"Fighting for Canada"-Diane Francis: A Few Questio

[QUOTE BY= Samuel] Dr. Caleb took it upon himself to delete a whole bunch of threads dealing with Québec sovereignty at some point in time and it has since disappeared.[/QUOTE] Once again, you rewrite history Samuel. No threads have been deleted on Quebec Separation. They are simply locked, so no more posts can be added.

I was sure they were DC, my mistake. In any case Marcarc has confirmed my statement of his condoning the use of weapons in this country, under certain circumstances of course. The next time the neighbour questions my land, I'll just take a gun out and point it at him.

Mararc you are a genius!Well said! <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/wink.gif' alt='Wink'>

There was nothing wrong with the Mohawks taking up arms,they were illegaly invaded. If someone invades your home,you have the right to use whatever force you feel is required to protect yourself,your family,and your property. I have also read in the past that the UN wanted to send peace keeping troops to Oka.Does anyone have more info on this? <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/rolleyes.gif' alt='Rolling Eyes'>

Spud, if you're going to be Marcarc's whore, put some substance in it. Countries governed by law put strict limitations on self-defence pleas for a reason, especially where weapons are involved. Pre invasion Afghanistan was a perfect example of utter lawlessness where one simply took care of his problems at gunpoint. Iraq, Saddam's mass graves are a good indicator of how business was conducted. Natives in this country will disagree with you when asked if they condone lawlessness. Before some of you grasp at straws and distort what I said above, I do not condone the USA's atrocities in Afghanistan or Iraq. Can we drop this ugly topic now?

I don't think that was an apologetic twist, I first wanted to make sure that everybody knew you weren't telling the truth that I had said that before-which I hadn't, so that in the future when people read your posts they will know that you often misinterpret things and put in your own ideas rather than the person who stated them. They're 'lives' weren't in danger, their 'culture' was. Here's a quote from two of the journalists present at Oka: "by international standards, the Mohawks can make a strong argument for sovereignity: they were never conquered by military force; they have never agreed to give up their sovereignity; they signed treaties with European countries on a nation-to-nation basis; and they served as equal partners with Britain in military alliances." and again: The Canadian summer of 1990 was indeed a hot, vulnerable summer. The Oka crisis was sparked off by the decision taken by the Municipality of Oka and Le Club de golf d’Oka Inc. to extend a nine hole golf course originally built in 1959 on land that the Mohawks claim is, and has always been, theirs. The 39 hectares of land in question include a Native cemetery and parts of a pine forest known as "the Pines". Various investigations, like those made by archaeologists in 1970 and National Geographic in 1974, confirm the validity of the Mohawk claims. However, as it had already done in 1959, the Municipality of Oka ignored the peaceful protests of the First Nations (as Native Indians are known in Canada) and went on with the proposed project. This lead the Mohawks, on March 10, 1990, to occupy parts of the wooded area to protect their burial ground and trees. The pines had been planted by the Mohawks and Algonquins in the nineteenth century, under the guidance of the Sulpician fathers. This belongs on a native thread, but really, how much more needs be said about Diane Francis' anyway. If somebody shows up at your front door with guns and armored vehicles you will absolutely have my support-so long as you are on your property. And you can also expect that I would vocally support you online. Natives act far more sensibly than I do, that's why my remarks mean little to them-they do what they HAVE to do. In fact they behave with remarkable restraint and have finally seen court rulings in their favour so they know there are better ways to 'fight the power'. They set up a roadblock which simply said 'come no further'. They never took they're guns out looking for people, and the massive disinformation about what occurred at Oka simply reinforces the idea that the media (not media members though) were also culpable. Again, I heartily recommend the documentary, it is worth it just to see the CBC reporter saying "what are you waiting for...why can't we go live?". Quite simply the government and CBC were complicit in making sure scenes were 'edited'. This is an old standard in canadian society, from communism, unionism, to environmentalism-the idea that the media is separate from government is a joke. During world war two journalists were forbidden to report that german submarines were patrolling up and down the St.Lawrence sinking practically every troop carrying vessel that sailed up it in the Gaspe. At the same time the now known to be planted information that japanese subs had attacked British Columbia was so overhyped that it had average canadians massively supporting the internment of the japanese (you didn't see them interning germans in Kitchener though). That's a little history lesson there, sorry for the digression. You can go look it up, there are several books on it at the library. Likewise I would have supported the japanese if they took up arms to protect themselves from wrongful arrest. It is VERY easy to declare war in Canada, there are fewer checks and balances than in the states, which means the government should be especially susceptible to human rights violations during those times-not less susceptible as is currently the case. However, at the same time I am a product of my culture and too much of a coward to do anything more than support such actions. MY way of dealing with governmental corruption and human rights violations is from within..namely with direct democracy. Setting up websites where people vote means that there would be a place where people would need to go get information-away from the mainstream media and government -in other words a grassroots media like this site. That is the best way to effect change in my opinion and it has no requirements outside working with the democratic tools we have. Just as a final aside, if you remember your history from the seventies, a few extremists made life hell for every separatist when the war measures act was declared. If the referendum favours separatism yet doesn't meet the federal clarity act legislation and you find federal soldiers surrounding the national assembly in Quebec City and rounding up separatists like in the seventies, people like me will be your best supporters in the ROC. As far as Oka and the UN go, there was preliminary interest from some member states I believe, but only a security council resolution could bring in peacekeeepers, and a quick look at the typical actions of security council members should answer any questions of WHY they wouldn't want to get involved. As far as the UN and Canada go, here's an interesting quote from way back that most canadians don't know about: In 1990 the U.N. Committee concluded that "recent developments threaten the way of life and culture of the Lubicon Lake band and constitute a violation of Article 27 so long as they continue." As a result of this decision, every year Canada is reported to the General Assembly of the United Nations as a violator of human rights I'm not sure about amnesty international or other human rights groups, typically they are denied access, just as in Burnt Church.

Marcarc, you went out of your way to rationalize your views on violence in this thread, including throwing Afghanistan and Iraq into the mix as a parallel. I admit it was witty, but along with your history lessons was completely inappropriate. The only thing in question was your acceptance of violence while lambasting our language policy with your sarcastic "joke".

i've been absent for a long time, but i have something to say about this... first, about the declaration of parizeau. yes, he said it, and what's more important is that he was right. but you have to read between the lines. about money : just look at gomery's commission, yes money did indeed was use illegally to put more pressure for the no campain. i've seen in a post something about the referendum law that forbid compagny to finance an action that advertise one camp or the other. i really dont see why that's something bad like some of you seem to think. the goal of this is that every side have the same fund and cant bride compagny to have more influence. for me it's just cleaner democracy... on ethnic : all those who ask for parizeau's head after he said think that parizeau was talking about every non-white, non-french people in the province. that was not the case. some evidence gather later prove that the federal governement dumped an excessive number of immigrant into quebec before the referendum and ask to them to vote no. (a former liberal organiser told that to a journalist this week, and he will repeat that in may in the gomery commission) it's maybe off-topic, but i've seen several post about the oka crises, and that the native was right to do what they done etc... do you go to oka often ? i go there twice per week, and sometimes i have to go on the native territory, so what i will say is my personal observation... first, in 1990 when the army get in the crisis was already one month old. the mohawks was bloking a bridge that was not on their territory nor near the golf, remove them from there was only ligitimate. second, they 1-kill a police officer 2-goes to oka that is not on the native territory and vandalise several houses 3-have several automatic rifle that are forbiden, like ak-47. in the last year mohawks are getting out of control and because our governement are afraid to look despotic if they try to do something about it, they do nothing, witch result that criminals now control the mohawks territory, expulsate their own leader, burn houses, sell illegal cigarettes on the street, shoot policecars that enter on their territory, burn the police station and 4 police cars, and criminal that have arrestation warrent against them can freely walk on the street. that the true situation at this moment...

Marcarc you always make so much sense. <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/wink.gif' alt='Wink'>

I fail to see how sarcasm is 'lambasting' language policy, particularly since I've stated on several occasions that I support the language bill and Quebec's use of the notwishstanding clause. I frequently go off topic here, I usually address the main issue though, if we can't use "wit" in relation to Quebec, then things really are much to serious. As far as Oka goes, I wasn't discussing native issues in general, only Oka in particular, although I could certainly get into a discussion on that. The mohawks closed the Mercier bridge as a show of support, similar blockades were erected all across canada as a show of solidarity and whether they were removed or not has little to do with the legality of Oka-they weren't the same people. As far as the vandalism goes, that doesn't even compare to the several 'murders'that Quebecers were responsible for in their rock throwing escapades (admittedly these were 'unintentional' (maybe) but the heart problems and injuries suffered lead to several native deaths (two I think, but it could have been three). In many cases municipalities and provinces negotiated ways to keep the blockades open while rerouting traffic, which goes to show that all levels of government are not equal in this. There were actually very few Ak-47's. As my above quote shows, by international standards the mohawks could easily claim sovereignty, they signed no treaties, etc., which means they can make their own laws. That's a stretch, however, I'm not picking on any one force, the army and the police were both culpable, as was the municipality of Oka. As the quote said, in the fifties 'peaceful protest' was tried, and the town still built the golf course, so the issue was more than six months old. I've said before, that when you actually look at what natives deal with, they are the models of restraint. That said, natives were quite divided before 'the event', which is understandable, the forces used extensive psychological warfare during the standoff, much of it learned from the US, in the end this division is what led to the ending of the standoff (yay, what a success). As for the police officer, nobody disputes that this was a horrible thing to have happen, but as quoted elsewhere, had both sides really been shooting to kill there would have been far more casualties. If you watch the documentary one thing that's interesting, but not mentioned in the doc is the movement of troops out of 'close proximity'. This has many uses, most specifically though it is to avoid the 'helsinki syndrome', which our culture explains as a sort of brainwashing, but which can also be interpreted as simply recognizing the valid complaint of an oppressed group. We in Canada have a long history of oppressing natives, usually to the point of suicide, but we can claim absolution since we didn't pull the trigger. As for the natives now, you can't keep people in poverty, their culture on the fringes, and claim that you aren't responsible. Courts are increasingly validating native claims, but governments certainly aren't making it easy. Like any oppressed people their culture can't be held to the same 'standards' as ours-even as tenuous as ours is. The mohawks were divided equally among the pro and con gambling groups, but the pro gambling merely saw a means of bettering a fractured society-the fault is not theirs, but the ones doing the fracturing (namely our governments). Personally, I don't even blame somebody who robs a store. Under a capitalist system which treats people as wage slaves, then the 'non workers' have every right to survive any way they can. That's just me though, I don't expect anybody else's opinion to stretch that far, particularly in a 'tough on crime' society like ours. But everyone's entitled to their own opinion.

[QUOTE by Marcarc] It is VERY easy to declare war in Canada, there are fewer checks and balances than in the states…[/QUOTE] Unfortunately our Congress has ceded its Constitutional responsibility of declaring war <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/mad.gif' alt='Angry'> numerous times since 1945 by giving carte blanche to the executive, so there isn’t enough checking going on to maintain a balance. Uh, regarding Diane Francis, I haven’t read any of her publications.

Wow, do you read yourself before posting, or only drool over it afterwards? Really, it's borderline holocaust denial in nature. Gun advocacy groups would pay a high rate for someone like you. Very effective at diverting attention though somewhat troubling. One thing is for sure, you definitely are the wrong person to mock our language policy through sarcastic jokes.

You seem a little deaf Sam, maybe I should yell it "I SUPPORT QUEBEC LANGUAGE LAWS" Is that clear enough? All my points on Oka are quite easily verified, by all means find sources to challenge any of those statements, I quite welcome debate but quite honestly don't know why remarks here seem almost angry. Unless you are rock wielding racist I see no reason why anyone hear would take offence with incidents they had nothing to do with. I would never 'recommend' using force, I think it's often counter productive, and natives now know that, which is why we haven't seen any more standoffs, the courts have been siding largely in their favour. Why anybody sees that as a gun lobby I don't know.

Marcarc, your diatribes are so full of holes, I simply haven't bothered. No that's wrong, here is one example of where I did: [QUOTE BY= Marcarc]Every legal defense was muted and the natives really had no choice in that case. I am not a pacifist and believe that people whose lives are endangered are quite correct when they protect those rights.[/QUOTE] to which I later posted: [QUOTE BY= Samuel]Just to set the record straight, the lives of Natives in Oka were not threatened in any way until THEY took up weapons. Granted their realestate was in question.[/QUOTE] and hilariously enough, you replied with: [QUOTE BY= Marcarc]They're 'lives' weren't in danger, their 'culture' was.[/QUOTE] But that's all BESIDES THE POINT ! It is your right to believe in violence and the use of weapons, it's your right to express those views and again it's your right to defend those views. Regardless of your agreeing to our language policy in the past, your qualification of "language police" in the context of your sentence/posting was clearly a critical/sarcastic view of said language policy. It was propping it up as extreme (ie. POLICE). As for my opinion in all this, and it's strictly an opinion, someone with values you have defended is in no position prop up our language policy as extreme. That's all Marcarc, really it is. No hard feelings either.

One last thing Marcarc. I struggle deeply with my English, but I can recognise a person who makes their living in some sort of clerical field. Just to let you know that we the true commoners feel overwhelmed when someone un-necessarily over-fills their posts with text, we usually turn away from participating when that happens <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/wink.gif' alt='Wink'>