The monopoly on violence -- again
My very first post on the situation in Caledonia was a philosophical piece on the monopoly of violence. Things have come full circle.
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]
Skew my story on Skewz.com
Rate political news for their bias, read related stories, and leave your own skewed commentary
Search for more opinions from Canadian bloggers on these related keywords
Caledonia John Ibbitson Globe and Mail Six Nations Ken Hill Mohawk Warriors Ontario Canada monopoly on violence
Sphere presents related news articles and blog posts
Sphere It!
Comments
...how's the old saying go again?
- Nothing new under the sun - Bible, Ecclesiastes 1:9-14
- All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing - Edmund Burke
- Round round we go - some dizzy person ;-)
Posted by: tomax7 at August 10, 2006 12:09 PM
When will it become possible to replace the leadership in Ontario? Not being familiar with your election laws in detail, I get confused. Who calls provincial elections? Is it regularly scheduled? Is it governed by the timing of national elections. Sorry to ask so many questions but I'm lazy and it's usually easy to find somebody feeling helpful around here, or at least somebody happy to show off their knowledge. ;)
Tim
Posted by: TBinSTL at August 10, 2006 12:24 PM
The provincial government enacted legislation back in late 2005 fixing election dates every four years. The date of the next election is October 4, 2007.
It was nice of our homegrown commies to pick that date -- the 50th anniversary of the launch of Earth's first artificial satellite, Sputnik.
The last election was held on October 2nd, 2003.
Posted by: Chris Taylor at August 10, 2006 12:49 PM
he's wrong again . . Mark Collins posting on Norman's Spectator calls him out.
OTHER COLUMNS WORTH READING--letter sent to the Globe:
'In his column, "There is the principled rule of law, and then there is reality" (August 10), John Ibbitson writes that "Since the Ontario government has no authority to call in the troops, Ottawa would have to take over..."if the situation at Caldenonia was considered an "insurrection". That is incorrect.
Under the "Aid of the Civil Power" provisions of the "National Defence Act" (Part VI) a province may "require" the Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) to provide troops to help the provincial authorities in dealing with a "riot or disturbance". It is up to the CDS to decide what level of military help is to be given--but help "shall" be given, subject to the direction of the Minister of National Defence.
So Queen's Park can indeed "require" Ottawa to send in the troops. The federal defence minister might direct that the aid be minimal or ineffective, but at what cost to relations with the province?'
Reference:
http://lois.justice.gc.ca/en/N-5...n/N-5/ text.html
Mark
Ottawa
Posted by: Fred at August 10, 2006 01:36 PM
They are busy insisting that our laws don't apply to them already. I'm always seeing or reading the words of Hazel Hill repeating this rubbish.
By the way, why do the natives have so many spokespeople? There seems to be 4 or 5 and they always differ a bir from one another in what they say. Sounds like a tactic to try and confuse things further.
Hey Six nations, pick someone to speak for you and stick to them! But then who would choose that person? The elected council, the heireditary chiefs, the clan mothers? Who IS in charge???
Posted by: James at August 10, 2006 02:05 PM
Isn't the Globe's patron saint Neville Chamberlain? Peace in our time and a freshly minted copy of the G&M on every doorstep - Ibbitson would like to teach the world to sing...
Posted by: at August 10, 2006 02:17 PM
I have a feeling that this is going to get even uglier. When Provincial officials are self appointedly above the law, we better watch out. Our society is slipping into a hole that will be hard to dig ourselves out of.
If McShifty and company are not held in contempt of court, then precedent will be set.
Where is the line drawn?
Posted by: TrustOnlyMulder at August 10, 2006 04:18 PM
I am a former Navy Seal. I behaved dishonorably in a battle involving a pajamas media blog called protein wisdom.
my comrades have died to protect this country. by propagating a lie, i dishonor their memories.
i must die too.
peace, fellow pajamas media members.
peace.
sincerely,
matthew heidt
Posted by: matt at August 10, 2006 06:03 PM
McCreepy and the Gang have demonstrated since taking office that not only do they not respect the rule of law, they don't understand the concept of democracy and won't acknowledge either the Charter or the constitution.
I say throw the book at the lot of them.
The Globe must be in a state of near panic over the latest in a long string of Fiberal Fiascos. The watchdog's master isn't worth protecting any longer. Quel quandary.
Posted by: Selma at August 10, 2006 06:38 PM
Allowing people to live in fear of their lives is ok. Ask the people how live by Ipperwash Park. I get email from some of these people my heart goes out to them. No one in Canada should live in fear unacceptable. NO ONE. We have women, children and elderly afraid to leave there home or do thing on their property. They and can not move home value reason, not worth any thing. The government should take responsibility since they let these family’s down big time.
Posted by: jim smith at August 10, 2006 07:52 PM
I don't understand why people who unconditionally support the First Nations on this regard are blind to what their stance means: if we allow the First Nations to do whatever they want, then we must abandon our system of government. It's that simple.
Either the rules are applied to all, or they are applied to none. Because for whatever reason you give for the First Nations to be free from the rule of law, you must admit that there are other reasons that are also as legitimate as theirs are. And so long as one group has carte blanche to do whatever they see fit in regards to whatever claims they have, then you must also give the same rights to all people who claim to have a legitimate gripe.
And by extent, so long as they claim to not be adherents to the rule of Canadian law, so too can they no longer use that law to make complaints against non-natives. You can't have it both ways; either you support the law or you don't. Cherry-picking only proves that you support the law only so long as it is in your favor. And if you support the law in one case, by extension you support the law generally.
In this instance, I think all one has to do is look through the history of these natives and see if they have ever petitioned the courts in any way. If the answer is yes, then they clearly cannot claim to be outside of the law. At that point, their land claim still is a legitimate claim, but their protest methods clearly become a violation of the law. And thus, Judge Marshall is correct to rule in favor of enforcing the law.
I mean, is there any documentation anywhere that shows that this particular group of First Nations has used the court for any reason? If so, then they cannot claim to be non-adherents to the law.
Posted by: Surecure at August 10, 2006 10:55 PM
Hey Surecure, long time no rant eh? ~:D
Six Nations/Ken Hill et al lost several court cases on this piece of land already. Six Nations Band Council approved the sale of the land to the developer too. All on paper already.
The current sh*t disturbers are not the band council. Its the Mohawk Warrior Society, a friggin' biker gang without the bikes. Into smuggling smokes, guns and drugs. Just slap a Hell's Angels jacket on Janie Jaimeson there and you get a better picture of what's going on.
They want a property that fronts on #6 highway to drop a casino on, so they can make a buttload of money. The property in question is perfect for a casino, people don't have to turn off the highway to go down into the Reserve.
Their chosen method is to attack the residents bordering "their" land. If they were sitting quietly off in the back corner of the place, I'm sure nobody would give a rip by now. Its been five months.
Of course they have not been doing that, they've been conducting psychological warfare against the people living next to "their" land the whole time. Loud music, fires, throwing rocks at 3AM, beating people up, the works.
With the full cooperation of the OPP, I hasten to add. Currently the cops are under orders not to engage the natives, just the townies. Meaning they won't stop the clowns throwing rocks at your house, but they will arrest YOU if you throw the rocks back. Or put up a sign, or take pictures of the native "protesters", or yell at them, or whatever.
I have to say, this is really begining to irritate me.
Posted by: The Phantom at August 11, 2006 07:54 AM
Hey Surecure, long time no rant eh? ~:D
Six Nations/Ken Hill et al lost several court cases on this piece of land already. Six Nations Band Council approved the sale of the land to the developer too. All on paper already.
The current peace disturbers are not the band council. Its the Mohawk Warrior Society, a friggin' biker gang without the bikes. Into smuggling smokes, guns and drugs. Just slap a Hell's Angels jacket on Janie Jaimeson there and you get a better picture of what's going on.
They want a property that fronts on #6 highway to drop a casino on, so they can make a buttload of money. The property in question is perfect for a casino, people don't have to turn off the highway to go down into the Reserve.
Their chosen method is to attack the residents bordering "their" land. If they were sitting quietly off in the back corner of the place, I'm sure nobody would give a rip by now. Its been five months.
Of course they have not been doing that, they've been conducting psychological warfare against the people living next to "their" land the whole time. Loud music, fires, throwing rocks at 3AM, beating people up, the works.
With the full cooperation of the OPP, I hasten to add. Currently the cops are under orders not to engage the natives, just the townies. Meaning they won't stop the clowns throwing rocks at your house, but they will arrest YOU if you throw the rocks back. Or put up a sign, or take pictures of the native "protesters", or yell at them, or whatever.
I have to say, this is really begining to irritate me.
Posted by: The Phantom at August 11, 2006 07:55 AM
just a note: i'm relatively sure that the assclown posting as "matt" above and claiming to be matthew heidt is not who he says he is.
Posted by: anon at August 11, 2006 08:02 PM
"No government, any more than an individual, will long be respected, without being truly respectable; nor be truly respectable, without possessing a certain portion of order and stability" ("The Federalist Papers", no. 62).
Posted by: MSYB at August 12, 2006 02:56 PM
 
|
|
