5 RCMP cars get torched in NB. Protestors and arsonists arrested.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

So what is it then? Negotiate on our terms and give us what we want or we'll block highways and burn police cars?

The historical negotiations were most certainly not done on any kind of fair ground. It was basically: We're taking this. You can have what we don't want. Unless we later find resources on it, then we'll take those. While doing all of this we'll put you in a residential school. Option B: you die.

Specifically, there was no negotiation here. The aboriginal groups strongly oppossed the fracking on their territory. A court, run by the government they oppose, ruled against them. That government then sent in armed men to enforce a corporations right to frack.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

So you are supportive of their approach and an advocate of violence?

Name me a nation that wouldn't respond to encroachment on their sovereignty with violence or the threat of violence.

[Knut]

Originally Posted by Flacker

The use of legitimate experts in the field, as well as the head of the EPA, tends to sway me more than the pure BS that is Gasland. I realize this is a big oil sponsored piece. It is the pure reciprocal of Gasland, which is why I posted it.

We are way off topic anyway, there is no fracking being done in that area currently. They are currently only attempting to do exploratory drilling.

I want to believe you, but your name is just way too close to Fracker... you are likely just a paid company shill trying to hide it with one letter change.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Name me a nation that wouldn't respond to encroachment on their sovereignty with violence or the threat of violence.

Are they a sovereign nation? Honest question. Do they sit in the UN? Do they have stand alone capacity? Are they willing to accept the repercussions of their actions with the police/military of another sovereign nation?

I don't think they are a sovereign nation, but if you have reasons/facts to the opposite I am open to reviewing my position.

PS: I have seen, first hand, the results of one "nation's" response to encroachment of the "sovereignty". It make nothing but a ####ing ####hole of a mess, and I would hope we are above that.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Are they a sovereign nation? Honest question. Do they sit in the UN? Do they have stand alone capacity? Are they willing to accept the repercussions of their actions with the police/military of another sovereign nation?

I don't think they are a sovereign nation, but if you have reasons/facts to the opposite I am open to reviewing my position.

PS: I have seen, first hand, the results of one "nation's" response to encroachment of the "sovereignty". It make nothing but a ####ing ####hole of a mess, and I would hope we are above that.

You do see that you're expecting them to define their sovereignty within the very same framework they've been colonized and dominated, right? Regardless of what you or I think, many of these communities do view themselves as sovereigns who've been dicked around for 250 years by French and British colonialists.

“On the morning of October 17, 2013, approximately 200 RCMP – some dressed in military fatigues and armed with snipers – stormed a Mi’kmaq anti-fracking blockade and camp near Rexton, New Brunswick. Journalist Miles Howe, on site, described the situation as “RCMP having their guns drawn.”

So if you consider yourself a sovereign community, and the police from a neighbouring country show up at your border, in military fatigues, and guns drawn, you just let them walk right in and do as they please?

[blankall]

Originally Posted by rubecube

You do see that you're expecting them to define their sovereignty within the very same framework they've been colonized and dominated, right? Regardless of what you or I think, many of these communities do view themselves as sovereigns who've been dicked around for 250 years by French and British colonialists.



So if you consider yourself a sovereign community, and the police from a neighbouring country show up at your border, in military fatigues, and guns drawn, you just let them walk right in and do as they please?

The land in question is "unceded". Which, from the perspective of the people living on it means it was never controlled by Canada. The fact Canada is now aserting rights over the natural resources on that land is, to them, absurd.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by rubecube

You do see that you're expecting them to define their sovereignty within the very same framework they've been colonized and dominated, right? Regardless of what you or I think, many of these communities do view themselves as sovereigns who've been dicked around for 250 years by French and British colonialists.

So they get a pass on violence? At what point do we move pass the dicking of the past (yes I know it is easy for me to say, I didn't get dicked). There will be no reconciliation until both parties are interested. I can't believe they believe they would be better if suddenly they were free and clear their own nations.

So if you consider yourself a sovereign community, and the police from a neighbouring country show up at your border, in military fatigues, and guns drawn, you just let them walk right in and do as they please?

It would appear they were correct to have their weapons drawn:

Officers who shut down a shale gas protest in New Brunswick on Thursday found bombs containing shrapnel, firearms with a large amount of ammunition, knives and bear spray among the protesters, a top RCMP official says.
“The weapons and explosives we seized show that this was no longer a peaceful protest and there was a serious threat to public safety,” Assistant commissioner Roger Brown said on Friday.
Brown says the Mounties were concerned lives could be in danger if they had not responded Thursday at the site near Rexton.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by blankall

The land in question is "unceded". Which, from the perspective of the people living on it means it was never controlled by Canada. The fact Canada is now aserting rights over the natural resources on that land is, to them, absurd.

This is an honest question. The land that is disputed, did it have services and if so who paid for those services? Was the land bare ass Canada with no development?

[19Yzerman19]

Originally Posted by rubecube

So if you consider yourself a sovereign community, and the police from a neighbouring country show up at your border, in military fatigues, and guns drawn, you just let them walk right in and do as they please?

This is a pretty stupid analogy, man. Even if you consider Aboriginal lands to be sovereign, there is no dispute about the RCMP's jurisdiction to enforce an injunction ordered by the Court of Queen's Bench to clear a highway. I think you'd be pretty hard pressed to find band leaders who would suggest otherwise.

The situation just isn't analogous to, well, anything except the interaction between an aboriginal population of a country and that country's government.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

This is an honest question. The land that is disputed, did it have services and if so who paid for those services? Was the land bare ass Canada with no development?

Don't you think you should also put this in the context of our colonization of the land. It sounds as though your arguing for some net historical benefit to the aboriginal population.

Basically, what you're saying is that we spent hundreds of years horribly abusing people and then isolating them onto small patches. Then we gave them some roads, therefore, we can take all the resources from the small patches.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by 19Yzerman19

This is a pretty stupid analogy, man. Even if you consider Aboriginal lands to be sovereign, there is no dispute about the RCMP's jurisdiction to enforce an injunction ordered by the Court of Queen's Bench to clear a highway.

Says who? If this is a highway running through native land, many of them would argue that RCMP have no jurisdiction and that they don't recognize the QB's injunction.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

I can't believe they believe they would be better if suddenly they were free and clear their own nations.

Actually many of them do. Their are a lot of problems that persist among the First Nations population that remain as a result of colonialism. I'm not saying every band would be better off on their own, but there are a lot of younger leaders coming up through the ranks of many bands who are trying to tackle some of the internal issues.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by blankall

Don't you think you should also put this in the context of our colonization of the land. It sounds as though your arguing for some net historical benefit to the aboriginal population.

Basically, what you're saying is that we spent hundreds of years horribly abusing people and then isolating them onto small patches. Then we gave them some roads, therefore, we can take all the resources from the small patches.

Nope if that is how it read, then my post was poorly worded.

I wonder at what point do we stop "paying" for the sins of our fathers. There are other countries in the world with much worse historical abuses of the aboriginal population(s) but those countries are moving forwards. While not a great example, South Africa pops to mind.


In the context of this thread, the blockade was illegal (at least that is what I have read). The Courts had made a decision on the matter and it was all but ignored by the tribe and other protestors. (please correct my if I am wrong with my very basic fact picture).

I don't believe that native peoples have a right to violent protest because of the historical injustice which was pressed upon their people.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Says who? If this is a highway running through native land, many of them would argue that RCMP have no jurisdiction and that they don't recognize the QB's injunction.

The Court. You do realize that Natives don't operate outside of the Canadian legal system, but within it. Natives rights to land are a type of property right within our legal framework.

Court says GTFO, you GTFO.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Actually many of them do. Their are a lot of problems that persist among the First Nations population that remain as a result of colonialism. I'm not saying every band would be better off on their own, but there are a lot of younger leaders coming up through the ranks of many bands who are trying to tackle some of the internal issues.

Agreed, there are some leaders that are making a positive change. IIRC there is one in the interior of BC which has turned his band into a local economic poweshouse. But, and I am sure you will correct me if I am wrong, he has taken some flack for move away from the "woa is me" appoach to native progress. I believe he has taken flack for hiring whites when there are band members that don't have jobs, but his response is they don't have jobs because they are dead beats (paraphrase). I believe this approach, this looking forward and taking the postive out of their position is the better approach than saying "you dicked us 250 years ago and we will never get over it".

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Says who? If this is a highway running through native land, many of them would argue that RCMP have no jurisdiction and that they don't recognize the QB's injunction.

So why do they allow the RCMP to police their lands if they don't believe in the RCMP jurisdiction.

It sometimes seems the natives are willing to accept certain rules if they are in their favour (I didn't like typing that).

[blankall]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Nope if that is how it read, then my post was poorly worded.

I wonder at what point do we stop "paying" for the sins of our fathers. There are other countries in the world with much worse historical abuses of the aboriginal population(s) but those countries are moving forwards. While not a great example, South Africa pops to mind.


In the context of this thread, the blockade was illegal (at least that is what I have read). The Courts had made a decision on the matter and it was all but ignored by the tribe and other protestors. (please correct my if I am wrong with my very basic fact picture).

I don't believe that native peoples have a right to violent protest because of the historical injustice which was pressed upon their people.

According to this, aboriginal people own .2% of the land in Canada:

http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/110...THE_INVENTORY4

Most of taht land is Northern wasteland. Now that they've discovered resources on that land the Canadian government is going to plunder more. You also talk about the abuse like its ancient history. Residential schools ran until 1996.

It becomes an issue of taking a stand at some point. And yes, that stand is going to involve illegal activity. The simple fact of the matter is the present legal framework was forced on them. Personally, I would have preferred it if they had not destroyed property, but I'm not in their shoes either.

[19Yzerman19]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Says who? If this is a highway running through native land, many of them would argue that RCMP have no jurisdiction and that they don't recognize the QB's injunction.

Yeah... see, I don't believe that one. It's a pretty radical individual who blankly refuses to recognize the jurisdiction of a Canadian superior Court. The vast majority of First Nations people live in the real world, and realize that while they may be treated differently under the law having access to special status and constitutional protections that other Canadians don't, they're still, you know, required to obey the law, as it applies to them.

Seriously I would like you to provide me with a few mainstream examples of first nations leaders in this country who support that perspective.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by blankall

According to this, aboriginal people own .2% of the land in Canada:

http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/110...THE_INVENTORY4

Most of taht land is Northern wasteland. Now that they've discovered resources on that land the Canadian government is going to plunder more. You also talk about the abuse like its ancient history. Residential schools ran until 1996.

And Mandela was in prison till what 95/96? He was willing to move forward.

I want to be clear, I don't think the native peoples have had an easy run of it, not at all, but I do think that looking at the past is going to help heal. I also, believe there have been appologies and compensation packages made by gov't(s). (I realize that this is easy for me to write, I am white).

It becomes an issue of taking a stand at some point. And yes, that stand is going to involve illegal activity. The simple fact of the matter is the present legal framework was forced on them. Personally, I would have preferred it if they had not destroyed property, but I'm not in their shoes either

I still don't believe they have a right to violence.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

And Mandela was in prison till what 95/96? He was willing to move forward.

I want to be clear, I don't think the native peoples have had an easy run of it, not at all, but I do think that looking at the past is going to help heal. I also, believe there have been appologies and compensation packages made by gov't(s). (I realize that this is easy for me to write, I am white).

Totally different situations. Mandela was made President of South Africa in 1994. If, isntead of making a black man President, they had continued to isolate blacks on small patches of land and then proceeded to enter those small patches to plunder for resources, Mandela's work wouldn't have been done. Conversely, if an aboriginal chief was Prime Minister of Canada, we'd have a different result.