Corrections and Responses

I just attempted to edit my last post for a couple of corrections, and now the comments that prompted the corrections have disappeared. I'll re-post the comments here (from my email).

g has left a new comment on your post "News Roundup":

This whole paragraph is untrue:

Morales is the Chief at Tyendinaga, not Six Nations. There are no ships either place, and nobody blocked a ship.

Fontaine does not support blockades, but he does support a day of protest and demonstration.

The OPP did not ignore a court injunction, they carried it out April 20 2006. After that, the Court of Appeal overturned the injunction and everything else.

Assertions of aboriginal land rights are a Constitutional issue, not a policing issue, and the legal course of action is negotiations.

The reason for that is that Canada does not have title to the land.

It is Canada that is there illegally.

If you are going to trash people, at least get your facts right. Otherwise, it is libel and you can be sued. I am sending this to Morales.

Posted by g to TDot Grit at May 17, 2007 5:50 AM

I do stand corrected. I misread the article that prompted my post. Robert Morales is the Chief Negotiator for the Hul'qumi'num Treaty Group. He had nothing to do with the blockade, which did occur. The blockade was carried out by six First Nations canoes, not Six Nations as I originally posted. I apologize for the error.

"g" is incorrect in stating that nobody blocked a ship, unless the Vancouver Sun just made the story up. Fontaine can't say that he doesn't support blockades, but a day of protest and demonstration, when some of the protest and demonstration will involve...blockades.

I wasn't talking about the first injunction carried out on April 30, but the one after that. The first injunction was enforced, but native protesters returned and created a new blockade, against which another injunction was issued. The second one was not enforced, and when the Ontario government bought the land from the developer, the second injunction was moot. There are news stories pointing out that the judge who issued it was angry about it not being enforced.

I agree that assertions on land are a constitutional issue, but they do become a policing issue when laws are openly broken by people who create illegal blockades. The constitutional issues will be dealt with by the government and the courts, but the when laws are broken the police need to step in.

Canada's legal/illegal presence is an issue that has yet to be worked out by the courts, neither you nor I are legal experts.

I corrected my inaccuracies. Now since you trashed me, try to get your facts right as well.

Now for the second comment:

Anwar has left a new comment on your post "News Roundup":

The thing is a "few buddies and you" have not been systematically discriminated against for hundreds of years. Even a couple of days ago the Pope himself said the natives of Brazil wanted to be converted, thus ignoring the history of oppression against them.

It is for the same reason black community need special help with crime, and the native community need special help with social projects. Ignoring them isn't going to make the problems go away.

Posted by Anwar to TDot Grit at May 17, 2007 10:50 AM



I agree that the Canadian government has a lot of skeletons in its closet when it comes to its policy towards native Canadians. But you're trying to justify a crime by pointing to past injustices. Two wrongs do not make a right. If blockades are illegal, they should be removed by law enforcement. If they're legal, then anyone should be able to block train tracks. It can't be legal for one racial group and not for the rest. The pope is an idiot who has absolutely nothing to do with what we're talking about, and I'm not even sure why you're bringing him up.

I'm also not sure why you bring up the black community in this post. But yes, ignoring native complaints will not make them go away. Conversely, breaking the law and disrupting the lives of your fellow Canadians doesn't help your cause either.