1800s- All because your sense of "justice" is upset.  Not to put too fine a point on it but- Grow up and think strategic, not tactical.

 

[GAP]

What seems to be missed here is that there has been a massive drawback by the natives regarding this day of protest. Rather than focus on  an idiot, focus on what was done by Fontaine and others to minimize ill will by the public....bet that took a lot of arm twisting!!

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Gap-
I think the Government announcement earlier this month about appointing a binding Land Claims board had something to do with that, too.

In my mind, if we can sort out the majority of the land claims relatively quickly, even if it costs a fair bit of money, it gets the Natives on the road to self-sufficiency and off of the teat- which should have been the goal all along.

 

[observor 69]

JEFFREY SIMPSON  had a good column in the Friday G&M. His basic point was how can Indians expect to sustain modern services, health education etc, when they insist in living in small numbers in remote locations (see water treatment story of late).
Fighting over claims is one matter but as a people wouldn't it make sense to move near larger communities to be able to take advantage of municipal services,say clean water, good medical serves etc etc.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Baden Guy-

There is certainly something to what you are saying, but imagine how difficult it would be to abandon everything you have ever known and leave your community (disfunctional as it may be) to move someplace totally foreign.

This is a bit off topic, but, I am always struck by a certain element of the "intellectual" community (for lack of a better label), when they exhort Natives to remain on their reserves, return to nature and turn their backs on the 21st century- I guess so they can be a living museum to amuse others. 

The Buffalo ain't coming back; the Europeans ain't going away.  Many native communities are only 2-3 generations out of a pre-industrial way of life, but they must adapt to modern Canadian life or die (in cultural sense, not literally).  Unfortunately, I'm not smart enough to suggest many solutions.

 

[Greymatters]

I am not getting anything mixed up, here are the terrorist activity laws straight from the criminal code

Thanks for the lecture but do your homework first, they have committed CRIMINAL TERRORIST ACTS, whether people want to acknowledge it or not. And it will continue and get worse so long as our governement and their respective law enforcement agencies ***** foot about, and not hold them to accout for their actions.

Just because a law is written poorly doesnt mean you can apply it willy-nilly to any situation.  According to your interpretation any person who waves a gun around, or belongs to a motorcycle gang, or says he intends to do a person harm, can be charged with terrorism.  There are definite differences between criminal and terrorist acts, and before you criticize others you should learn to discern the difference yourself.

 

[youravatar]

The Akwesasne Mohawk Reserve near Cornwall Ontario is a hot bed of criminal activity, namely smuggling of drugs, firearms and contraband cigarettes. If this is the typical way most natives want to help themselves then maybe they shouldn't. I'm not saying all natives down there are smugglers, just not enough is being done to stop them because the RCMP and the Cornwall Community Police don't have the legislation, and resources to do so.

...

I don't have time to finish this rant. But the long and short of it is they're committing borderline terrorist acts.

 

[The_Falcon]

Hachetman,

So what would you have us do, then- call in airstrikes from Bagotville?  Or turn JTF-2 loose on them?  Just because a highway and a rail line got blocked for 24 hrs (and no one was hurt)? How, exactly, do you think that would play out?  Do you think it would:

Now your just getting silly, I would let the police handle it, if they wanted to up the ante, that would be their decision.  It was 2 Highways and a rail line, and being from BC, you might not realize that the 401 is THE major highway in southern Ontario, and shutting it down completely in any section can have sever economic ramifications (same goes for the rail line, reports were CN rail had to stop/reroute over $100million worth of goods, not to mention all the VIA passengers).  So it may have only got blocked for 24hrs, who's to say it wouldn't have been blocked for longer?  Or that next time they pull this stunt (And I guarantee there will be a next time) they block it longer.  And again no one was hurt this time, but that doesn't negate that there could been a very large potential for people to get hurt.  All it takes is one person who is fed up with this to try and run the blockade, or a native with an itchy trigger finger to do something stupid. So would my actions possible escalate the situation, sure. But they would definetly think twice before doing anything like this again.  And its a whole lot better than appeasement, and letting them carry on with no fear of the consequences of their actions

Look- sometimes, the right thing to do is nothing. 

Right... : because that always works. In the last 18 months of doing nothing, we have seen more and more "occupations" and "blockades", and every time, the tone and the actions of those involved has been increasingly beligerent ("we have no weapons, we are being peaceful" Caledonia 18 months ago - "We have/have access to guns, and we will use them if you try and stop us" 401/Rail Blockade 2 days ago).  Sorry the bury your head in the sand, and hope the nice protestors play nice approach, is cleary not working.  There have been no police interventions since they botched caledonia, and yet, these "protestors" (terrorists) are still increasing their hostility.

While I do not support violence in getting your political message across, I do think the First Nations have (in general) some justification to be unhappy with the land claims settlement system in Canada

I don't disagree, but in that case to the protests to the government, and leave the rest of us out it.

(that said, I also think Shawn Brant is a publicity seeking hothead).  Going off half-cocked and rushing in guns blazing makes the Natives victims and creates the conditions for a rallying point that could lead to an armed insurrection the likes of which North America has not seen since the end of the 1800s- All because your sense of "justice" is upset.  Not to put too fine a point on it but- Grow up and think strategic, not tactical.

They (brant and his people) are itching do that regardless.  And its not just MY sense of justice, there are lots of people who are getting fed up with this lawlessness, and these appeasment tactics and bury your head in the sand approaches. ANY other group/faction/ what have you, that tried pulling this crap would have been dealt with swiftly a long time ago. 

Just because a law is written poorly doesnt mean you can apply it willy-nilly to any situation.  According to your interpretation any person who waves a gun around, or belongs to a motorcycle gang, or says he intends to do a person harm, can be charged with terrorism. 

Not my interpretation, thats the way the law was written (and if you don't like they the law is worded, go lobby your MP), and if the situation fits and cops want to use it in any of those circumstances, so be it.

There are definite differences between criminal and terrorist acts, and before you criticize others you should learn to discern the difference yourself.

Alright then, you said their are differences between criminal acts and terrorists acts, twice now what are those differences?.  Considering what I posted is taken directly from the CRMINAL CODE OF CANADA (Part II.1), explain to me how these are seperate entities (criminal vs terrorist)?

 

[Greymatters]

Alright then, you said their are differences between criminal acts and terrorists acts, twice now what are those differences?.  Considering what I posted is taken directly from the CRMINAL CODE OF CANADA (Part II.1), explain to me how these are seperate entities (criminal vs terrorist)?

Well, now that you ask... 

The purpose of the law on terrorist acts was to recognize that certain acts were held in great abhorence by society due to their tremendous physical and pyschological effects on society, and that any persons who commit (or planned to commit) such acts needed to receive punishment (if found guilty) much more severe than was already in place in the criminal code.  Now you end up with an addition to our structure of more and more unacceptable behaviour with appropriate levels of stricter and stricter punishments.

    Socially accepted behaviour 
    Unaceptable social behaviour that requires correction
    Unacceptable acts for which a person or group can be held civially liable for
    Unacceptable acts for which a person or group can be prosecuted criminally for, and
    Unacceptable acts that a person or group commits classified as terrorism or terrorist acts.

In the case of the Native group, yes their actions are unacceptable to parts of society, yes they can be held civilly liable for disrupting traffic and causing economic losses to local businesses, or any damage they cause, yes, their threats of using guns against others is a criminal offense, but this is not terrorism, nor are they commiting terrorist acts (but they are awfully close!)

Consider the following:

A 14 year old on an airplane pulls out a plastic water pistol, points it at the stewardess, and says 'Bang your dead'.
A gang of Grade 10 students extort money from a group of grade 9 students using threats of physical violence.
Union members of a bike gang on a picket line threaten truck drivers by telling them 'we know where you live'.
A 16 year old hacker gets into the city database and shuts down the traffic management system.
A mentally disturbed man enters a university and shoots 16 women.   
A postal worker walks into his workplace and shoots the manager and several colleages then himself.
A man deliberately drives his car into the front entrance of a military orderly room.
A man with an explosive strapped to his body enters a bank and demands all the cash or he will detonate himself.   
A gang of Hispanic youth threaten to torch a mans house if he doesnt give them money, and threaten to shoot police when they arrive at the scene.
Anarchists start an anti-government protest, with some masked members carrying weapons so they can attack police officers.

Compared with:

A 26 year old man belonging to an organization remotely explodes a vehicle in front of an office building, destroying the building and killing many of the occupants.


See the difference?  Everyone of these events could be classified as 'terrorist' acts according the definitions in the law given, which would demand the utmost penalty that the law could deliver 9as it should).  But these are not all terrorist acts.  Only the last is a true terrorist act, all the others are criminal acts. 

 

[Greymatters]

The second difference is in the use of the words 'criminal' and 'terrorist'.  Criminals are not terrorists or we would call them all terrorists.  Terrorists are not criminals or we would call them all criminals.  (Edit - thats why its called the 'War on Terror' and not the 'War on Crime')

There is also a difference in goals.   The ultimate goal for Criminals is to acquire money.  The ultimate goal for Terrorists is to seek power and inlfuence.

 

[The_Falcon]

See the difference?  Everyone of these events could be classified as 'terrorist' acts according the definitions in the law given, which would demand the utmost penalty that the law could deliver 9as it should).  But these are not all terrorist acts.  Only the last is a true terrorist act, all the others are criminal acts. 

No most of those examples would not qualify as "terrorist activity" (which is the actual offence under the law) under the law because they do not meet this section "(A) in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause,".  Some could fit, and if they do, I'd say charge them.

You may not like the fact the law for terrorist activity can include actions that don't fit neatly into your little world of "only these actions and these actions only, constitute terrorist activity" but tough ****, thats the way the law is written.   Some Terrorist "Acts" maybe more severe than others, but thats why the law prohibits various acts that can be considered terroristic and not specific acts (such as blowing up a building).  

The second difference is in the use of the words 'criminal' and 'terrorist'.  Criminals are not terrorists or we would call them all terrorists.  Terrorists are not criminals or we would call them all criminals.  (Edit - thats why its called the 'War on Terror' and not the 'War on Crime')

Hmm last time I checked there were a bunch of people in the Toronto area, who are currently in the CRIMINAL justice system, facing CRIMINAL trial, on CRIMINAL charges of TERRORISM.  Sorry in this country you can be a terrorist and a criminal.

There is also a difference in goals.   The ultimate goal for Criminals is to acquire money.

Really.... :  So rapists, child molesters, child porn producers/collectors, murderers like bernardo and olson, vandals, wife/child abusers, are all in it for the money huh?  And none of them ever do any of their crimes becaue it gives them power and influence over people, and makes them feel like they are in control?

The ultimate goal for Terrorists is to seek power and inlfuence.

And terrorists and terror groups have never done anything for monetary gain?  Also what do you think all these native group are trying to get every time they occupy something, and they don't ask for more money like two days ago.  They get some power and influence (over some people anyways), because they were able to control the situation and dictate how things were going to go.

 

[Greymatters]

If you didnt agree with it, all you had to say was, "I dont agree".  There are always exceptions that can be pointed out, and I can do the same thing too:

Thieves = money, extortion = money, robbery = money, fraud = money, tax evasion = money, kidnapping = money, Mafia = money, Yakuza = money, OMG = money, etc.

Hamas = power/influence, Fatah = power/influence, Taliban = power/influence, AQ = power/influence, etc.

But back to the Native issue - Do you still see them as terrorists?  If so, then you have a right to your opinion, but dont expect everyone else to agree with you.

 

[The_Falcon]

If you didnt agree with it, all you had to say was, "I dont agree".  There are always exceptions that can be pointed out, and I can do the same thing too:

Why, when it is so much more fun to poke holes in your generalist statements.

But back to the Native issue - Do you still see them as terrorists?  If so, then you have a right to your opinion, but dont expect everyone else to agree with you.

Do I see all natives as terrorists? No.  Just the same as I don't see all Irish, Tamil, Arabs as terrorists.  Do I see David Brant, and his band of hooligans and thugs as terrorists?  Absolutely.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I would let the police handle it, if they wanted to up the ante, that would be their decision.

Ahh- but the OPP made a decision, didn't they? It just wasn't the one you wanted, was it? 

The OPP, the Province and the Feds all seemed to agree that the stakes were too high to up the ante this past weekend.

Just for the sake of argument, Hatchet Man, let's pretend that the provisions of the Terrorist Act were applied on the Day of Action to those blocking highways and rail lines.  Now what?  It kind of compells the Feds to take some pretty extreme action- after all- we don't generally bargain with terrorists, do we?  And we don't let them walk around free, either.  Now, I'm pretty sure that the OPP tactical team and the regional RCMP ERT guys could take down Brant and his followers, but who really knows- it might require a JTF2 assist.  Now that Brant and his gang are in custody (or dead) following a take down that is sure to have been covered nationally and even internationally, just what do you suppose will be the reaction of every hot head from Oka to Caledonia to Hobema:

a) Do nothing, thinking, "wow, I better not mess with the Feds, I might get hurt or go to jail"
b) Immediately start blowing expensive things up, like rail lines, pipelines and telecommunications towers, all in solidarity for their fallen Native Brethren.

I personally think that situations like this, if handled too carelessly and roughly, are more likely to spawn more violence and chaos- and we will run out of Police and Military waayyy before we run out of angry young Natives in this country.  You are of course entitled to your own opinion, I am firmly on the side that the Terrorism Act is too blunt an instrument for this type of situation.  Now, if Brant and his boys go around kidnapping, planting IEDs and blowing things up- bring on the Terrorism Act- but save it as the last act, not as your opener.

 

[Old Sweat]

SeaKing Tacco is right. The OPP may have lost a battle (and that is debatable) but they scored a strategic victory. The blockades were lifted; nobody was hurt; and Brant and associates lost in the court of public opinion, if not in the eyes of the media. If anything, they deflected media attention from the main event of the day - a peaceful demonstration by the AFN - and left an overwhelming impression that (not all) natives have no respect for the law.

 

[civmick]

The blockade has shown two things though -

1.  The CN railway line is a single point of failure which would have disastrous economic consequences if closed for *any* reason for an extended period.  The closed parts of the CP line between Ottawa and Toronto should be acquired by Ontario and reopened.

2.  The willingness of the media to promote the fact that Brant et al sabotaged railway signals and that it's not hard to do.  All it needs now is for a few bored louts in suburbia to start googling how to do it rather than do their usual chucking rocks off overpasses or whatever.

 

[Rowshambow]

When first reading this, I was prob like most Canadians, tired of hearing about this crap, if I did it their way I would be locked up for quite awhile, I did like Seakingtacos input, and I do have to agree with it, even though it wasn't the desired effect that I wanted (throw them all in jail) he is right, it was a good way not to spark more drastic measure by the offending people. We are talking mainly about the east (401 and the rail line) and seaking did mention Hobema, now if they did the same thing on HWY2 Out here in Alberta, there would be even more economic crisis, it is pretty much the only  North-South road for Alberta (and we all know the rest of Canada wants its money) So by letting them do their "peaceful protest" it prob deflected allot of would be havoc. I am sure that's what the "hardlined" natives wanted, for us to go in guns blazing, so they could have the anarchy that some of them disire.