Six Lessons from Caledonia
May 23, 2006 · By Peter Rempel
First, native protesters have no sense of irony. Following the initial dismantling of the native blockade, Caledonians responded by building their own blockade. Natives protesters were incredulous. They couldn’t use the road with the new blockade in the way! The roadblock was a manifestation of colonialism and racism, so the native protesters showed the Caledonians what’s what by re-constructing their own blockade and, for good measure, used a bobcat to dig up the road and dropped a power transformer into the hole.
Second, the police have no clear guidelines for when to arrest people for breaking the law and when to negotiate an end to the law-breaking. When natives in Saskatchewan set up a sympathy blockade, the police negotiated with the natives until the roadblock was taken down. RCMP big-wigs maintain that no firm rule exists and that individual detachments will make their own decision. That’s all well and good, but I strongly suspect that if drove to Saskatchewan and parked my car length-wise across the highway, the RCMP wouldn’t pull up and say, “Let’s talk about this.”
Third, Canadians have no clue what civil disobedience is. The reporting of David Peterson’s feminine mewlings make this obvious. Peterson was thrilled that the natives took down their roadblock, interpeting it as a “sign of goodwill.” If someone breaks the law and then stops breaking the law, that’s not a “sign of goodwill”; that’s a sign that the person has brought himself back within the realm of behavior expected under a lawful regime. If I break the law, the judge won’t interpret goodwill toward the law as a mitigating factor in sentencing.
Fourth, why was a former premier not brought in to negotiate with the Caledonian protesters over their roadblock?
Fifth, and more seriously: The only winners here are the natives. They didn’t have to benefit greatly, they just had to get better than the previous status quo. The moment that McGuinty assented to negotiation, the protesters had won. Which alters the incentives faced by natives in Canada. Post-Caledonia, Canadian natives know that they can always improve their position relative to the status quo by erecting a roadblock and waiting for negotiations. This isn’t such a big problem in Ontario, where natives had theit title extinguished long ago. But it’s a huge deal in B.C. where land claim negotiations are currently ongoing. It’s going to be a long summer in B.C. as a result of this, and we have only the spineless Dalton McGuinty to thank.
Sixth, and just as seriously: Natives can no longer expect to disturb the lives of “settlers” around them during the course of their law-breaking without provoking a back-lash. We saw this in Burnt Church when non-native fisherman watched as natives set out to rob them of their livelihood by destroying the lobster stocks there (thanks incidentally to a Supreme Court ruling). And we just saw it in Caledonia. Nor should we hear any intemperate and hypocritical whining from native protesters over non-natives breaking the law when the native protesters themselves are in the process of doing so.
“native protesters … used a bobcat to dig up the road and dropped a power transformer into the hole.”
And I wonder who will foot the bill to repair that.
The double standard for Indians and non-Indians in this country is the direct result of many judges (and the legal community that informs them) whaning interest in adjudicating the law, instead choosing to read the tea leaves of historic disadvantage and discrimination. Unfortunately we are living with the consequences of too much idealism and not enough pragmatism; too much moralising, too little civility.
Sooner or later reality will come back in focus, likely with tragic consequences. Rempel, this is an excellent read on how Caledonia changes the insentive structure for Indian leaders across Canada to risk militant action to get what they want. Continuing down this road could very well take an ugly turn, native militias becoming more common, organised, and threatening to civil society. Not to mention the response non-natives will issue.
Good editorial: “You want, calm, premier? Show us there is one law for everyone — native and non-native — that judges people based not on who they are, but on how they act.”
http://www.torontosun.com/Comm.....92887.html
i don’t get it. there ARE two standards. get over it. that’s the law. if you are one of the original people you are TREATED DIFFERENTLY!!! as it should be. maybe one day we can all grasp that concept instead of what i hear about the dire consequences of our civilized structure imposing assimilation upon them.
There are two standards, in many respects. But not when it comes to the criminal code and not when it comes to disturbing the peace.
The Indian Act sets out how Indians are to be treated differently, but that does not extend to the actions they were taking in Caledonia, ironically not expecting white residents to react like wise.
An opinion piece like this — http://www.torontosun.com/News.....94653.html — would not be too shocking if published in Alberta. But considering this came out of Toronto should peak some interest, at least in the ill will natives are bringing on themselves in Caledonia.
“i don’t get it. there ARE two standards. get over it. that’s the law. if you are one of the original people you are TREATED DIFFERENTLY!!! as it should be.”
Re-read point number 6 re backlash amongst the “settlers.” Canadians aren’t going to tolerate a form of legal apartheid.
I see good ole Ottawa Core is over here as well promoting his acceptance of a double standard under Canadian law.
Give me law that operates on the basis of my actions, not my skin colour or the supposed sins of my forefathers.
george:
i try not to read too many msm opinions. from what information i have acquired online it appears that the situation was exacerbated (to violence) by the yahoos who care to know nothing about the reasoning for the protest. the small inconvenience of making a detour certainly has brought up a whole bunch of underlying hate. over what i’m not sure. i won’t speculate. i’ll know better when i go there and speak to some of the locals.
peter:
george’s reference (6) speaks for itself. i read extensively but not msm. i’ve explained my aversion to anything the msm reports in my blog posts and online magazine. their agenda is anathema to the new order of business which i support fully. the future is individual opinions expressed in blogs and online discussion forums. true democracy. i’m sure the msm have a valid point of view to promote their sponsor’s ware but my own information bares out my stated belief that our system of managing indian affairs does not work.
i had hoped, when the new government was formed, thank god, that we would have a different take on the entire status quo. it seems, at this point, that the canadian government, left or right, must maintain a structure which has, in my opinion, degraded the native population to being wards of the state. when we finally realize an entire segment of our population is being managed by some theoretical socialist policy which supports the bleeding heart leftist academics entitlement to keep their noses in an economically ruinous manner of administration it might be time for a new policy. it’s going to take some guts to tackle the issue and there are hints of change (kelowna accord payments) and i’m hoping for more.
one thing i’m not sure you are aware of: harper’s government is the FIRST canadian government to EVER recognize the traditional chiefs instead of the band council chiefs in the caledonia matter. this bodes well for the embodiment of a true nation to nation development. hell, who knows, maybe harps got some more cards up his sleeve.
what’s legal apartheid?
[...] See Lesson #6: McGuinty, through his cowardice on this file, has given every native band in Canada pursuing a land claim an incentive to set up a roadblock this summer. At precisely the same time, Canadians are becoming less tolerant of native lawlessness and more willing to accept the use of force to address this lawlessness. [...]
Ottawa Core the “the small inconvenience of making a detour” has put people in the hospital. This is not a minor road that is being blockaded. It has thus forced high volumes of traffic onto roads not designed for it and has resulted in serious accidents.
[...] Exactly. [...]
Your site is very interesting and usefulr
Wonderful and informative web site.I used information from that site its great.3