Fontaine warns of 'palpable' anger in native communities

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Snakeeye

If they think destruction of property, and derailing trains - which could lead to the deaths of engineers - is a good plan, then I am all for marginalizing these idiots. Negotiations with any group who uses such tactics should be terminated immediately.

Alternatively, blockade the roads into their reserves, and see how they like it.

As has been mentioned, native leaders need to learn to clean up their own mess. They are all about trying to pressure "the white man" for more and more and more. Any band that wants to improve their lot, and wants to build a plan to do so should be met with equal interest and support from the government. Those that want to throw a little rebellion should simply be ignored.

I agree. Frankly, I consider this mass insurrection. Governments have an obligation to its citizens to meet insurrection, particularly armed insurrection (as this invariably will be) with swift, brutal force to protect the rights and freedoms of the majority. I'd be very candid... mass to disrupt trains and the army will be sent in and WILL stop you. These kinds of tactics erode any international and domestic support they might have and turn them into terrorists. I'd cease negotiations at once. They think 200 years is bad, just wait till they try something stupid.

Problems with Indian affairs can be traced no further than the Council of Chiefs, who run reserves more like Juntas than Liberal Democracies that they masquerade as.

I apologize if I sound really heartless and blunt, but seriously, these are horrible, dangerous, reckless,unacceptable tactics, and they can't be tolerated by any peace loving liberal democratic society.

[FlamesAddiction]

I don't want to use the word "assimilation", but it was a mistake to implement the reservation system to begin with. The colonial powers took the easy way out back then, and now we are paying for it. The system is apartheid-like in the way that it separates opportunity and potential based on ethnic background.

The sad thing is, many First Nations people are the ones trying to hold onto this system while only a small majority actually benefit from it. (And by benefit, I mean economically as well fundamentally).

[Cube Inmate]

I don't see Phil Fontaine's statement as a warning, but as a message actually directed to natives inciting violence or protests. He's apparently a smart politician, and knows how to use the media to get such a message across.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

Governments have an obligation to its citizens to meet insurrection, particularly armed insurrection (as this invariably will be) with swift, brutal force to protect the rights and freedoms of the majority.

Originally Posted by Thunderball

and they can't be tolerated by any peace loving liberal democratic society.

These comments are contradictory. Replying to insurrection or protest with "swift, brutal force" in the name of "peace loving liberal democratic society" doesn't make sense.

We don't know that anything will become and armed insurrection. If it turns out that the people blocking a train are armed, calling out the army to swiftly and brutally put it down (shoot them, as I take it) is not peace loving and is un-Canadian.

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by Snakeeye

If they think destruction of property, and derailing trains - which could lead to the deaths of engineers - is a good plan, then I am all for marginalizing these idiots. Negotiations with any group who uses such tactics should be terminated immediately.

Alternatively, blockade the roads into their reserves, and see how they like it.

As has been mentioned, native leaders need to learn to clean up their own mess. They are all about trying to pressure "the white man" for more and more and more. Any band that wants to improve their lot, and wants to build a plan to do so should be met with equal interest and support from the government. Those that want to throw a little rebellion should simply be ignored.

Whereas I certainly argree that nobody should be allowed to derail trains, or just otherwise intentionally endanger other people, I think your talk of tearing up the treaties as a recompense is unwarranted. Furthermore, either you're using 'these idiots' to characterize the entirety of a diverse group of people in a very bigotted way, or you ought to think about some methods of marginalizing that aren't going to punish the entire first nations body, or even the entirety of reserves where individuals may not responsible for violent/destructive acts.

This is a deeply entrenched Canadian political problem, not just a native problem. It is a problem that is generating ghettos, and problems with ghettos are not going to be solved by isolation of the people living there. Obviously the system that the government has going with the reserves, and the systems at work in a bunch of the reserves need to be changed. I'm not sure how. Nonetheless, this is a problem generated by Canadian governmental systems, affecting Canadian citizens. This is not about 'these idiots' and 'the white man'.

[Resolute 14]

"These idiots", of course, being groups that would use violence and destruction to argue their point, not the entire native community. As Tunderball states, it is basically an attempt at terrorism. As far as those on reserves/bands who arent responsible for violent/destructive acts go, comission by omission. If they wont take a stand to keep the peace, then they can join those who do get violent in dealing with the consequences.

Like I said, bring a desire for real change, and real improvement. Then I'll care what native leaders have to say. Until that point, they are far moer responsible for the state of many native reserves than the government is.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

These comments are contradictory. Replying to insurrection or protest with "swift, brutal force" in the name of "peace loving liberal democratic society" doesn't make sense.

We don't know that anything will become and armed insurrection. If it turns out that the people blocking a train are armed, calling out the army to swiftly and brutally put it down (shoot them, as I take it) is not peace loving and is un-Canadian.

It makes total sense. The idea behind liberal democracies are peaceful societies. When these societies are threatened, governments have an obligation to protect them since they don't protect themselves. In fact, putting down armed insurrections swiftly is very Canadian if you look back on our history. Mass-slaughter of course isn't, and I didn't suggest that. Stopping them does not mean shooting them, it means having sufficient numbers to stop them. It also means a deterrent if these guys start brandishing weapons. (which is a very logical assumption with Oka still in recent memory). If I meant gunning them all down, I would have said so. Government's first job is protection of its citizenry, not letting disgruntled natives masquerading as terrorists disrupt the country to meet their demands.

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by Snakeeye

"These idiots", of course, being groups that would use violence and destruction to argue their point, not the entire native community. As Tunderball states, it is basically an attempt at terrorism. As far as those on reserves/bands who arent responsible for violent/destructive acts go, comission by omission. If they wont take a stand to keep the peace, then they can join those who do get violent in dealing with the consequences.

Like I said, bring a desire for real change, and real improvement. Then I'll care what native leaders have to say. Until that point, they are far moer responsible for the state of many native reserves than the government is.

Well, I sure am grateful that you're not in charge. Not that the 'with us or against us' mentally hasn't led great countries to further greatness. There's also nothing like taking a position regarding a warning that a political and social problem is about to boil over in your own country as an opportunity to say 'bring it on' to your fellow countrymen.

Also, when you say it's a reserve problem and not a governmental problem you seem to be forgetting that these are Canadian citizens governed under a Canadian system. Certainly, they are special status, but that is special status as determined by Canadian legislation. Reserve problems are problems of the Canadian government, as the political authority of the reserve leaders is legally granted under the authority of the Canadian government.

Problems of governance on the reserves are problems of Canadian governance.

[Slava]

On the news last night they showed a clip from a video on youtube that gives very detailed instructions on how to derail a train for this exact reason. I'm surprised that it wasn't posted here yet? (Although I can certainly see why it wouldn't/shouldn't be). Its a scary situation.

I think that its obvious that the plans to deal with this issue have fallen short in general, and sooner or later someone is going to bear the brunt of that.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

Well, I sure am grateful that you're not in charge. Not that the 'with us or against us' mentally hasn't led great countries to further greatness. There's also nothing like taking a position regarding a warning that a political and social problem is about to boil over in your own country as an opportunity to say 'bring it on' to your fellow countrymen.

Also, when you say it's a reserve problem and not a governmental problem you seem to be forgetting that these are Canadian citizens governed under a Canadian system. Certainly, they are special status, but that is special status as determined by Canadian legislation. Reserve problems are problems of the Canadian government, as the political authority of the reserve leaders is legally granted under the authority of the Canadian government.

Problems of governance on the reserves are problems of Canadian governance.

Ok...lets fire the leaders and hire better ones.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

Well, I sure am grateful that you're not in charge. Not that the 'with us or against us' mentally hasn't led great countries to further greatness. There's also nothing like taking a position regarding a warning that a political and social problem is about to boil over in your own country as an opportunity to say 'bring it on' to your fellow countrymen.

Also, when you say it's a reserve problem and not a governmental problem you seem to be forgetting that these are Canadian citizens governed under a Canadian system. Certainly, they are special status, but that is special status as determined by Canadian legislation. Reserve problems are problems of the Canadian government, as the political authority of the reserve leaders is legally granted under the authority of the Canadian government.

Problems of governance on the reserves are problems of Canadian governance.

I respect your post, but I do think its an over simplification of what is a very large and complex problem.

Right at the moment, the government is basically acting as a rich uncle to the reservations throwing money at a problem and not working with the natives on how the money is truly spent, because of this there is a heightened expectation on both sides.

Is the government of canada responsible for providing social services, and infrastructure services to the reservations. Well yes they should be, but the government gets blocked out by the special status granted to the natives which gives them the right to self govern thier own reservations, in essence everytime the government tries to impose conditions on how the money is spent the Reservation leaders scream to the rafters about government interfearance and racism.

Where the responsibility does lie is two fold. One the leadership on a lot of the reservations (not all) take the money and invest it in pet projects that increase the wealth of the chiefs, or they spend it on unimportant things, they've never set up a support system for the individual's, never put conditions on education and housing of the individuals living there. In essense its the purest form of a market society where the rich truly get richer and the poor or unimportant or unconnected get screwed.

There's got to be a better way to encourage self reliance then cutting someone a cheque when he turns 18 so that he can spend it on whatever he wants ie fancy truck, liquor.

The government needs to take that money and invest it in scholarships, better housing, and intercountry regulated trade.

So while the government has a stake in this, they continually get blocked by the corrupt practices of a select few who are also media saavy enough to block any efforts to make changes.

Where the government does fall down tho is on the land settlements, but again, it takes two to negotiate anything, and the reason why the land stettlement agreements fall down is that the negotiations from the side are absolute, all or nothing, we get what we want now, or we walk away from the table.

The reservation system does not work, it foster corruption, and it certainly fosters a atmosphere on non-inertia, there are no reasons to leave the reservations, and your only source of information come from the leaders that are contiually screwing you, so of course there are going to be warrier societies and semi violent protests. Your indoctrinated to one way of thinking.

The easiest solution would be for the government to buy all the reservation land and force improvements, and then give notice that in 25 years the reservations are going to be shut down and the people that live there will be compensated for land space and they need to assimilate into Canadian society.

Thier special status is killing them and seperating them from the rest of the country, they're basically a poor version of Quebec with a higher wall and a real lack of understanding about the country around them.

[Cube Inmate]

Originally Posted by Slava

On the news last night they showed a clip from a video on youtube that gives very detailed instructions on how to derail a train for this exact reason. I'm surprised that it wasn't posted here yet? (Although I can certainly see why it wouldn't/shouldn't be). Its a scary situation.

If I understand correctly, the instructions were not on how to derail a train, but how to screw up the signalling systems so that train conductors would be forced to stop.

I haven't seen it, but it's probably something as simple as shorting out a sensor with a piece of wire to fool the signalling system into thinking there's a train there.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I respect your post, but I do think its an over simplification of what is a very large and complex problem.

Right at the moment, the government is basically acting as a rich uncle to the reservations throwing money at a problem and not working with the natives on how the money is truly spent, because of this there is a heightened expectation on both sides.

Is the government of canada responsible for providing social services, and infrastructure services to the reservations. Well yes they should be, but the government gets blocked out by the special status granted to the natives which gives them the right to self govern thier own reservations, in essence everytime the government tries to impose conditions on how the money is spent the Reservation leaders scream to the rafters about government interfearance and racism.

Where the responsibility does lie is two fold. One the leadership on a lot of the reservations (not all) take the money and invest it in pet projects that increase the wealth of the chiefs, or they spend it on unimportant things, they've never set up a support system for the individual's, never put conditions on education and housing of the individuals living there. In essense its the purest form of a market society where the rich truly get richer and the poor or unimportant or unconnected get screwed.

There's got to be a better way to encourage self reliance then cutting someone a cheque when he turns 18 so that he can spend it on whatever he wants ie fancy truck, liquor.

The government needs to take that money and invest it in scholarships, better housing, and intercountry regulated trade.

So while the government has a stake in this, they continually get blocked by the corrupt practices of a select few who are also media saavy enough to block any efforts to make changes.

Where the government does fall down tho is on the land settlements, but again, it takes two to negotiate anything, and the reason why the land stettlement agreements fall down is that the negotiations from the side are absolute, all or nothing, we get what we want now, or we walk away from the table.

The reservation system does not work, it foster corruption, and it certainly fosters a atmosphere on non-inertia, there are no reasons to leave the reservations, and your only source of information come from the leaders that are contiually screwing you, so of course there are going to be warrier societies and semi violent protests. Your indoctrinated to one way of thinking.

The easiest solution would be for the government to buy all the reservation land and force improvements, and then give notice that in 25 years the reservations are going to be shut down and the people that live there will be compensated for land space and they need to assimilate into Canadian society.

Thier special status is killing them and seperating them from the rest of the country, they're basically a poor version of Quebec with a higher wall and a real lack of understanding about the country around them.

Beautifully summarized.

Cowperson

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I respect your post, but I do think its an over simplification of what is a very large and complex problem.

Right at the moment, the government is basically acting as a rich uncle to the reservations throwing money at a problem and not working with the natives on how the money is truly spent, because of this there is a heightened expectation on both sides.

Is the government of canada responsible for providing social services, and infrastructure services to the reservations. Well yes they should be, but the government gets blocked out by the special status granted to the natives which gives them the right to self govern thier own reservations, in essence everytime the government tries to impose conditions on how the money is spent the Reservation leaders scream to the rafters about government interfearance and racism.

Where the responsibility does lie is two fold. One the leadership on a lot of the reservations (not all) take the money and invest it in pet projects that increase the wealth of the chiefs, or they spend it on unimportant things, they've never set up a support system for the individual's, never put conditions on education and housing of the individuals living there. In essense its the purest form of a market society where the rich truly get richer and the poor or unimportant or unconnected get screwed.

There's got to be a better way to encourage self reliance then cutting someone a cheque when he turns 18 so that he can spend it on whatever he wants ie fancy truck, liquor.

The government needs to take that money and invest it in scholarships, better housing, and intercountry regulated trade.

So while the government has a stake in this, they continually get blocked by the corrupt practices of a select few who are also media saavy enough to block any efforts to make changes.

Where the government does fall down tho is on the land settlements, but again, it takes two to negotiate anything, and the reason why the land stettlement agreements fall down is that the negotiations from the side are absolute, all or nothing, we get what we want now, or we walk away from the table.

The reservation system does not work, it foster corruption, and it certainly fosters a atmosphere on non-inertia, there are no reasons to leave the reservations, and your only source of information come from the leaders that are contiually screwing you, so of course there are going to be warrier societies and semi violent protests. Your indoctrinated to one way of thinking.

The easiest solution would be for the government to buy all the reservation land and force improvements, and then give notice that in 25 years the reservations are going to be shut down and the people that live there will be compensated for land space and they need to assimilate into Canadian society.

Thier special status is killing them and seperating them from the rest of the country, they're basically a poor version of Quebec with a higher wall and a real lack of understanding about the country around them.

Really, I was just trying to get at refuting the idea that the problem of governance on the reserves is not a problem of Canadian governance. You've astutely stated a lot of what I would have had I had the gumption or been making the point.

I was just put off by the 'our government' vs. 'their government' sentiment I'd been reading, but I agree that it's an extremely complex issue (beyond what I got into) which is the result of long term failures in governance at both national and reserve levels and which will require long term solutions.
The complexities of the problem are well beyond my having any kind of solution to suggest that might be worth a mention.

Edit: I'm similarly respectful of you. I'm just meaning to clarify my earlier posts.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

It makes total sense. The idea behind liberal democracies are peaceful societies. When these societies are threatened, governments have an obligation to protect them since they don't protect themselves.

Fair enough. Do you actually consider this a legitimate threat to our society though? Blocking a few highways and railways is not to my life, let alone the entire society.

Originally Posted by Thunderball

If I meant gunning them all down, I would have said so.

You said the government should send in the army to act with "swift, brutal force". An armed force that is ordered to act swiftly and brutally is probably going to be firing their guns.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Fair enough. Do you actually consider this a legitimate threat to our society though? Blocking a few highways and railways is not to my life, let alone the entire society.



You said the government should send in the army to act with "swift, brutal force". An armed force that is ordered to act swiftly and brutally is probably going to be firing their guns.

Semantics, I guess. I consider tear gas, armored vehicles, butt ends of weapons used as clubs and physical force to be swift and brutal. Firing guns would be lethal force. I understand how that could be miscontrued.

It doesn't threaten your life, but it does threaten the life and livelihood of others and therein lies the problem and the imperative for action.

[CaptainCrunch]

Personally, I've always hated the idea of using your military to break up riots, and protests, first of all it seems so dictatorist. Second of all, soldier's make lousy police men, and they're trained even in a riot situation to use overwhelming force.

So its easy to say, go in use your riflebutt, or tear gas, or an armored vehicle.

But the armoured vehicle that charges over a baracade might crush some kid.

A soldier who feels threatened and is surrounded in a riot is going to open fire.

A group of soldiers getting molotov tails or heavy rocks thrown at them is going to protect itself.

Even the use of non lethal weapons, in the right situation are likely lethal.

An army shouldn't be arresting people.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

Really, I was just trying to get at refuting the idea that the problem of governance on the reserves is not a problem of Canadian governance. You've astutely stated a lot of what I would have had I had the gumption or been making the point.

I never said that the problem of governance on the reserves is not a problem of Canadian governance. I said that until native leaders truely want to change, they are the majority of the problem. There is little doubt that the federal government has its fair share as well, but for a society that insists on segregating itself, change has to start from within.

My main point is that if a group wants to attempt change at the barrel of a gun, then it is the governments responsibility to meet that challenge with a bigger gun. You simply do not negotiate with those who wish to employ terroristic techniques.

Imagine if Bronconnier set up a blockade of Highway 2 until the province caved into his demands? How long do you think it would be before the government stepped in and cleared him out of their way? How much respect do you think he would get from anyone if he pulled such a stunt? Why would we give any other group who does the same any respect or waste our time listening to them?

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Personally, I've always hated the idea of using your military to break up riots, and protests, first of all it seems so dictatorist. Second of all, soldier's make lousy police men, and they're trained even in a riot situation to use overwhelming force.

So its easy to say, go in use your riflebutt, or tear gas, or an armored vehicle.

But the armoured vehicle that charges over a baracade might crush some kid.

A soldier who feels threatened and is surrounded in a riot is going to open fire.

A group of soldiers getting molotov tails or heavy rocks thrown at them is going to protect itself.

Even the use of non lethal weapons, in the right situation are likely lethal.

An army shouldn't be arresting people.

I tend to agree, but given the choice between the hapless RCMP and the Canadian Armed Forces, I trust the army to be better capable of controlling the situation. Now, if we're talking highly trained Calgary/Edmonton/Winnipeg Police Riot Squad... thats different. From what I have seen/read/heard about the RCMP in these rural detachments (which would likely be the location of one of these attacks) they are horrifically trained, and likely to be casualties if this gets ugly (and based on Oka, it could require the army at some point anyway).

Like you said, soldiers being attacked with rocks/molotovs are likely to defend themselves (rules of engagement, and all that)... regular RCMP are likely to end up dead.

I guess I'm thinking in an act of insurgency and light-terrorism, the lives of the protectors are more valuable than the lives of the aggressors, regardless of ethnicity, religion, color, etc. (so please people, don't try to paint me as bigoted... I'd be demanding the same response regardless)