First nations will blockade roads as part of 'Idle No More' protest

[RubberDuck]

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/01...s-this-spring/

[polak]

Originally Posted by RubberDuck

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/01...s-this-spring/

If this gets violent then you'll start to see racism.

[CaptainCrunch]

Geez the brakes on our semi's just seemed to fail when we hit the blockade.

And our train's now have a new policy that they can not stop while in transit between points.

And the whole statement in there about it not being the job of the Police to enforce the law is absolutely ######ed, a judge has already ruled that police have an obligation to enforce the law and shut down these blockades.

My sympathy for these protesters which was a bit thin admittedly is fading to zero.

[AR_Six]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

And the whole statement in there about it not being the job of the Police to enforce the law is absolutely ######ed, a judge has already ruled that police have an obligation to enforce the law and shut down these blockades.

Also my reaction. Dumbest thing in any article about this so far. Why is it so hard to say "we understand that officers in this situation are simply carrying out their mandate, and while it puts everyone in a difficult situation, that is the intent of a protest - create a difficult situation so as to bring awareness to [whatever it is they're trying to bring awareness to, on which topic I remain murky]".

My sympathy for these protesters which was a bit thin admittedly is fading to zero.

See, at the outset, I had no particular ill-will towards this movement. I simply did not clearly understand what their goal or issue was.

I understand that there is a particular piece of legislation that they want repealed, but I do not know what in particular they find objectionable about it.

I understand that they have environmentalist agenda, but am not clear on what the specific goal of that agenda is - is there a particular project they hope to impede, or just oil production generally?

I understand that they want to start a dialogue with key leaders, including the PM, but I am not clear on what issues they want to hash out in those meetings.

Basically I am fine if you have an issue that you want to protest and raise awareness for. Doing so may rally people to your cause and effect real change, if indeed there ends up being the political will behind it once you've made everyone aware of it. The problem here for me is that I am not being made more aware of anything in particular.

Instead, the "protest" appears to be more of an obstructionist nuisance, an attempt to annoy people into submitting to the movement's wishes rather than winning people over to the cause. That attitude is inherently conflict-oriented, it's the movement vs. everyone else. This is not an acceptable use of free speech or free assembly and these people should be arrested if they break the law in the course of making their political statement.

And I'll add, with the ordinary consequences that result from any violent resistance. Because if they do what they're saying they're going to do - blockade major highways and attempt to produce economic chaos - I can absolutely see violence as a likely result when police end up trying to break them up.

[CaramonLS]

So I've been trying to determine what exactly they are protesting in regards to the changes to the Indian Act, there seems to be a lot of chatter for that being used as one of the major reasons for the protest, in addition to some of the environmental concern - but here is what I have been able to determine as far as the Indian Act changes go.

From the following Link

Idle No More spokesperson Eriel Deranger says the bill includes changing the procedures that lead up to the removal of land. Basically, she says, the amendments makes federal removal of land easier. In the past, she explains, referendums were required for land removal proposals, and the referendums had to include all members of a First Nation. Now, she says, either a meeting or a referendum must be called, and the majority vote at that meeting decides the result, no matter how few people are at the meeting. In addition, says Deranger, the Minister can call a meeting himself for the removal of land.

Seems pretty cut and dry according to Eriel, although I am not exactly sure I believe that a "one person meeting" would actually hold up during any sort of scurtiny. I'm also kind of skeptical at the term "land removal". Does that mean giving away of land?

However, here is a slightly different take on this: Link

Manny Jules has spent a whole lifetime listening to complaints. He was a chief, his father was a chief and his grandfather was a First Nations band councillor for three decades.

He remembers his father saying back in 1968 that First Nations communities “have to be able to move at the speed of business,” including and especially when it comes to leasing reserve lands ripe for economic growth. Complaints about the onerous and convoluted leasing process — which, thanks to the Indian Act, can take years and cost thousands in lawyering — persisted throughout his own tenure as a chief and, nearly 40 years on, right up until today.

As recently as mid-December, Mr. Jules and several chiefs voiced their own disdain for the way the Indian Act governs land leasing, asking Parliament to get rid of certain provisions that add months, if not years, of delay.

The Harper government heeded those calls and streamlined the process, but instead of garnering praise or even getting by with apathy, Ottawa was met with uproar and threats.

Oh, you mean the language is actually about land leasing and not "removal".

Now, I can attest to the amount of roadblocks that there are with the Aboriginal land leasing process. I know the Sik Sika nation was trying to sign a deal with a major retailer to have one of their Warehouses built on their land. The deal ultimately fell through because of the land leasing procedures.

So overall, I'm really not sure that using this reason is really a valid concern for the protesters.

[RubberDuck]

If you close down that road to Ft. Mac, I would say violence is inevitable.

You start to mess with people's abilty to earn a living or get home to their families, someone will cross the line.

[AR_Six]

Okay, well, that's something. It's still not exactly clear. This not being my cause, I am not particularly motivated to do a bunch of digging to determine what the issues are, what's at stake and what changes have or ought to be made. If you're going to raise an issue to be addressed by the public at large, would it be so difficult to just write, say, a blog post or an article that deals with all of this clearly and in sufficient detail that people understand what it is you want?

The occupy movement had this same problem. They didn't have a particular objective and were just vaguely against greed or something and really worked up about it. At that point you're just protesting to protest.

Originally Posted by RubberDuck

If you close down that road to Ft. Mac, I would say violence is inevitable. You start to mess with people's abilty to earn a living or get home to their families, someone will cross the line.

Given the largely male, largely young, blue-collar workers we're talking about, I would say that you're probably right. Only it would be more like several hundred people crossing the line at once. The thing is, there are an awful lot of First Nations who work in oilsands-related industry up there, and I'm not too sure the movement will get the kind of unified support it's hoping for if they plan to carry out that threat.

[polak]

I think any sort of extended blockade would be eventually met with violence.

First Nations and White relationships are a powder keg and regardless of how PC people like to come-off on this board, everyone knows it.

Edit: Then again, maybe I'm just used to the ethnic clashes in Poland during soccer season and think these sorts of relations are a lot more fragile then they actually are...

[northcrunk]

Originally Posted by polak

I think any sort of extended blockade would be eventually met with violence.

First Nations and White relationships are a powder keg and regardless of how PC people like to come-off on this board, everyone knows it.

Edit: Then again, maybe I'm just used to the ethnic clashes in Poland during soccer season and think these sorts of relations are a lot more fragile then they actually are...

I could definatly see workers in Ft. Mac running through the blockade or confronting the protesters. Those guys are not exactly the most PC people in the world at best lol, things could get ugly.

[DownhillGoat]

I really don't see the 63 getting shut down because of this. As AR Six mentioned, they're not going to get the united front here they're hoping for.

I can't see much of anything happening outside of the East, actually.

[First Lady]

CTF Proposes to End Aboriginal Poverty


No more race-based laws and programs or another decade of new handout programs; systemic changes needed


The Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF) called on Prime Minister Harper today to consider bold changes as his government moves forward with future aboriginal policies. The CTF encouraged the prime minister to discuss these ideas with grassroots taxpayers and grassroots people living on reserves to end the cycle of poverty.

Continue reading: Linky

Some pretty solid suggestions, though I doubt I will see any in my lifetime.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

So I've been trying to determine what exactly they are protesting in regards to the changes to the Indian Act, there seems to be a lot of chatter for that being used as one of the major reasons for the protest, in addition to some of the environmental concern - but here is what I have been able to determine as far as the Indian Act changes go.

From the following Link

Seems pretty cut and dry according to Eriel, although I am not exactly sure I believe that a "one person meeting" would actually hold up during any sort of scurtiny. I'm also kind of skeptical at the term "land removal". Does that mean giving away of land?

However, here is a slightly different take on this: Link

Oh, you mean the language is actually about land leasing and not "removal".

Now, I can attest to the amount of roadblocks that there are with the Aboriginal land leasing process. I know the Sik Sika nation was trying to sign a deal with a major retailer to have one of their Warehouses built on their land. The deal ultimately fell through because of the land leasing procedures.

So overall, I'm really not sure that using this reason is really a valid concern for the protesters.

From my understanding under the new bills it would force a referendum from the band on land deals in terms of selling or leasing, it would remove that power from the Band Council and put it in the hands of the citizens.

Its the same as the environmental changes, where the Natives contend that it would remove consultation in terms of the use of resources and waterways which if you really take a look at the Bills I think C-38 and C-45 is really not true.

I think what's really oderous to the Chiefs is the transparency requirements where they need to publish their salaries on the web for the last 5 years, and putting some power in terms of land use back in the hands of the people.

[Minnie]

Originally Posted by AR_Six

Also my reaction. Dumbest thing in any article about this so far. Why is it so hard to say "we understand that officers in this situation are simply carrying out their mandate, and while it puts everyone in a difficult situation, that is the intent of a protest - create a difficult situation so as to bring awareness to [whatever it is they're trying to bring awareness to, on which topic I remain murky]".

See, at the outset, I had no particular ill-will towards this movement. I simply did not clearly understand what their goal or issue was.

I understand that there is a particular piece of legislation that they want repealed, but I do not know what in particular they find objectionable about it.

I understand that they have environmentalist agenda, but am not clear on what the specific goal of that agenda is - is there a particular project they hope to impede, or just oil production generally?

I understand that they want to start a dialogue with key leaders, including the PM, but I am not clear on what issues they want to hash out in those meetings.

Basically I am fine if you have an issue that you want to protest and raise awareness for. Doing so may rally people to your cause and effect real change, if indeed there ends up being the political will behind it once you've made everyone aware of it. The problem here for me is that I am not being made more aware of anything in particular.

Instead, the "protest" appears to be more of an obstructionist nuisance, an attempt to annoy people into submitting to the movement's wishes rather than winning people over to the cause. That attitude is inherently conflict-oriented, it's the movement vs. everyone else. This is not an acceptable use of free speech or free assembly and these people should be arrested if they break the law in the course of making their political statement.

And I'll add, with the ordinary consequences that result from any violent resistance. Because if they do what they're saying they're going to do - blockade major highways and attempt to produce economic chaos - I can absolutely see violence as a likely result when police end up trying to break them up.

Originally Posted by RubberDuck

If you close down that road to Ft. Mac, I would say violence is inevitable.

You start to mess with people's abilty to earn a living or get home to their families, someone will cross the line.

I suppose Chief 'Dances With Credibility' is encouraging more and more of this stupidity? *smh*

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by polak

I think any sort of extended blockade would be eventually met with violence.

First Nations and White relationships are a powder keg and regardless of how PC people like to come-off on this board, everyone knows it.

Edit: Then again, maybe I'm just used to the ethnic clashes in Poland during soccer season and think these sorts of relations are a lot more fragile then they actually are...

There was a picture in a museum that I saw once that showed autoworkers out on a strike I think in the 20's or 30's and the auto company hired professional strike breakers.

the first picture showed the two sides smiling and talking and chatting.

The second picture was a lot more violent as the Strike Breakers started cracking skulls.

God forbid that this becomes violent, because it will be clear who will take the blame for it.

And the paranoia in Fort McMurray with Natives working on sensitive equipment will become prevalent.

[anyonebutedmonton]

Decent article on the subject...

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/...y-to-progress/

[icecube]

I could sum up this thread with a few words. Paternalistic, colonial, bigotted, redneck, ignorant, racist etc. etc.

[polak]

Originally Posted by icecube

I could sum up this thread with a few words. Paternalistic, colonial, bigotted, redneck, ignorant, racist etc. etc.

Race cards, Race cards everywhere!

[AR_Six]

Originally Posted by icecube

I could sum up this thread with a few words. Paternalistic, colonial, bigotted, redneck, ignorant, racist etc. etc.

Are you a part of, or a supporter of, Idle No More? If so, rather than being exclusionary, could you possibly present your cause in a way that people might understand what in God's name you guys are after so that I can form an informed opinion as to whether / on what points / to what extent I agree with you?

[wpgflamesfan]

Originally Posted by icecube

I could sum up this thread with a few words. Paternalistic, colonial, bigotted, redneck, ignorant, racist etc. etc.

See this is another huge problem with this whole thing. The minute anyone brings up anything against the "Idle No More" cause they're immediately branded a racist.

Also the proposition put forward by the CTF would be awesome.

[Tron_fdc]

I'm starting to think that people who support this movement have no f-ing clue what it's about, and are just making noise for the sake of hearing their own voice. Especially when I read stuff like this (off my facebook, from someone I know that is FN)

Did you know in east Germany behind THE WALL, they sold kitchen aid mixers in the 80's for $50. Now sold in Canada for $400 30 years later. Wake up Canada, IDOL NO MORE!

I've been trying to figure out the angle on that comment, but I seriously have no idea. Inflation sucks? Germany is awesome? Idol (sic) shouldn't be on TV anymore?

WTF?