It is far from clear that the Iroquois Confederacy members re-occupying their lands are legally in the wrong.
If they are, why has the federal government spent the last 20 years or so frantically evading having to account to the Six Nations Band Council in Court for the Crown's (mis)handling of the vast Haldimand Grant that it holds in trust for the Iroquois people?
It is time that Canadians remind themselves of ALL of the applicable law, not just the bits that seem to justify our occupation and takings of others' lands.
...Respect for the law is not a one-way, natives-only street. Non-natives and their governments must respect the law too, and all of it.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
An Oldie But A Goodie (for the mentally and morally challenged
From Scott Neigh's blog, lawyer Andrew Orkin on "the rule of law":
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
"Respect for the law is not a one-way, natives-only street. Non-natives and their governments must respect the law too, and all of it."
Absolutely.
"It is far from clear that the Iroquois Confederacy members re-occupying their lands are legally in the wrong. "
He's the lawyer so he knows better than I do. But even he hedges his bets by saying it's not "clear", which cuts both ways. Take it to a judge; that's what they're there for.
Well, they initiated a lands claim for the properties in Caledonia last millenium, and while it was being negotiated, the land was being bought and developed:
"Six Nations residents have been pursuing their claim to the 40 hectares near Caledonia through the courts and treaty system since the mid-1990s. However, Wesley-Esquimaux said one problem with resolving treaty disputes is it typically takes a decade just to complete the initial research.
The result is situations such as Caledonia. “Part of the reason they occupied it is they know if they let [the developer] go ahead and develop this land then it’s gone. So the reality for First Nations across Canada is that they have to take a stand where they can,” said Wesley-Esquimaux, adding there are hundreds of outstanding aboriginal land claims nationwide."
http://www.news.utoronto.ca/bin6/060508-2301.asp
BTW: Point me to all your internet posts decrying police brutality against Aboriginals, the perfidy of the federal government on its treaty obligations. Show me where you've spoken out against the systematic discrimination of First Nations via harsher sentencing and harsher treatment once in prison (http://www.nupge.ca/news_2006/n18oc06a.htm), the self-interested whining of non-Aboriginal Caledonians over what might be a valid land claim and their calls that our treaty obligations simply be discarded because otherwise they'll be inconvenienced.
Show me where you've been even-handed on this, or I'll suspect that your "tut-tutting" about First Nations violence is just hypocrisy, and that you'll crawl back into the woodwork when the protests end and it's back to business as usual.
Thwap's Law of Public Discourse: If you have no prior written record of an opinion I agree with, you cannot express a different opinion without being a hypocrite.
Just about sums it up.
Right then, so you've never bothered to stir yourself about two-tier justice against First Nations peoples?
That about speaks for itself.
"If you have no prior written record of an opinion I agree with, you cannot express a different opinion without being a hypocrite.
"
That's pretty lame. This shouldn't be all that difficult.
You get all worked up about Aboriginals committing violence, but you're unmoved by the systemic, histoical abuses that have led them to this, and you've never said anything about the unfairness of their treatment, ... that makes you a hypocrite.
It has nothing to do with whether I agree with you on anything or not.
No, thwap, I get worked up about the cops deliberately not arresting, for political reasons, anyone who commits assault. I could not give a rat's ass whether the board-wielder was a Mohawk or a Martian: assault demands arrest.
We can leave aside for now all the multitude other crimes the "protestors" committed while occupying the disputed land; let's just stick with the simplest crime for now.
God, hooligan, .. I gotta give it to you, ... you have brains enough, and I guess that's what I was going for when I started this blog.
Views like yours would not long be tolerated on a "progressive" discussion board, and I wanted to really see what "conservatives" had to offer.
But really, ... are you using your brains at full capacity, or are you just lazily typing out whatever shit made sense to you when you were 14?
The police (as you'll notice: http://www.thespec.com/News/article/251248 the occupiers of that particular site were hauled off and arrested, and the guys who assaulted that developer will be looked for.) just didn't want a general conflagration.
You might be too stupid, cloddish, racist, insensitive, i-don't-know-what, to acknowledge this fact on your own, but here it is:
The First Nations have a different constitutional status from you and I and that affects their opinion of our laws. That and the fact that legal rights and equal treatment have been DENIED them for over a CENTURY.
So, as a result, they occupy land that they claim, before the tortuous futile cynically empty process that will end in shit because settlers are building on their claimed land, and this is supposedly "illegal."
And before they take a 2x4 to anyone's head, their presumption receives calls for the OPP or the army to "get the fucking Indians out" so, you'll forgive them if some of them, not giving a flying fuck about settler sensitivities and the rule of law go a little too far.
Okay. Maybe you won't forgive them. But at least you'll do them the favour of protesting the crimes committed against them with the same enthusiasm you condemn their crimes?
Or do you always side with the strongest party out of character?
"Views like yours would not long be tolerated on a "progressive" discussion board, and I wanted to really see what "conservatives" had to offer."
No, they never are.
"You might be too stupid, cloddish, racist, insensitive, i-don't-know-what, to acknowledge this fact on your own, but here it is..
There you go with the sweet-talking again.
"The First Nations have a different constitutional status from you and I and that affects their opinion of our laws. That and the fact that legal rights and equal treatment have been DENIED them for over a CENTURY."
Does their different status exempt them from the Criminal Code or civil statutes? We both know it does not because some of them are in prison and some are involved in civil lawsuits, which plainly could not be the case if the laws of the land did not apply to them. The second part of your statement itself implies that they are indeed subject to the same laws as the rest of us because to claim unfair treatment presumes equal treatment is due. So, why the emphasis on their different constitutional status? What is your point in offering that up?
As for the rest, I am not unsympathetic to the First Nations's frustration with the glacial pace that government bureaucracy sets. And I will admit that I would be sorely tempted to resort to the same kinds of tactics they employ. But I cannot in good conscience follow you in condoning those tactics because I believe that society cannot function without order and that we are all subject to the law.
"Or do you always side with the strongest party out of character?"
How strong was Gualtieri when the pack descended on him?
I said that those guys should have been arrested. Just that the OPP not charge in immediately and cause a political explosion.
You're chasing your own tail here.
"Just that the OPP not charge in immediately and cause a political explosion."
You've got it ass backwards, like all good lefties: the assault causes the arrest, and any subsequent reactions after that are the fault of whomever does the reacting and,ultimately, of those who triggered the arrest by criminal actions. No crime, no cops, no need (or should I say excuse) for "political explosions"..cause and effect.
Tapdance all you like, you cannot duck away from the fact that illegal action is unjustifiable and, frankly, damaging to the Mohawks' cause.
The sort of shit you're complaining about happens a million times a day.
This is tiresome, and since I think you're a hypocrite, I just don't have the energy, or the care, to repeat myself any further.
Post a Comment