Planning to drive or take the train to Toronto this summer? Maybe you should fly: Indian protest groups haven’t yet figured out how to block the sky. As for trains, at least, Ontario seems to have little interest in keeping the public right-of-way public.
Could someone explain, please, why Indian protesters are allowed to use disruptive tactics forbidden to anyone else? Imagine if some other ad hoc group had chosen to strand 3,600 passengers: police would surely have cleared the track in short order. But in Ontario,ever since a policeman shot a native protester at Ipperwash in 1995, the police have taken a hands-off approach to any native protest even if, like this one, it consists of a few hotheads without approval from their band council or tribal elders.
The result is to make the situation worse, not better. Who can doubt that more than a year of police inaction at an occupation in Caledonia, Ont., figured in the calculation of these protesters, who now say they’re planning further, bigger actions? Who can deny that some natives elsewhere in Canada are talking of similar tactics precisely because they see that they can operate with impunity?
Read the full story here
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Actually, it is because they can operate within the law.
The treaties are in legal 'jeopardy' since Canada has violated them all.
Thus they can legally deny access across traditional lands ... roads, rail, ports, airports.
That sounds like a simple excuse for criminals to use to justify their behavior.
I will be the first to admit that I am in no position to argue the status of treaties, however I believe that in order for a society to function, we can not have one group deemed to be above the laws which apply to everyone else.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion on the issue.
Actually the problem is that Canada has declared itself above the law ... broke em all ... has no legal ground to stand on ... literally!
and this :
What are Aboriginal Rights?
BRIAN SLATTERY
York University - Osgoode Hall Law School February 2007
CLPE Research Paper No. 1/2007
Abstract:
Aboriginal rights in Canada are often viewed as specific rights - rights that are grounded in the specific practices and customs of particular aboriginal peoples and that differ from people to people. This article argues that these specific rights are in fact concrete instantiations of a panoply of generic aboriginal rights that are presumptively held by all aboriginal groups under Canadian common law. They include the right to conclude treaties, the right to customary law, the right to honourable treatment by the Crown, the right to an ancestral territory, the right of cultural integrity, and the right of self-government. These basic rights have a uniform character, which does not change from group to group. Specific rights, by contrast, arise under the auspices of generic rights and assume different forms in different aboriginal groups, depending on the particular circumstances of each group. Ranged between generic rights and specific rights are rights of intermediate generality, which relate to particular subject-matters such as sustenance, spirituality and language. The article suggests that this scheme provides a simple and practical way of understanding the otherwise bewildering array of aboriginal rights recognized in section 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982.
Keywords: aboriginal rights, custom, title, Constitution Act, treaty rights
JEL Classifications: K19, K34
Working Paper Series
Suggested Citation
Slattery, Brian, "What are Aboriginal Rights?" (February 2007). CLPE Research Paper No. 1/2007 Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=967493
Export in: Export What's this?
Contact Information for BRIAN SLATTERY (Contact Author)
Email address for BRIAN SLATTERY
York University - Osgoode Hall Law School
4700 Keele Street
Toronto ,Ontario M3J 1P3 M3J 1P3
Canada
btw ... it is not my opinion. It is the legal advice they have received regarding denying Canada access across their land on June 29 ... the blockades will be legal. Canada will be illegal as usual.
The article you present is certainly very interesting.
This does not however provide proof that the average Canadian citizen has done any harm to Native people, let alone anything that justifies the tactics used against us in Native efforts to settle land claims.
You asserted in your original comment that you believe Natives now have a right to take over basically anything anywhere in Canada by any means necessary.
Native people have always claimed to be peaceful and respectful of others around them and until DCE, I always found this to be the case. To this day I maintain excellent relationships with some Native people and I do not judge the Majority for the actions of the few.
I do however believe that terrorism is terrorism regardless of the motives or attempts to hide behind questionable legal loopholes behind these acts.
I do not dispute the rights quoted in the article by Mr Slattery. Self governance is the only sticking point here because it has been left open to interpretation.
It is my belief that Native people have the right to self governance within their communities. I do not believe however that this includes or was intended to include the right to ignore the laws of communities some groups choose to invade while hiding under the blanket of 'we're entitled to self governance, thus we can commit any acts we want without the laws of the society we choose to invade being applied to us.'
If I were to commit a criminal act while on a reserve, I would and should be prosecuted according to their justice system. That much I'm sure you'll agree with.
So why should this same logic not apply to Natives who enter communities with the intention of commiting what they know to be crimes by the standards of Our society?
"Terrorism" is exactly what Canada does to them.
Oppression is exactly what Canada does to them.
Canada is desperately trying to convince Canadians that Indigenous people have no right to protest. However, that is simply not true.
They have every right to demand that Canada honour the legal terms of the treaties.
Canada is the lawbreaker.
The illegal way Canada has been doing business - stealing land and resources without compensation - simply cannot continue.
Canada is not a benign society, but an aggressive and oppressive and criminal society towards Indigenous people.
Canada did not hesitate to take advantage of the murderous church residential schools to reduce the numbers of Indigenous people and try to break their spirit and especially their traditional ways and their connection to the land which gives rise to their aboriginal right to the land.
It is all about the legal title to the land. Despite Canada's efforts to break them, they retain their aboriginal rights and titles.
You speak as if Canada ... the dominant society ... has the right to impose itself on them. This is the lie we have been fed, but it is not the legal truth.
Canada has no rights. Canada has given up whatever rights we had to even be in this land by violating all of the treaties that allowed us to live on the land to which they hold aboriginal title.
Canada and Canadians like you Jeff, continue to delude themselves that our criminal laws take precedence, but that is simply not the case: International Treaty law dominates all else. Secondly, and also above criminal law, is the Constitution of Canada, which upholds aboriginal rights and treaties.
A country - Canada - cannot violate nation-to-nation agreements, and then criminalize those who protest Canada's lawbreaking. THIS is the reality, no matter what Ottawa tries to make you believe. If Canada meets their protests with force, war has been declared.
I understand that this is shocking information for ordinary Canadians, but these are the truths that Canadians must deal with.
Having said that you are in no position to argue the statis of the treaties ... you are in no position to comment on the legality of their acts, and Canada's acts are you?
The fact that I do not prentend to be versed in the facts of Treaties does not mean I do not have the right to comment on current events. The difference between myself and you (aside from my refusing to hide behind the name "anonymous") is that I present my opinions to the public as just that. Opinions, NOT legal facts as you are trying to do.
You are clearly very articulate in expressing your beliefs. Have you ever considered a blog of your own?
Post a Comment