Angry in the Great White North

From the Globe and Mail:

Let's not let people get killed because of some judge.

Ontario Attorney-General Michael Bryant has decided to appeal the latest contempt-of-court ruling by Mr. Justice T. David Marshall that orders the eviction of native protesters from the disputed Caledonia lands and an end to all negotiations until the site has been cleared.

The Superior Court judge's ruling is incendiary and dangerous, and we can only hope that it is swiftly overturned at the Ontario Court of Appeal.

No one lightly disregards preservation of the rule of law. It is, as Judge Marshall said, "the pre-eminent condition of freedom and peace in a democratic society." He was right as well to say that "even a small tear in the cloth of our justice system spoils the whole fabric of society."

So the judge gets full marks for standing up for principle. But there is principle, and there is reality.

In Caledonia, militant natives have seized land to protest against what they see as the unwillingness of the federal government to settle their land claim. They have already demonstrated a propensity for violence. People close to the scene are absolutely convinced that, if the Ontario Provincial Police try to disperse the occupation, people will be killed or seriously hurt.

The problem is that a propensity for violence is exactly what requires a firm response. Violence by any other group other than the State strikes at the heart of what defines the State. The core definition of the State is that it is the sole entity that can use violence as a way of imposing its will. The rest of us do not indulge in personal revenge when we are wronged. Instead, we go to the State with our complaint, and when the State decides it is necessary, uses violence on our behalf to rectify the situation.

We call it the court system.

That's what Justice David Marshall is on about. He can't say it in such stark terms for fear of delicate media types having an attack of the vapours, but he knows that if the courts demand a violent reaction to a challenge to State power, the lack of such a reaction is not just embarrassing. It calls into question the legitimacy of the State itself.

This is heavy stuff, I know. But this has always been at the centre of this conflict. The "propensity for violence" exhibited by the Mohawk Warriors and others is not an unfortunate side issue. It is the central issue. Not a land claim. The land claim constitutes the side show in all this.

The State (in this case, the Province of Ontario under Liberal Premier Dalton McGuinty) has so far allowed another entity to use violence to impose its will independently of the will and control of the State within the borders of the State. You can't have two States sharing the same territory. One has to go, or the territory has to be broken into two pieces.

Actually, to give John Ibbitson credit, he recognizes this:

Now, there is every reason for a public debate on whether Ottawa and the Ontario government should confront the Mohawk Warriors and their allies, to reassert the rule of law and the monopoly of the state on the legitimate use of force.

If Caledonia is an insurrection, then the army is the proper instrument to suppress it. Since the Ontario government has no authority to call in the troops, Ottawa would have to take over.

But then he pulls back:

But today is not the day, and Caledonia is not the place.

It is possible to avoid violence. That is why federal, provincial and native negotiators have been at work on crafting a settlement. The principal negotiators are on an August break, but four side tables are continuing their work.

How wrong-headed is that: ordering governments not to seek a negotiated settlement to a tense situation until after the state has employed violence?

Unfortunately, using violence is not wrong-headed, it is brutally necessary. The message that has been sent in all this is that if the Mohawk Warriors and their kind employ a sufficiently high level of violence, the government will back down. The more violence, the more likely negotiations will go in their favour. Don't take a little bit of land, take a lot of land. Don't claim empty land, claim land that already has people on it. If you have a choice, choose the path that puts more people at risk for losing their homes and even their lives.

In Canada, such behaviour is rewarded, at least if Ibbitson has his way.

The irony in all this is that this really has nothing to do with land. I think it has everything to do with gambling. I think Ken Hill and his allies in the Mohawk Warriors are employing these tactics in order to achieve two goals.

First, it is to sideline opposition to his gambling plans within the band council by being seen as the architect of a major victory over the white man.

Second, it is to establish in practise the existence of a second State within the borders of Ontario. If the Natives successfully use violence to impose their will, they will have met the minimum standard for the definition of a State. Once that is done, and the governments of Ontario and Canada do nothing to prove that Native violence is ineffective in achieving Native aims, then the Natives will use that power to demand more and more -- more land, more casinos, more whatever. They will insist that the law does not apply to them, and that they don't care what limits or restrictions or prohibitions the law places on their goals. If the government balks, violence will erupt. Over and over again.

And John Ibbitson will say over and over again, today is not the day.

As for Ken Hill, he won't care. He'll have his casino and he'll be making his money.

[Thanks to Halls of Macadamia]