1  2  3  4  5 ... 12  Next

Sheryl Nadler, the Hamilton Spectator
Ontario's Aboriginal Affairs minister said he is 'working to bring down the barricades as fast as possible.'


Kaz Novak, the Hamilton Spectator
Warrior Michael Laughing is among the native activists.


Sheryl Nadler, the Hamilton Spectator
A supporter of the natives tries to stay warm at the barricade.

Hamilton Spectator

   

Sorry, Donny. Not much sympathy from me here. The developer is legally going about his business on land he purchased. The Natives need to fuck off and leave him alone or else raise the money to purchase the land legally. This barricade crapcoupled with the terrorizing of neighborhoods is just that: terrorism.

Were they in the USA pulling this crap on non-Indian lands they'd be arrested, at the least.

Canada puts up with too much crap from too many groups and will no doubt one day be fractured because of this idiocy.

   

Every protest is valid because even if they don't acheive their ends this time, it's important to draw attention to the larger issue and get a step closer to something actually being done about it.

Even with the Seattle WTO riots where everyone initially condemned the minority who threw stones and broke windows and stuff, actually it was because of that media limelight that people became aware of how the WTO was shafting the world, and it became much harder for them to get away with it.

Besides, I'm sure that the media is just acting like it always does at every protest I've ever been to. Even though 99% of the protesters are peaceful, they all focus on the couple incidents which they can dramatise into portraying protesters as barabarians. It used to piss me off but now I'm not so sure that it's a bad thing. It shows that there is a lot of anger and that anger and willingness to put yourself on the line like that must come from somewhere, from desparation and outrage and having no other option.

We all have a duty to protest, if we want to change things. It's just too easy for governments to ignore the issues otherwise. Even if protest is considered illegal, I think it's still a moral responsibility to do so. I don't regret my own criminal record for protesting, it has never stopped me. Those who think that the letter of the law is always right and must be obeyed obviously have no ability to use their own judgement to determine right and wrong.

   

Then you support the rights of people who protest abortion and barricade access to abortion clinics? Do you also support the rights of people who protest the publication of articles and images that are critical of their religion? Do you support the right of Nazis and muslims to publicly protest and barricade access to synagogues?

Because if you want to stand on your high-and-mighty position that allowing protests is important then you had best be ready to accept protests against things that you support by people you abhor.

Because that is precisely the problem you will eventually have to deal with.

   

While I haven't fully investigated the actual native claims I don't put much faith in any developer saying he is with his legal rights. All to often they simply change the laws or bend them to suit their needs. Your own country has its "eminent domain". Technically legal right? In BC there is (or was, I read it in readers's digest a year ago) the right for a devloper to sell the land to someone without giving up mineral rights below the land and provisions that allowed them the right to simply walk back into the land to claim those mineral rights. Pretty good gig. They sell all the land to a private owner then turn around and tell him that he can't build anything because they are exercising their mineral rights. Most developers care only for their own greed.

Case in point: [web]http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&pubid=968163964505&cid=1145829009123&col=968705899037&call_page=TS_News&call_pageid=968332188492&call_pagepath=News/News[/web]

Wow. A couple hundred thousand in fines for infliciting lasting ecological damage and all for yet another golf course. He will make that up in green fees the first week.

Now I'm not saying who is right in this case but I highly doubt the developers are standing on moral ground let alone legal ground.

   

If you don't like the law then elect politicians who will change it.

So far as protests go, if they apply for and receive the proper permits for their protests then have at it. But if they want to break the law and people like Missy and yourself encourage them to break the law then you are creating an atmosphere of lawlessness.

Then what happens when people start breaking laws you happen to like?

Like what if a group of muslims catches you, Derby, and tells you to pray to Mecca or they'll beat you or kill you?

Will you respect them for their act of protesting your atheism?

Change the laws if you don't like them. Change your government if you need to. But engendering lawlessness is a very dangerous thing.

   

Non-Violent Direct Action. It's a form of protest that many movements use, and shown to be highly effective by lovely people like Gandhi.

If you are supposedly using your moral judgement to fight an injustice, you don't then go and compromise that by beating people up or threatening their safety. I even honour the right of people to protest against abortion etc, but of course I would never think that death or bomb threats are okay, or any action that impinges on peoples' sense of security or well-being.

Many activist movements have serious training and discussion about principles of non-violence in their protest. There is a surprising amount of consensus, intuitively reached by almost everyone, of the need to respect others. I won't however, claim that the abortion, animal rights or muslim cartoon protesters are all strict adherents of these principles.

   

The point is that laws can always be used to repress people and if you aren't able to change them then what can you do?

Sorry but your muslim example is a non-sequitor. They aren't "protesting" by oppressing me.

I agree with your thoughts about receiving proper permits, etc for protesting but the native POV is that they don't receive the same consideration.

Regardless, I have already said that I haven't investigated the claims of either side and am not making a judgement. I am simply casting doubt on the developers claim as being compltely legit and above board just as some automatically assume that all native claims are bogus.

   

I read this website on one of the protestors signs, it is a link to a site about land ownership, I believe, the natives are going to use some of the assertions made on the site to support their claim.

http://www.ruralrevolution.com/website/

   

So Rosa Parks should have taken her seat at the back of the bus and waited for election day to change discriminitory laws in the US?

Imagine the lawlessness that must have created, letting blacks sit wherever they please on a bus!

   

And those crazy women who thought they should be given the vote. They should have voted in someone who would have changed things for the better... oh but wait... they couldn't. Nonetheless they resorted to illegal action, and should be condemned for not following the proper procedures

   

It's called freedom of speech, and yes, I do accept that protesters who I don't agree with BE ALLOWED to protest, I would be a totalitarian if I did not want anyone I disagreed with to be able to speak out. I have values and I stick to them.

   

We're going to organize a protest to protest the protesters who are protesting the protesters at Caledonia.

Come and protest against us, I dare you....

   

The Six Nations have no historical right to the land, They came from the US to the then Upper Canada with the British after the Revolutionary War.

They were granted lands by the Crown for their service to the British. The UEL’s were also given land , the size of each grant dependent on the rank of the loyalist.

Both 6 Nations and UEL’s sold chunks of their land to speculators and most made pretty crappy deals with the land barons of the day as they sold of the Crown grants off bit by bit.

Now the deals both the Six Nations and the individual UEL’s made were not wise, but legal. For the Six Nations to come back 160 years later and cry foul makes no sense, unless the Federal government is also going to compensate the UEL’s descendants for their bad deals too.

I’ll have the validity of the land claims from the Innu, Inuit etc, who were the original inhabitants of vast chunks of the Dominion, but the Six Nations were immigrants just like the UEL’s.
To me there is no difference in the status of Six nations and those UEL's, both who fought for the British Crown and left the 13 Colonies as refugees.

Most in the media have no clue about our history and the Six Nations are showing similar ignorance about their legal status. To say that Six Nations are an independent nation makes as much sense as the white descendants of the UEL’s declaring Belleville an independent nation within Canada.

The Six nations came to Upper Canada to enjoy the protection of the British Crown, they became part of the colony of Upper Canada, they did not settle in some ancient land of theirs, it was other aboriginals who had died off from disease that probably came with the French a century or so before.
The Six Nations are just jumping on the band wagon with native bands who have much more claim on their ancestral lands.

Both Canada, Six nations and the media need to study our history. This claim is just baseless.
Bad deals a land claim do not make.

These so called warriors are just thugs circumventing laws that they came to Canada to be protected by in the 1780’s. As servants of the Crown, Six Nations should be ashamed of themselves and read their own history.

Thayendanegea would not be impressed.

   

Same thing happened in my neck of the woods, a developer cut down 24 oaks after being told to leave them standing.

He was fined $200.00 for each tree

As far as the protest goes, protest all you want, but when you pollute the air by setting fire to old tyres and block roads, then you should be prosecuted to the full letter of the law.

   

1  2  3  4  5 ... 12  Next