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

[Baloo]

Let's get this out of the way, before it goes any farther.

Yes, it is an offence, for justified reasons, to tamper with a railway signal. Yes, this could in theory endanger people's lives. This will go against my generalization of "any sort of conceivable danger," as a whole. I will not debate that, nor was that my intent. I am not sloughing it off as simple carelessness or "whattaya gonna do?" But let us put this into perspective.

As we all know, we can 'what if' this all to death. We can assume that the train was going to be diverted into Reactor B at Chalk River, or we can assume that the lines were going to be stopped to emphasize the shutting down of rail services, as there were protesters on the tracks. Either way, it doesn't matter. No-one here, unless more information has been divulged since, has any clarification on the statement made by the Winnipeg Free Press, or the subsequent investigation by VIA Rail.

There is nothing here, to remotely suggest 'domestic terrorism.' Period. What, we're going to wantonly throw out that term against a movement that none of us agree with, because of a vague, but potentially serious, alleged incident? I maintain that this isn't the same thing as the Toronto case.

 

[Good2Golf]

I think we can all agree that at the very least, it is a CRIMINAL activity.

The thing is, the saboteurs likely don't understand the complex and interconnected nature of railway signals and controls.  To sabotage a "local signal arm" does not effect just a single location.  The is a cascade effect than can affect other portions of automated signals and switch controls in different locations, so it's not just a case of causing a train to stop at a particular location.

In the end, this will likely serve to harm the INM movement's efforts than to help.

Regards
G2G

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Let's get this out of the way, before it goes any farther.

Yes, it is an offence, for justified reasons, to tamper with a railway signal. Yes, this could in theory endanger people's lives. This will go against my generalization of "any sort of conceivable danger," as a whole. I will not debate that, nor was that my intent. I am not sloughing it off as simple carelessness or "whattaya gonna do?" But let us put this into perspective.

As we all know, we can 'what if' this all to death. We can assume that the train was going to be diverted into Reactor B at Chalk River, or we can assume that the lines were going to be stopped to emphasize the shutting down of rail services, as there were protesters on the tracks. Either way, it doesn't matter. No-one here, unless more information has been divulged since, has any clarification on the statement made by the Winnipeg Free Press, or the subsequent investigation by VIA Rail.

There is nothing here, to remotely suggest 'domestic terrorism.' Period. What, we're going to wantonly throw out that term against a movement that none of us agree with, because of a vague, but potentially serious, alleged incident? I maintain that this isn't the same thing as the Toronto case.

"The definition of “terrorist activity” in section 83.01 of the Criminal Code has two components. The first component incorporates a series of offences enacted to implement international legal instruments against terrorism. The second, more general, stand-alone component, states that a “terrorist activity” is an act or omission undertaken “in whole or in part for a political, religious, or ideological purpose, objective or cause” that is intended to intimidate the public or compel a person, government or organization to do or refrain from doing any act, if the act or omission intentionally causes a specified serious harm. Specified harms include causing death or serious bodily harm, endangering life, causing a serious risk to health or safety, causing substantial property damage where it would also cause one of the above listed harms and, in certain circumstances, causing serious interference or disruption of an essential service, facility or system, whether public or private."

http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=3066235&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=39&Ses=1&File=15

 

[my72jeep]

"The definition of “terrorist activity” in section 83.01 of the Criminal Code has two components. The first component incorporates a series of offences enacted to implement international legal instruments against terrorism. The second, more general, stand-alone component, states that a “terrorist activity” is an act or omission undertaken “in whole or in part for a political, religious, or ideological purpose, objective or cause” that is intended to intimidate the public or compel a person, government or organization to do or refrain from doing any act, if the act or omission intentionally causes a specified serious harm. Specified harms include causing death or serious bodily harm, endangering life, causing a serious risk to health or safety, causing substantial property damage where it would also cause one of the above listed harms and, in certain circumstances, causing serious interference or disruption of an essential service, facility or system, whether public or private."

http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=3066235&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=39&Ses=1&File=15

Nail on the head. MP inbound. :goodpost:

 

[teabag]

Please do not neglect the paragraph that follows from that same reference:

"Some hold the view that the stand-alone definition is overboard and that the reference to motive of political, religious or ideological purpose may invite “profiling” on the basis of politics, religion or ideology. This issue of the motive requirement is currently before the courts in R. v. Khawaja. [2] There are also some concerns that the elements which relate to seriously interfering with or disrupting an essential service might extend anti-terrorism measures to unlawful but peaceful labour strikes or other protests. These concerns were also raised in 2001 and, in response, Parliament included in the section an exception for advocacy, protest, dissent and stoppage of work, provided these activities are not intended to cause any of the other serious forms of harm referred to in the definition."

 

[larry Strong]

Please do not neglect the paragraph that follows from that same reference:

"Some hold the view that the stand-alone definition is overboard and that the reference to motive of political, religious or ideological purpose may invite “profiling” on the basis of politics, religion or ideology. This issue of the motive requirement is currently before the courts in R. v. Khawaja. [2] There are also some concerns that the elements which relate to seriously interfering with or disrupting an essential service might extend anti-terrorism measures to unlawful but peaceful labour strikes or other protests. These concerns were also raised in 2001 and, in response, Parliament included in the section an exception for advocacy, protest, dissent and stoppage of work, provided these activities are not intended to cause any of the other serious forms of harm referred to in the definition."

Actually the court has issued a ruling.....in favor of the legislation:

The Court ruled that the terrorism offences set out in sections 83.03, 83.18, 83.19 and 83.21 of the Criminal Code are constitutional

http://scc.lexum.org/decisia-scc-csc/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/12768/1/document.do

Larry

 

[Journeyman]

This issue of the motive requirement is currently before the courts in R. v. Khawaja.

Nice attempt at clouding the issue Urmimu, but to elaborate on the previous response, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously, upholding the motive clause and concluding that threats of violence are not constitutionally protected.

There is further detail in the Ottawa Citizen, here, which outlines not only additional aspects of the constitutionality, but also upholds the expansion of Khawaja's initial 10-year sentence to life, no chance of parole for 10 years plus 24 consecutive years, which was  imposed by the Ontario Court of Appeal.


For an interesting, if somewhat dated, perspective on the Anti-Terrorism Act, the Justice Department has a copy of The Views of Canadian Scholars on the Impact of the Anti-Terrorism Act (2004) here. 

I find it interesting, in that Canadian academics are often pre-supposed to be tree-hugging leftists, yet their views are echoed in this Supreme Court ruling that even in the "rush to legislate in the face of a great catastrophe, the government did not go too far in drafting the Anti-terrorism Act amendments to the Criminal Code."

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Please do not neglect the paragraph that follows from that same reference:

"Some hold the view that the stand-alone definition is overboard and that the reference to motive of political, religious or ideological purpose may invite “profiling” on the basis of politics, religion or ideology. This issue of the motive requirement is currently before the courts in R. v. Khawaja. [2] There are also some concerns that the elements which relate to seriously interfering with or disrupting an essential service might extend anti-terrorism measures to unlawful but peaceful labour strikes or other protests. These concerns were also raised in 2001 and, in response, Parliament included in the section an exception for advocacy, protest, dissent and stoppage of work, provided these activities are not intended to cause any of the other serious forms of harm referred to in the definition."

Please do not neglect the highlighted, last sentence.

Standing in a park, holding signs and chanting is not the same as blocking a railroad or interferring with the safety equipment.

 

[Baloo]

causing serious interference or disruption of an essential service, facility or system, whether public or private."

In order to meet that definition, you would need to clarify "serious interference or disruption" and "essential service, facility or system."

Several hours of travel disruption, perhaps even days, is not going to constitute a 'serious' disruption. If it was, then VIA and CN would be screaming to high heaven for someone to do something about the Natives on the tracks, or perhaps they would trot out some ramming bars to the front of their engines. Are people going to be pissed off? Yes. Is money going to be lost? Undoubtedly, yes. But is it a serious threat to the national, or even local, infrastructure? Hardly.

And again, let's put this into perspective. Do we honestly think, with the information provided and this being wholly in the realm of "just a wild hunch," that this was a concentrated effort to derail trains, plow them into canals, or otherwise jeopardize national commerce or hundreds of lives? I doubt it, I truly do. It was more than likely a bunch of protesters trying to affect a railway crossing arm or light at one intersection. I am not condoning their behaviour. As Good2Golf said, it would have far reaching consequences. But we are taking about 'Mischief' and 'Criminal Negligence,' not quite 'Terrorism.'

 

[Fishbone Jones]

In order to meet that definition, you would need to clarify "serious interference or disruption" and "essential service, facility or system."

Several hours of travel disruption, perhaps even days, is not going to constitute a 'serious' disruption. If it was, then VIA and CN would be screaming to high heaven for someone to do something about the Natives on the tracks, or perhaps they would trot out some ramming bars to the front of their engines. Are people going to be pissed off? Yes. Is money going to be lost? Undoubtedly, yes. But is it a serious threat to the national, or even local, infrastructure? Hardly.

And again, let's put this into perspective. Do we honestly think, with the information provided and this being wholly in the realm of "just a wild hunch," that this was a concentrated effort to derail trains, plow them into canals, or otherwise jeopardize national commerce or hundreds of lives? I doubt it, I truly do. It was more than likely a bunch of protesters trying to affect a railway crossing arm or light at one intersection. I am not condoning their behaviour. As Good2Golf said, it would have far reaching consequences. But we are taking about 'Mischief' and 'Criminal Negligence,' not quite 'Terrorism.'

Just because you, a layman citizen, do not believe it is a serious interference or disruption to an essential service, facility or system, does not make it so.

 

[Jarnhamar]

It was more than likely a bunch of protesters trying to affect a railway crossing arm or light at one intersection.

Or a certain small group of people hiding in the shadow of the larger movement who's intention is to either derail a train (which some boneheads will claim is the work of paid Harper agents trying to frame them) or simply cause fear and terror in daily commuters.

 

[Baloo]

Fair enough, and vice versa.

Can we just agree to disagree over titles and share disgust over the elk slaughter?

 

[Baloo]

Or a certain small group of people hiding in the shadow of the larger movement who's intention is to either derail a train (which some boneheads will claim is the work of paid Harper agents trying to frame them) or simply cause fear and terror in daily commuters.

Ah, Black Bloc-esque tactics, eh?

I have no doubt that those elements exist, especially inside the 'Mohawk Warrior' elements. I also believe that many members of the movement, dedicated or casual, will continue to push the limits of not only the government, but Canadian society as a whole. Where the foot gets put down and batons come a-flyin' I can't wager. But it will be farther down the road from highway and railway traffic disruptions, I can pretty much guarantee.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Fair enough, and vice versa.

Can we just agree to disagree over titles and share disgust over the elk slaughter?

I'm more disgusted by people with jobs loosing money because of blockades (or the racism and bullying leveled at FN people who don't support blockades) but shooting a family of elk is bad too.  Oddly enough I don't even think the guy who posted that IS a part of INM. Sounded like he was being sarcastic to me. 

Ah, Black Bloc-esque tactics, eh?

Interesting you should mention that, brother...
Perhaps you should enlighten us as to what else you know of this "black block" you speak of out of the blue?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Ah, Black Bloc-esque tactics, eh?

I have no doubt that those elements exist, especially inside the 'Mohawk Warrior' elements. I also believe that many members of the movement, dedicated or casual, will continue to push the limits of not only the government, but Canadian society as a whole. Where the foot gets put down and batons come a-flyin' I can't wager. But it will be farther down the road from highway and railway traffic disruptions, I can pretty much guarantee.

Not just in the Warrior Society. You must have missed the discussion upthread where proven, non-native anarchists are participating in the INM protests.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Strictly speaking, unless you know exactly what is in the cargo of a tractor/trailer, railway car, or aircraft, how can you possibly know whether disruption of delivery is of trivial or grave importance?

The operative rule should be: don't fuck with things you don't understand when common sense tells you it's wrong.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Not just in the Warrior Society. You must have missed the discussion upthread where proven, non-native anarchists are participating in the INM protests.

Right, post #321.
http://www.genuinewitty.com/2013/01/03/idlenomore-the-soros-anarchists-behind-the-scene-at-the-sarnia-rail-blockade/

 

[Kat Stevens]

Strictly speaking, unless you know exactly what is in the cargo of a tractor/trailer, railway car, or aircraft, how can you possibly know whether disruption of delivery is of trivial or grave importance?

The operative rule should be: don't fuck with things you don't understand when common sense tells you it's wrong.

He spoke the words!  He spoke the words!  Stone him!!

 

[Remius]

Ever since Greg renouf posted a link to his blog denouncing Rememberance day protesters, I've been impressed by his way of doing business with anarchists.  He is left wing, but you can't help but respect the way he goes after the hypocrisy of the left wing extremists.  You might not agree with his politics but you can respect the way he presents his views.

http://www.genuinewitty.com/2013/01/06/attawapiskats-problematic-investment-portfolio-and-how-it-conflicts-with-idlenomores-values/

Great post by him at the link above that shows the hypocrisy of this whole situation.

 

[Rifleman62]

Checking in on Attawapiskat

CBC The National

From January 2012:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=1ynaC8f5ues#!

Also: CBC quietly changes BS story about doctor’s diagnose of Chief Spence

January 6, 2013 — BC Blue  http://bcblue.wordpress.com/2013/01/06/cbc-quietly-changes-bs-story-about-doctors-diagnose-of-chief-spence/