Cree Warrior
29 September 2000, 12:33
Copied from this months Windspeaker
Tó:ske
Taiaiake Alfred
Windspeaker Columnist
October 2000
Upholding the Rule of Law at Burnt Church.
Something wrong is happening out at Burnt Church, and it needs to stop.
There are crimes being committed on Miramichi Bay, and immediate action
should be taken to stop the criminals from perpetrating further illegal
acts. The rule of law must be upheld. The Canadian Prime Minister and his
fisheries minister have pronounced that 'the law must be enforced' in this
situation. But if that were truly to be the case right now; if in fact the
law was being enforced and the rule of law respected, things would be very
different than the dangerous farce taking place out there on the water these
days.
The time has come to put an end to the criminality taking place in the
waters off of Burnt Church: the federal government and white fishermen must
respect the law and stop attacking Mik'maq people in the just and legal
exercise of their rights. What we have in Burnt Church at the moment is a
peaceable group of Natives doing what they must to survive and feed
themselves, and in doing so facing down the threat of invasion by a greedy
and violent horde of white people supported by the paramilitary forces of
the state - what else is new? is this the year 1500 or 2000?
Did I say greedy? White fishermen take 99% of the 'resource' from Miramichi
Bay. The Canadians' own high court has recognized the Mik'maq's treaty
right to earn a livelihood by fishing; significantly, it also constrained
the federal government's power to regulate the Mik'maq fishery, stipulating
that it may act to limit the Mik'maq only in the interest of conservation
and after consultation with the Mik'maq themselves. With the Mik'maq taking
a mere 1% of the 'resource' at this point, there is clearly no legal
justification in Canadian law for the federal government's acting against
the Mik'maq fishery.
Did I say violent? The media, in the service of the state and always
respecting the interests of their readers, of course has distorted the
situation and reversed the truth in its portrayal of the violence at Burnt
Church. Capitalizing on the fact that most Canadians instinctually believe
that Natives are bad, the media has proffered no shortage mythical
'warriors' and maligned radical youth to satisfy the fearful mythology of
Indian-hating that runs through mainstream culture. The media portrayals of
the white fishermen as (excuse my paraphrase) 'hard-working family men just
trying to earn a buck and who play by the rules and who won't put up with
any unfair special treatment for Indians', their deference to the federal
messenger, mediator… or whatever, Bob Rae, as thoughtful, reasonable and
tolerant both contrast sharply with the image of the Mik'maq as angry,
irrational and confrontational. Yet, to date, it seems that the only people
who have explicitly threatened violence and who have been proven to wield
weapons on the scene are white fishermen.
All of this is sickening, especially considering where it is all headed.
But it is just the face of things. The deeper reality is that Burnt Church
is about something much larger than lobsters and fish quotas and money. It
is all about mass criminality, conquest and survival, the life and death of
nations.
There is a word that cannot be spoken in this country, and it is 'genocide'.
Oh, Canada often uses the unspeakable word as a weapon against various
Africans, for example, in laying blame for the horrors of famine and war in
places such as Rwanda. Canada has gained much undue respect and unearned
credibility internationally by pointing a finger accusingly, and posturing
outward as the good, sensible and humane people willing to take on the cause
of human rights and to support international law. But there are stains and
the dirt under Canada’s own vigorous fingernail, as the conflict at Oka
before it and Burnt Church now is demonstrating.
I spoke the unspeakable word genocide, and in anticipation of being labelled
an extremist I offer the following proof of Canada's genocidal criminality.
The 1948 UN Convention on Genocide (to which Canada is a signatory and thus
bound) defines the crime of genocide as any action taken by a government
that involves killing members of a group, causing serious bodily or mental
harm to members of the group, deliberately inflicting upon the group
conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in
whole or in part, imposing measures intended to prevent birth within the
group, or forcibly transferring children of one group to another group. To
be criminal, in terms of international law, a government need only do one of
those things. Our sad collective history of dispossession, police
brutality, residential schools, child apprehension, adoption to white
families, and forced economic deprivation is well documented. Thus, who can
deny that Canada has perpetrated the crime of genocide against Indigenous
peoples as defined by the UN?
And it continues. Considering the facts of the present situation at Burnt
Church, it is apparent that the Canadian government has taken actions in
support of the economic interest of white fishermen and to defend the claim
of its own authority over the Mik'maq nation. These do in fact constitute
genocide in its meaning in international law - federal authorities have
attempted to and may yet kill Mik'maq, they have caused serious bodily and
mental harm to Mik'maq, and they are imposing a policy which denies the
right of self-determination and the identity of the Mik'maq people and whose
long-term objective is the destruction of the Mik'maq nation.
In this context, it would seem that the Mik'maq are entirely justified in
defending themselves against the violent attacks by white fishermen, and in
resisting the application of violent force against them in support of white
fishermen's interests by the Canadian state. For all the ignorant talk of
'one law for all' in this country, people seem to easily forget that
Canadian law and policy operate within a larger moral and legal universe,
and that the rule of law is not comprised solely in statutes and policy
statements passed by the Parliament of Canada or in the political decisions
of the Prime Minister, and not at all in public opinion. There are higher
laws that must be respected, and enforced. We all have a responsibility to
those higher laws, and to the demands moral and international laws place on
us, including the responsibility to resist injustice even if that injustice
is committed under the cloak and mantle of governmental authority.
There is a basic and essential principle in British common law, and that is:
unlawful actions are justified by the extremity of the situation. The
concept is an ancient one in the British tradition and has been reaffirmed
many times over in various courts to vindicate people who have stood against
unjust laws and evil intent by rulers - the main idea is that one should not
be punished when the act of breaking a law prevents more evil than it has
caused. By this principle, the Mik'maq and their supporters are perfectly
justified in resisting Canadian authority in this case because they have set
as their objective the simple exercise of their treaty rights and in their
actions seek only to prevent illegal interference from white fishermen and
to stop Canadian authorities from imposing an unjust rule upon them.
There is no aggression on the Mik'maq part, and their actions to this point
have been restrained and have met even the standard justifications of
resistance in the British common law tradition, specifically: preventing a
crime is in fact a reasonable defence in the law; international law is
relevant in Canada; genocide is a crime in international law, and as well
the actions of both the white fisherman and federal authorities are illegal
in Canada; these crimes have obviously been perpetrated and their
continuation is clearly imminent; the Mik'maq's actions are intended
practically to prevent the commission of these crimes; the Mik'maq actions
are reasonable under the circumstances, as they have considered and
exhausted alternative courses of action to effectively prevent the crimes.
It should hold that if the international and domestic law punishes those who
commit crimes, then it clearly authorizes individuals to prevent those
crimes. Thus, the justification for Mik'maq resistance at Burnt Church is
clear. In regards to the federal government: Canada actively promotes a
general policy of genocide and disregards its own constitutional law; both
genocide and the current policy are illegal; Canada is committing genocide;
and, actions taken to stop Canada’s further commission of the crime are
justified and legal under international law. In regards to the organized
racists: white fishermen are collectively acting in an aggressive and
violent manner toward Mik’maq fishermen, having on numerous occasions broken
the peace, explicitly threatened the Mik’maq’s life and property, and
interfered with the Mik’maq’s right to earn a livelihood. The white
fishermen’s actions are illegal and life-threatening, and actions taken by
the Mik’maq to protect their lives and property and to prevent the white
fishermen’s commission of further crimes are certainly justified.
Whatever happens at Burnt Church, let us not waver from the understanding
that the Mik'maq are the righteousness people in this conflict, and that
they are being persecuted for simply living as Mik'maq in accordance with
their traditions, rights and under the provisions of a treaty with the
Crown. We should all stand strongly beside them as they defend themselves
against aggression, and it should make no difference whether the
perpetrators are local fishermen, police officers or high officials of the
federal government. Right is right, and sometimes the law is an ass. The
Mik'maq are standing for justice and the rule of law, for trust among people
and for the honour of sacred promises. No treaty, no relationship, indeed,
no country can survive long in the want of these things. Put in
perspective, there could not be a direr situation than the one we are facing
collectively in Burnt Church - Canada's denial of the existence of treaties
and of Indigenous nations, and its attempted rationalization of genocide
against Indigenous peoples. In the face of such extremity, Mik'maq action
which on the face of it may be unlawful is not wrong at all, but quite the
opposite.
*****
What are your comments?
If the military is oredered to "go in" would this be an unlawful order?
This outa get some good discussion going. Although if your rascist I don't want to hear it. There are other discussion forums for your type.
Sua Sponte
Tó:ske
Taiaiake Alfred
Windspeaker Columnist
October 2000
Upholding the Rule of Law at Burnt Church.
Something wrong is happening out at Burnt Church, and it needs to stop.
There are crimes being committed on Miramichi Bay, and immediate action
should be taken to stop the criminals from perpetrating further illegal
acts. The rule of law must be upheld. The Canadian Prime Minister and his
fisheries minister have pronounced that 'the law must be enforced' in this
situation. But if that were truly to be the case right now; if in fact the
law was being enforced and the rule of law respected, things would be very
different than the dangerous farce taking place out there on the water these
days.
The time has come to put an end to the criminality taking place in the
waters off of Burnt Church: the federal government and white fishermen must
respect the law and stop attacking Mik'maq people in the just and legal
exercise of their rights. What we have in Burnt Church at the moment is a
peaceable group of Natives doing what they must to survive and feed
themselves, and in doing so facing down the threat of invasion by a greedy
and violent horde of white people supported by the paramilitary forces of
the state - what else is new? is this the year 1500 or 2000?
Did I say greedy? White fishermen take 99% of the 'resource' from Miramichi
Bay. The Canadians' own high court has recognized the Mik'maq's treaty
right to earn a livelihood by fishing; significantly, it also constrained
the federal government's power to regulate the Mik'maq fishery, stipulating
that it may act to limit the Mik'maq only in the interest of conservation
and after consultation with the Mik'maq themselves. With the Mik'maq taking
a mere 1% of the 'resource' at this point, there is clearly no legal
justification in Canadian law for the federal government's acting against
the Mik'maq fishery.
Did I say violent? The media, in the service of the state and always
respecting the interests of their readers, of course has distorted the
situation and reversed the truth in its portrayal of the violence at Burnt
Church. Capitalizing on the fact that most Canadians instinctually believe
that Natives are bad, the media has proffered no shortage mythical
'warriors' and maligned radical youth to satisfy the fearful mythology of
Indian-hating that runs through mainstream culture. The media portrayals of
the white fishermen as (excuse my paraphrase) 'hard-working family men just
trying to earn a buck and who play by the rules and who won't put up with
any unfair special treatment for Indians', their deference to the federal
messenger, mediator… or whatever, Bob Rae, as thoughtful, reasonable and
tolerant both contrast sharply with the image of the Mik'maq as angry,
irrational and confrontational. Yet, to date, it seems that the only people
who have explicitly threatened violence and who have been proven to wield
weapons on the scene are white fishermen.
All of this is sickening, especially considering where it is all headed.
But it is just the face of things. The deeper reality is that Burnt Church
is about something much larger than lobsters and fish quotas and money. It
is all about mass criminality, conquest and survival, the life and death of
nations.
There is a word that cannot be spoken in this country, and it is 'genocide'.
Oh, Canada often uses the unspeakable word as a weapon against various
Africans, for example, in laying blame for the horrors of famine and war in
places such as Rwanda. Canada has gained much undue respect and unearned
credibility internationally by pointing a finger accusingly, and posturing
outward as the good, sensible and humane people willing to take on the cause
of human rights and to support international law. But there are stains and
the dirt under Canada’s own vigorous fingernail, as the conflict at Oka
before it and Burnt Church now is demonstrating.
I spoke the unspeakable word genocide, and in anticipation of being labelled
an extremist I offer the following proof of Canada's genocidal criminality.
The 1948 UN Convention on Genocide (to which Canada is a signatory and thus
bound) defines the crime of genocide as any action taken by a government
that involves killing members of a group, causing serious bodily or mental
harm to members of the group, deliberately inflicting upon the group
conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in
whole or in part, imposing measures intended to prevent birth within the
group, or forcibly transferring children of one group to another group. To
be criminal, in terms of international law, a government need only do one of
those things. Our sad collective history of dispossession, police
brutality, residential schools, child apprehension, adoption to white
families, and forced economic deprivation is well documented. Thus, who can
deny that Canada has perpetrated the crime of genocide against Indigenous
peoples as defined by the UN?
And it continues. Considering the facts of the present situation at Burnt
Church, it is apparent that the Canadian government has taken actions in
support of the economic interest of white fishermen and to defend the claim
of its own authority over the Mik'maq nation. These do in fact constitute
genocide in its meaning in international law - federal authorities have
attempted to and may yet kill Mik'maq, they have caused serious bodily and
mental harm to Mik'maq, and they are imposing a policy which denies the
right of self-determination and the identity of the Mik'maq people and whose
long-term objective is the destruction of the Mik'maq nation.
In this context, it would seem that the Mik'maq are entirely justified in
defending themselves against the violent attacks by white fishermen, and in
resisting the application of violent force against them in support of white
fishermen's interests by the Canadian state. For all the ignorant talk of
'one law for all' in this country, people seem to easily forget that
Canadian law and policy operate within a larger moral and legal universe,
and that the rule of law is not comprised solely in statutes and policy
statements passed by the Parliament of Canada or in the political decisions
of the Prime Minister, and not at all in public opinion. There are higher
laws that must be respected, and enforced. We all have a responsibility to
those higher laws, and to the demands moral and international laws place on
us, including the responsibility to resist injustice even if that injustice
is committed under the cloak and mantle of governmental authority.
There is a basic and essential principle in British common law, and that is:
unlawful actions are justified by the extremity of the situation. The
concept is an ancient one in the British tradition and has been reaffirmed
many times over in various courts to vindicate people who have stood against
unjust laws and evil intent by rulers - the main idea is that one should not
be punished when the act of breaking a law prevents more evil than it has
caused. By this principle, the Mik'maq and their supporters are perfectly
justified in resisting Canadian authority in this case because they have set
as their objective the simple exercise of their treaty rights and in their
actions seek only to prevent illegal interference from white fishermen and
to stop Canadian authorities from imposing an unjust rule upon them.
There is no aggression on the Mik'maq part, and their actions to this point
have been restrained and have met even the standard justifications of
resistance in the British common law tradition, specifically: preventing a
crime is in fact a reasonable defence in the law; international law is
relevant in Canada; genocide is a crime in international law, and as well
the actions of both the white fisherman and federal authorities are illegal
in Canada; these crimes have obviously been perpetrated and their
continuation is clearly imminent; the Mik'maq's actions are intended
practically to prevent the commission of these crimes; the Mik'maq actions
are reasonable under the circumstances, as they have considered and
exhausted alternative courses of action to effectively prevent the crimes.
It should hold that if the international and domestic law punishes those who
commit crimes, then it clearly authorizes individuals to prevent those
crimes. Thus, the justification for Mik'maq resistance at Burnt Church is
clear. In regards to the federal government: Canada actively promotes a
general policy of genocide and disregards its own constitutional law; both
genocide and the current policy are illegal; Canada is committing genocide;
and, actions taken to stop Canada’s further commission of the crime are
justified and legal under international law. In regards to the organized
racists: white fishermen are collectively acting in an aggressive and
violent manner toward Mik’maq fishermen, having on numerous occasions broken
the peace, explicitly threatened the Mik’maq’s life and property, and
interfered with the Mik’maq’s right to earn a livelihood. The white
fishermen’s actions are illegal and life-threatening, and actions taken by
the Mik’maq to protect their lives and property and to prevent the white
fishermen’s commission of further crimes are certainly justified.
Whatever happens at Burnt Church, let us not waver from the understanding
that the Mik'maq are the righteousness people in this conflict, and that
they are being persecuted for simply living as Mik'maq in accordance with
their traditions, rights and under the provisions of a treaty with the
Crown. We should all stand strongly beside them as they defend themselves
against aggression, and it should make no difference whether the
perpetrators are local fishermen, police officers or high officials of the
federal government. Right is right, and sometimes the law is an ass. The
Mik'maq are standing for justice and the rule of law, for trust among people
and for the honour of sacred promises. No treaty, no relationship, indeed,
no country can survive long in the want of these things. Put in
perspective, there could not be a direr situation than the one we are facing
collectively in Burnt Church - Canada's denial of the existence of treaties
and of Indigenous nations, and its attempted rationalization of genocide
against Indigenous peoples. In the face of such extremity, Mik'maq action
which on the face of it may be unlawful is not wrong at all, but quite the
opposite.
*****
What are your comments?
If the military is oredered to "go in" would this be an unlawful order?
This outa get some good discussion going. Although if your rascist I don't want to hear it. There are other discussion forums for your type.
Sua Sponte