A couple of nights ago, my partner and I (and the new one!) were coming home on the bus, and there were two guys sitting across from us. I will mention that one of them was a security guard who made $8/hour because that's actually going to be relevant later. He was also at least in his late forties. His friend was a little younger and looked to be of similar economic standing.
At first I was mildly interested in listening to them, because even though they were talking about baseball and baseball players' personal lives, the older fellow had a pleasant radio announcer's voice and he sounded a lot more intelligent than his lime-green track pants would have indicated.
They went on to talk about his security-guard job, about smoking in the guard shack not being allowed, about how someone got promoted to management and up to $12/hour with no union dues, and about how they could watch movies and cable-tv all night, with the drawback being that the money wasn't that good.
Then, they started to talk about the Natives in Caledonia. "Did'ja hear about those Natives beating up a guy in a new housing development?" "Yeah."
So, my ears picked up on this. The older guy went on:
"So what do you think the OPP is going to do?" He asked rhetorically. "Hunh! Nothing!" Said his friend. "You got that right."
The first thing that came into my head was that every single rumour or statement about First Nations violence was reported in the media as proven fact, and that the conspiracy-nuts and racists at sites like SDA would obsess and enlarge them so that they could create a gigantic Indian-Islamist conspiracy to destroy Western Civilization that only bush II and Stephen Harper can save us from.
I told my partner that the whole story was probably complete bullshit, and that somebody in Caledonia had just made it up and it was circulating through the grapevine. In the background I heard the younger guy make some disparaging remark about how stupid it was to respect old treaties or some other rot, while the older guy then started talking about how he'd just send the army in and clear them all out, hydro-towers and road blocks and such, until the usual canard came out:
"What do think would happen if people like us tried to do any of that?" "Hah! They'd shut us down in a day!"
Oh my fucking god. Why do all these white people think that this is somehow profound? Do they ever fucking wonder why it never enters into their heads to conduct a land occupation? Like perhaps they've never had lands stolen from them? Written promises violated? Like there's a difference between what the First Nations experience as reality and what members of the settler society do?
We were getting off the bus at that point, just in time to hear the younger guy say: "Two-tier justice."
"Two-tier justice," I thought. Wow. How deep. Gary McHale's constituency. The self-described Canadian Martin Luther King. Does the dipshit care about two-tier justice against the Natives? There's certainly enough of that, isn't there. I mean ISN'T THERE?
I said this to my partner, and she replied: "What does he care about developers in Caledonia for? He makes $8/hr. Is he ever going to buy any of those houses? Does he know any of those developers? It's got nothing to do with him!"
And, you know, she's right. That's where the guy's socio-economic status becomes relevant here. I've made $8/hr myself. If it wasn't for some very lucky turns in my life, I might be making that amount myself, and if things turn sour, I could very well end up making something similar later. But the social-economic disconnect between a guy making minimum wage in North Hamilton siding with wealthy suburban developers on this issue, ... this issue that for all intents and purposes doesn't affect him at all, is mind-boggling.
Now of course, defenders of this fellow will say that he's taking a stand for universal human principles, for timeless legal principles, for equal treatment for all, ... "single-tier justice" for instance .... but that's nonsense. If he and his friend truly believed in these principles, they wouldn't be so scornful of ancient treaties, and more graphically, the abominable treatment handed out to First Nations by our governments and law-enforcement agencies in the modern era.
No, the reason these two guys making $8/hr in the depressed industrial neighbourhoods of Hamilton north care about the housing developments in suburban Caledonia, and their builders, is because they're racists, pure and simple.
They don't care about police brutality. They don't care about corrupt bands and the corrupt politicians who bribe them. They don't care about broken treaties. They care about their own racist stereotypes about Natives and the jury-rigged political-legal philosophies of stupid windbags like Gary McHale that rationalize their hatreds.
NOTE: Reading the paper the next day (which was before I wrote this), it turns out that the story about First Nations' violence they were talking about is inarguably true. I'll write about this and some broader implications tomorrow or the next day.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
23 comments:
Still off your meds, I see.
Still unable to muster a decent argument I see.
"No, the reason these two guys making $8/hr in the depressed industrial neighbourhoods of Hamilton north care about the housing developments in suburban Caledonia, and their builders, is because they're racists, pure and simple."
How is this shit you wrote any different from the attitude you accuse the working stiffs of having?
Because, dimwit, if they really cared about "two-tier justice" they'd also be enraged about "two-tier justice" as suffered BY the First Nations.
This was explicitly stated in the post.
If they were truly outraged by violence happening to other people, they ought to be daily outraged by brutality inflicted ON the First Nations.
But instead, it's the whole selfish, settler-society, racist nonsense, about how the "Indian terrorists" are out of control and need a firm hand to deal with them.
We can shit on valid treaties, simply because they're inconvenient to us, and because they're "old."
How is the shit I wrote at all similar to what these racists were saying???
So, the news they were talking about, the news you thought was bullshit until you couldn't deny it any longer, the news of the guy getting his head bashed in with a fucking board, somehow doesn't justify two guys saying that the law is not being upheld. Simply discussing this fucking fact while riding the bus home makes them racists? You don't see the fucking irony of your jumping to that conclusion?
You are seeing these two guys through prejudiced eyes exactly in the same way you accuse the "settlers" of seeing the Mohawks.
As for your socio-economic bullshit, you are apparently too fucking stupid to realize that if your argument actually was true, it would undermine your rant against the guys on the bus. As your partner so idiotically said, "What does he care about developers in Caledonia for? He makes $8/hr. Is he ever going to buy any of those houses? Does he know any of those developers? It's got nothing to do with him!". Well, shitface, if it's got nothing to do with him when it comes to the developers, it's also got fuck all to do with him when it comes to the fucking indians. You lefty retards always want to suck and blow at the same time: you want these guys to whine and moan on behalf of the fucking indians when they get screwed, but not for a developer when he gets screwed. You are a two-faced fucking shithead incapable of using logic or seeing irony.
"anonymous,"
Roll. On. The. Floor. And. Laugh. My. Fucking. Ass. Off.
"Well, shitface, if it's got nothing to do with him when it comes to the developers, it's also got fuck all to do with him when it comes to the fucking indians."
That little morsel of stupidity is the single, solitary pebble of a logical point you make out of all your tough-guy blowhardery.
And it's completely stupid. If he's got fuck-all to do with the Indians, why is HE getting so worked-up about what they do.
You right-wing shit-heads think you're so fucking clever, when everything you do only only confirms the exact opposite.
The whole time he was getting worked-up on the bus, it was about the fucking Indians who (according to your subnormal intellect) means he's entirely neutral about the Indians, and how we need the army to clean 'em out, and how they get away with stuff that "we" don't, and how they're committing all sorts of acts of violence, and etc., etc., etc., how it's stupid to respect our treaties, how it's "two-tier justice," ... He (they) were obviously getting worked up about SOMETHING, you stupid dipshit, and though advice is wasted on you, due to your stupidity, I'll point out that I clearly argued why such hypocrisy was racist in the fucking post.
So, take your pathetic attempts at argumentation, and your hypocritical anger, and make hard passionate love to 'em.
And you are too fucking stupid to see that he is not worked up about the indians, he's worked up about the fucking OPP not upholding the law.
I'm not sure where you stand on the issue of violence perpetrated by the Mohawks: do you think those who attacked the developer should be arrested?
You have proclaimed yourself as a radical in earlier posts; does this mean that, in your view, historical grievances excuse current law-breaking? Do Canadian laws even apply to the First Nations, in your opinion?
You are clearly vexed by the opinions voiced by the fellows on the bus, but your views on the law seem less clear.
"anonymous"
SHRIEK! My god, are you ever dense:
"Now of course, defenders of this fellow will say that he's taking a stand for universal human principles, for timeless legal principles, for equal treatment for all, ... "single-tier justice" for instance .... but that's nonsense. If he and his friend truly believed in these principles, they wouldn't be so scornful of ancient treaties, and more graphically, the abominable treatment handed out to First Nations by our governments and law-enforcement agencies in the modern era."
I know you're trying really hard here, and you're pleased with yourself, ... but you just don't have what it takes.
Here's a hint for you: How often does Gary McHale decry "two-tier justice" AGAINST the First Nations peoples?
Hooligan,
I hope to write an extended piece about that subject tomorrow or the next day.
For now, I'll say that whoever did that should be arrested, but like the OPP I would be more concerned with keeping this from escalating at the present time.
Another First Nations activist was arrested later, for something he'd done earlier in Caledonia. This is not just a simple case of assault, but there's also a lot of politics and concerns about wider violence that have to be considered.
But since you're asking me about the rule of law in this situation, I want you to think about whether the US should pull out of Iraq and whether bush II should have a war crimes trial, since the invasion of Iraq was contrary to the UN Treaty and hence, illegal under international law?
You are the one who felt it was "cool" that skeptikool was banned from enMasse. So much for thwap's pursuit of dialogue.
Is there an "in" clique? It would certainly appear so, given the kid glove treatment you have received on the enMasse thread re: Two Tier Justice.
I invite all to contrast this treatment to that accorded skeptikool when, in response to a query re: lack of posters, he noted a disproportionate number of Rainbow Room threads that even gay-friendly, would-be posters MIGHT be discouraged by.
"This is not just a simple case of assault, but there's also a lot of politics and concerns about wider violence that have to be considered."
I agree that there is a lot of politics being played out here, but at heart it truly is just a simple case of assault. Two-by-four to the head seems clear enough to me. The fact that the perpetrator has a gang to back him up shouldn't deter the cops from doing their job. If historical grievances become excuses, and legal defences, for criminal behaviour, we are all in trouble; where will it end? I'm fourth-generation Canadian of Irish descent, but that hardly justifies my going out to beat on some Englishman for the wrongs his people did to mine.
As for the U.S. in Iraq, they will leave: it's what they do. A war crimes trial is not justified because nothing has happened there to warrant one; no Auschwitz-style crimes. Abu Ghraib, while deplorable, cannot reasonably be compared to Nazi death camps, and the U.S. is investing millions into Iraq while the war is still ongoing, hardly the stuff of a pillaging nation. As for the U.N. and its definition of legality, it is unwilling to corral noted human rights offenders like Mugabe and Kim, so it will hardly attempt to put Bush in the dock for leading his country to war.
Now, if some memos are found that show Bush ordered atrocities like Karadzic did, that would be a different kettle of fish.
skeptikool,
Off-topic whining. One reason why I was glad to see the back of you at EnMasse.
As far as I know, there was no concerted effort to ignore your threads. I know that I wasn't part of one, and I suspect that was the case for everyone else.
I had no more knowledge that you were starting threads of a certain type than I presently know what sorts of threads "ronb" starts, or "maestro," or "the evil twin" starts.
What I did know about you is that instead of moving on since you felt unwelcomed there, you whined and complained about how nasty we were for months, AND you accused the moderators of double-dealing, and all sorts of things, when there was no force compelling you to stay.
And then, you finally showed that you have a problem with the number of threads related to the Rainbow Room, which isn't a legitimate complaint either.
hooligan,
"but at heart it truly is just a simple case of assault. Two-by-four to the head seems clear enough to me."
This from a guy who tried to downplay troops exhaustion and rising suicide rates.
Those issues seemed pretty cut-and-dried to me, but you wondered if we weren't making too much of them.
I've got some shit happening lately, and I want to spend some time on any blogpost, but I'll say that the OPP isn't acting gingerly here simply because there's a gang of Six Nations youths backing those guys up.
It's because this is a sensitive, potentially explosive, political issues.
The OPP leadership is far more sensible than the racist tough-guys who want to clear the fucking Indians out of wherever it is they're making a stand.
I'd asked you about Iraq, so that I could hear your thoughts on the rule of law, .... in that case: International law.
Your answer revealed an appalling ignorance of international law, as well as numerous irrelevant caveats about its enforcement that are just as questionable as what the OPP is doing enforcing criminal law in Ontario.
I could also have asked you a more relevant question: What are your thoughts about the rule of law when the law is applied discriminatorily against you, and when the state refuses to use it to protect you, and when the governments ignore their legal obligations to you and your people?
I did not downplay the troops' exhaustion or the suicides, I asked if the situation in the first case was any different than at any time in past wars, and in the case of the suicides, I asked if the numbers, 28 out of 180,000 in-theatre, could be considered significant enough to warrant pulling the US forces from a war, which was your implication. But feel free to twist my words. And neither of these issues is in any way as simple as a whack to the head with a chunk of lumber, so your comparison of them is ridiculous.
As for my ignorance of international law, I do not claim to be a lawyer (and we both know you're not) so my observations are merely based on past UN reactions to international incidents. War crimes trials are reserved for events which are considered crimes against humanity; the term is vague and usually involves mass executions and the like.
You blithely dismiss my thoughts on law enforcement here in Ontario, my "numerous irrelevant caveats about its enforcement " as you put it, without dealing with them. The issue at hand is whether the Mohawks' historical grievance with the various levels of government gives them the justification to commit violence. You appear to think it does, and you appear to think that my Irish ancestors' treatment at the hands of their oppressors does not carry the same weight, does not give Irish descendants the same justification for mayhem. I can't imagine why anyone would see that as "two-tiered".
Sorry, thwap, but reverse discrimination is still discrimination; anyone practising either of them is a bigot. Yes, that means you. Deciding that Gualtieri getting a beating is somehow mitigated by historical wrongs is plain nonsense. Simple common sense shows that this situation cannot be rectified if the government will not stand up for the laws of the land. The Mohawks have a legal case that should be taken to a court; taking to the streets is unacceptable, always and everywhere.
hooligan,
You don't really understand what your own words say.
Yes, a 2x4 to the head is quite simple.
As is an exhausted, debilitated military. (REGARDLESS of whether exhaustion is common to all wars. for god's sake, i get this already!!)
As is a rising suicide rate. It means more people are killing themselves. For a war based on lies, dedicated to maintaining control of petroleum, not to fight terrorism or spread democracy. Lots of suffering for nothing in other words, to which you remain evidently unmoved.
I draw your attention to this line from my reply to you about Gualtieri's assailants:
"For now, I'll say that whoever did that should be arrested, but like the OPP I would be more concerned with keeping this from escalating at the present time."
So, as opposed to your incoherent statements on international law, revealing your indifference to the rule of law with regards to a war that has killed at least half-a-million people, I'm fully prepared to bring the people who assaulted Mr. Gualtieri to justice, but like the OPP, I'm not willing to risk an explosion in order to achieve that right away.
"So, as opposed to your incoherent statements on international law, revealing your indifference to the rule of law with regards to a war that has killed at least half-a-million people, I'm fully prepared to bring the people who assaulted Mr. Gualtieri to justice, but like the OPP, I'm not willing to risk an explosion in order to achieve that right away."
It is mind-boggling that you feel it logical to equate a war with a case of assault. It is also incredible that you feel that action against Bush for supposed war-crimes should be a slam dunk no-brainer, but that arresting a Mohawk for assault requires more "nuance", as it were.
What, exactly, is an "illegal" war? The existence of law necessarily implies the existence of an authority to prescribe and enforce them. This does not exist internationally, in spite of the UN: it cannot stop nations from fighting. Nations such as Libya and North Korea, at different times, exposed the futility of making nations behave as the written "law" for nations stipulated. Saddam Hussein was a past-master at thumbing his nose at the impotent world bodies, as well.
The assault case is far simpler, despite your protests to the contrary. There exists an authority capable of enforcing the applicable laws, it just doesn't have the will to do so. Which, if I recall correctly, is exactly what the two "racists" of your post were saying on the bus.
Rant all you will, deny whatever you wish, the simple, irreducible fact is that the Mohawk situation is nothing at all like the Iraq war. It will only be resolved by making the Mohawks realize that violence is an unacceptable way to solve problems. If you choose to make excuses for allowing them to do so, you are clearly incapable of rational thought and part of the problem.
What part of "whoever did that should be arrested" do you find difficult?
And look, I really hate to break it to you champ, but the US invasion of Iraq was clearly illegal, and it's killed at least half-a-million people, and your ignorance (total, it appears) on this subject doesn't make things any different.
And, as you've lost sight of the point of the comparison, I'll repeat it: We were talking about our mutual respect for the rule of law.
I've clearly stated that this assault is taking things too far. It appears needless and totally counter-productive.
But, as you so clearly seem too insensitive and amateurish to grasp, this is also a delicate political situation, and it could become explosive. The OPP is trying to prevent an explosion. REsulting from the enflamed racist passions of the people this post is about.
By the way, thanks for the afternoon smile provided by:
"violence is an unacceptable way to solve problems"
Boy! I guess your hero bush II should clear out of Iraq then?
and then there's ...
"What, exactly, is an 'illegal' war?"
Look it up, Einstein.
No, thwap, I'm not insensitive, I just refuse to buy into your efforts to excuse violence by the Mohawks and deflect criticism of it by bitching about George Bush. Ever heard of the straw man?
You want to have things both ways, like any typical lefty: those you agree with or sympathize with can do no wrong, but you deny anyone else the right to use that exact same argument in their favour.So, if the Mohawks get to cry foul because of historical wrongdoing, so should the Irish, or anyone else. You say no, it's not the same. Then, like a monkey flinging shit at the zoo, you make a loud fuss and try to distract from your piss-poor logic.
I say assault with a two-by-four seems easy to identify as a crime, you say "(t)his from a guy who tried to downplay troops exhaustion and rising suicide rates."
I ask your opinion on whether or not Canadian law applies to the "First Nations", you ignore the question and come back with "I want you to think about whether the US should pull out of Iraq". You seem to have trouble staying on topic, at least when the questions are too difficult for you.
I've only got myself to blame, though: I should have remembered your tendency to nonsense and disconnection with reality. Not to mention your pathetic attempts at logical discourse.
Keep drinking the Kool-Aid, man. Fight the power!!
You've missed my statement that those people who assaulted Gualtieri should be arrested for the third time.
You've twice revealed yourself too dense to understand that the comparison is valid when we're talking about the sanctity of the rule of law.
You're articulate. You can clearly express your ignorance and shallow thinking ability.
I can't be bothered repeating myself to you.
Please go away and don't come back.
"You've missed my statement that those people who assaulted Gualtieri should be arrested for the third time."
No, I heard you but I don't believe you because you qualify that statement with some bullshit about how delicate the situation is so it demands no one actually be arrested. How very nuanced of you.
"You've twice revealed yourself too dense to understand that the comparison is valid when we're talking about the sanctity of the rule of law."
I understand the comparison you are trying to make but I disagree with you because it is asinine. It is a straw man argument, plain and simple, to deflect from your refusal to answer my question to you about whether you think Canadian law applies to Mohawks. I answered your question; you just didn't like the answer. You run from my question.
Keep running, man. No point in changing now.
"you qualify that statement with some bullshit about how delicate the situation is so it demands no one actually be arrested."
No, I've said that I agree with the OPP that they not storm in right away and attempt to make arrests.
I explicitly referred to an earlier incident at Caledonia where a First Nations activist eventually submitted to arrest at a later date.
You can remain unmoved by the explosive political nature of this situation, but your own sentiments are irrelevant to the reality.
"I understand the comparison you are trying to make but I disagree with you because it is asinine."
No, what's asinine is your inability to make the connection. As well as your ignorance about the very basics of international law. As well as your attempts to shame me for my [alleged] disregard for the rule of law, while at the same time holding to its violation in other cases.
Take the beam out of thine own eye.
law1
–noun 1. the principles and regulations established in a community by some authority and applicable to its people, whether in the form of legislation or of custom and policies recognized and enforced by judicial decision.
2. any written or positive rule or collection of rules prescribed under the authority of the state or nation, as by the people in its constitution. Compare bylaw, statute law.
rule of law
noun
a state of order in which events conform to the law " (from dictionary.com)
So you see, when there are laws and they are respected, we have the "rule of law."
Now then, when there are laws, rules, etc., especially in the form of a treaty, and these laws are not respected, then we have a crime.
I used the example of the Iraq war because it's ever on my mind as a glaring example of state illegality.
The USA signed (it led the writing of, actually) the UN Treaty. That means that it has to abide by the terms of that treaty, the same way we're supposed to conform to NAFTA or the WTO Treaty.
In invading Iraq, the bush II regime has violated the UN Treaty, and thus, international law.
Two articles to relieve you of your abominable ignorance about the illegality of bush II's invasion of Iraq:
http://www.lawyersagainstthewar.org/legalarticles/hinchey.html
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0916-01.htm
But, an even better example is our own government's long-established policy of ignoring it's own legal obligations to First Nations peoples:
http://www.chiefs-of-ontario.org/magazine/2-03.html#3
"The examples of treaty branches are numerous and consistent across Canada.
Lands and waters that we promised to be set aside as reserves were often either denied or reduced. Often Treaty Commissioners exceeded their authority and had no idea of the amount of land they were dealing with in the treaty.
Treaty annuities have never been increased from the amount provided at time of the treaty negotiation ( 125+ years ) - $5.00 per person. Often other treaty promises for equipment, clothing, etc. were simply discontinued.
Reserve lands supposedly protected under treaty were often taken without legal authority or compensation. in some cases compensation given for First Nation territories was so paltry as to make the Treaty unconscionable and against the laws of natural justice.
Reserve lands were often expropriated or sold for far less than fair market value.
Payments were sometimes not credited to First Nation Trust Accounts or in many cases First Nations trust funds were mismanaged, stolen or used to finance the day to day administration of the Federal and Provincial Governments.
These trust funds form part of the fiduciary obligations that the federal government has towards First Nations yet the federal government has never provided an accurate accounting of any of the trust accounts, some having been established in 1780.
All profits, royalties, revenues and wealth ever created in Canada come as a result of the Treaties with the First Nations for our lands and resources, yet all the treaties have been abrogated and none of our traditional territories have been returned. First Nations have rarely shared in the wealth of this country and many now live in impoverished third world conditions."
In all this time, you haven't had the courage to even address this issue or its relevance.
That makes you a hypocrite. Ask yourself why you're being so hypocritical.
thwap, I understand your example of the Iraq war as an instance of state illegality, I am aware of the arguments made to support the notion that the US invasion is illegal; my argument is that there is no agency capable of enforcing the laws if they are broken, so this example is not a good comparison to the Mohawks' activities in Caledonia. The Ontario government is unwilling, not unable, to enforce its laws. In short, I see the two things as unrelated because of that fundamental difference. If you want to talk Bush, it should be a topic all its own.
The history of the native dispute over treaties was never the main topic of discussion between us, so calling me hypocritical for not mentioning it is specious. You do not know my thoughts on that topic because I've not given them to you; any notion you have of my position is inferred only. I will say to you now, however, that we are not as far apart on that topic as you might think: I believe that my country should live up to its obligations. It seems to me that where we would part ways is in our respective tolerances for what constitutes justified actions by aggrieved parties. Go to court, raise awareness amongst the people by means other than criminal activity; these are the methods I would urge the "First Nations" to employ. I see no future for them in violent confrontation, for no government can afford to lose such a thing.
Post a Comment