York1: Thanks for introducing a bit of factual reality to this thread.
charlie hebdo York1: Thanks for introducing a bit of factual reality to this thread.
The post by York1 may be factual reality, but I have yet to understand why the topic of treaties was introduced into the thread several posts earlier in the first place.
[quote user="Euclid"]
The post by York1 may be factual reality, but I have yet to understand why the topic of treaties was introduced into the thread several posts earlier in the first place. [/quote]
All 'agreements' between parties who dispute any issue depend upon the TRUST of the parties involved in the agreement (no matter what you call that agreement - treaty, contract or anything else). Without the sustained TRUST of the parties involved in making that agreement - the agreement is not worth the paper it is printed on or the bits and bytes that represent it in a computer file.
In our personal lives we know that it takes TWO to make a marriage work. It only takes one to make a marriage fail.
Disputing parties enter into building something that is agreeable to both from the view point of not trusting each other. The Canadian First Nations have had similar experience with the USA's Native Americans in the distrust of treaties and agreements made with European's that have come to their ancestors land.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACD Euclid charlie hebdo York1: Thanks for introducing a bit of factual reality to this thread. The post by York1 may be factual reality, but I have yet to understand why the topic of treaties was introduced into the thread several posts earlier in the first place. All 'agreements' between parties who dispute any issue depend upon the TRUST of the parties involved in the agreement (no matter what you call that agreement - treaty, contract or anything else). Without the sustained TRUST of the parties involved in making that agreement - the agreement is not worth the paper it is printed on or the bits and bytes that represent it in a computer file. In our personal lives we know that it takes TWO to make a marriage work. It only takes one to make a marriage fail. Disputing parties enter into building something that is agreeable to both from the view point of not trusting each other. The Canadian First Nations have had similar experience with the USA's Native Americans in the distrust of treaties and agreements made with European's that have come to their ancestors land.
Euclid charlie hebdo York1: Thanks for introducing a bit of factual reality to this thread. The post by York1 may be factual reality, but I have yet to understand why the topic of treaties was introduced into the thread several posts earlier in the first place.
Convicted One: "Pehaps we might interest them in signing a treaty?
Euclid: "The way this is working out, I doubt they would feel a need to sign one."
Then you said treaties are worthless. Then I defended treaties as being somewhat effective. But I agree that treaties and contracts are breached frequently. But in any case, I see no purpose or possiblity for a treaty to solve the Canadian problem.
EuclidThe post by York1 may be factual reality, but I have yet to understand why the topic of treaties was introduced into the thread several posts earlier in the first place.
Sarcastic humor. If the context didn't tip you off, the little whistling emoticon should have.
That said, I repeat that one of the 'correct' approaches that should be taken in this situation is to propose, and then formalize, treaties with all the First Nations groups whose land is crossed by railroads, specifically establishing full 'right of passage' under all circumstances and allowing use of the Canadian police power to deal with 'trespass' on that right of way, separate from any issue regarding the underlying land. Until that has been done ... expect repeats of this business any time an adequate job of 'community organizing' around a popularizable issue is arranged.
Overmod Euclid The post by York1 may be factual reality, but I have yet to understand why the topic of treaties was introduced into the thread several posts earlier in the first place. Sarcastic humor. If the context didn't tip you off, the little whistling emoticon should have. That said, I repeat that one of the 'correct' approaches that should be taken in this situation is to propose, and then formalize, treaties with all the First Nations groups whose land is crossed by railroads, specifically establishing full 'right of passage' under all circumstances and allowing use of the Canadian police power to deal with 'trespass' on that right of way, separate from any issue regarding the underlying land. Until that has been done ... expect repeats of this business any time an adequate job of 'community organizing' around a popularizable issue is arranged.
Euclid The post by York1 may be factual reality, but I have yet to understand why the topic of treaties was introduced into the thread several posts earlier in the first place.
I get the sarcasm fine. It is just not clear as to what angle it is working. But to your suggestion of an approach that should be taken, I don't see any reason why the First Nations groups would sign such a treaty. Why should they? They don't need a treaty to have their demands met. If the government cannot enforce a trespass law because no such law exists, then pass one and enforce that.
EuclidIf the government cannot enforce a trespass law because no such law exists, then pass one and enforce that.
How would you propose to do that when the underlying issue is precisely Canadian government authority on 'tribal' land?
Completely aside from the 'optics' of enforcing selective-appearing white man's laws on First Nations people, of course.
First you have to get the right to deal with 'trespassers' on railroad rights-of-way (notice how I carefully avoid the term 'railroad property'), and that can't be decided by government fiat on land that the government has no hegemony over -- or, as appears in the present case, has specifically declined or ceded hegemony over.
I suppose an interesting hypothetical case would be if a First Nations group decided to contract with a foreign power to base short-range ballistic missiles on their land, or support 'militias' with the sort of anti-government political agendas that many groups in the United States espouse. It is possible that similar 'expedient' action (perhaps on some national-security grounds related to transportation) could be cobbled up ... but the political fallout might be deadly, even for surgical actions designed only to reopen the blockaded zones to trains.
Overmod Euclid If the government cannot enforce a trespass law because no such law exists, then pass one and enforce that. How would you propose to do that when the underlying issue is precisely Canadian government authority on 'tribal' land? Completely aside from the 'optics' of enforcing selective-appearing white man's laws on First Nations people, of course. First you have to get the right to deal with 'trespassers' on railroad rights-of-way (notice how I carefully avoid the term 'railroad property'), and that can't be decided by government fiat on land that the government has no hegemony over -- or, as appears in the present case, has specifically declined or ceded hegemony over. I suppose an interesting hypothetical case would be if a First Nations group decided to contract with a foreign power to base short-range ballistic missiles on their land, or support 'militias' with the sort of anti-government political agendas that many groups in the United States espouse. It is possible that similar 'expedient' action (perhaps on some national-security grounds related to transportation) could be cobbled up ... but the political fallout might be deadly, even for surgical actions designed only to reopen the blockaded zones to trains.
Euclid If the government cannot enforce a trespass law because no such law exists, then pass one and enforce that.
I have no idea of the details of the land ownership of the First Nations lands. Does the government have no authority on tribal land? Are all these blockades on grade crossings that are contained within these lands? And for the ones that are, does that mean that the road, the grade crossing, and the rail corridor are all illegally encroaching on those lands? I would assume not.
I would assume that those roads, crossings, and rail corridors are legally placed, and that damaging them or blocking them is illegal. Then from that point, I assume that this blocking is illegal, but that the government is choosing not to enforce the law. If this is the way it is, then I see no solution that that problem.
The way I see this is there are two parties in direct oppostion to each other:
1) The First Nations people.
2) The citizens not part of the First Nations people.
Then a third party, not in opposition to anybody, is the government, which is trying to broker some type of settlement but refuses to invoke any authority in the dispute, and thus appears to be siding with the First Nations against citizens who are not part of the First Nations.
The interests of the latter is that their business and commerce shall not be interfered with by the protests. This stalemate can't go on forever. There is real damage being caused to people depending on rail transportation. The goverment may believe in the style of appeasement and dialogue, but tensions are rising in a real dispute. A violent breaking point is likely close at hand, and government's passivity is doing nothing to prevent that.
What happens when that inevitable day arrives?
Euclid It is just not clear as to what angle it is working.
My suggestion of a treaty was a response to your lamenting: " The first offer was to take down the blockades if the RCMP withdrew from Wet’suwet’en territory. Then more conditions were added as more factions joined the protest."
That comment reads to me as a lament suggesting that you believe they are not bargaining in good faith.
I believe that there is an abundance of North American history where we renegged on treaties that we our selves insisted that the natives sign.
So, I was just lampooning the value of trust once it's already been exploited.
Euclid: Since you and everyone else on here actually know nothing about the law and history of the parties involved, your remarks are rather silly. Sorry.
Convicted One Euclid It is just not clear as to what angle it is working. My suggestion of a treaty was a response to your lamenting: " The first offer was to take down the blockades if the RCMP withdrew from Wet’suwet’en territory. Then more conditions were added as more factions joined the protest." That comment reads to me as a lament suggesting that you believe they are not bargaining in good faith. I believe that there is an abundance of North American history where we renegged on treaties that we our selves insisted that the natives sign. So, I was just lampooning the value of trust once it's already been exploited.
Yes, that is exactly what I figured you were getting at.
EuclidThen a third party, not in opposition to anybody, is the government, which is trying to broker some type of settlement but refuses to invoke any authority in the dispute, and thus appears to be siding with the First Nations against citizens who are not part of the First Nations.
Not choosing violent confrontation is not the same as siding with them.
EuclidThis stalemate can't go on forever.
All the blockades except for the one south of Montreal have ended.
MidlandMike Euclid Then a third party, not in opposition to anybody, is the government, which is trying to broker some type of settlement but refuses to invoke any authority in the dispute, and thus appears to be siding with the First Nations against citizens who are not part of the First Nations. Not choosing violent confrontation is not the same as siding with them.
Euclid Then a third party, not in opposition to anybody, is the government, which is trying to broker some type of settlement but refuses to invoke any authority in the dispute, and thus appears to be siding with the First Nations against citizens who are not part of the First Nations.
Maybe so, but choosing to let them block rail traffic without consequence is exactly the same as siding with them.
If the police ordered the tracks to be cleared and the protestors refused; and then if the police arrested them, I would not consider that to be violent confrontation. Would you? Fighting the police and resisting arrest would be violence and that would be the choice of the protesters.
EuclidIf the police ordered the tracks to be cleared and the protestors refused; and then if the police arrested them, I would not consider that to be violent confrontation. Would you? Fighting the police and resisting arrest would be violence and that would be the choice of the protesters.
Semantical BS. Initiating 'arrests' under such circumstance is a act of creating violence.
Basically what Balt said.
Recently the police showed up at a blockade in great numbers, and the protesters left. It's obvious thet the authorities are not on their side.
BaltACD Euclid If the police ordered the tracks to be cleared and the protestors refused; and then if the police arrested them, I would not consider that to be violent confrontation. Would you? Fighting the police and resisting arrest would be violence and that would be the choice of the protesters. Semantical BS. Initiating 'arrests' under such circumstance is a act of creating violence.
Euclid If the police ordered the tracks to be cleared and the protestors refused; and then if the police arrested them, I would not consider that to be violent confrontation. Would you? Fighting the police and resisting arrest would be violence and that would be the choice of the protesters.
Euclid BaltACD Euclid If the police ordered the tracks to be cleared and the protestors refused; and then if the police arrested them, I would not consider that to be violent confrontation. Would you? Fighting the police and resisting arrest would be violence and that would be the choice of the protesters. Semantical BS. Initiating 'arrests' under such circumstance is a act of creating violence. I disagree. Turning an arrest into violence is the choice of the person being arrested, unless the police are actually using violence in initiating the arrest, which would be illegal.
I disagree. Turning an arrest into violence is the choice of the person being arrested, unless the police are actually using violence in initiating the arrest, which would be illegal.
Throwing gasoline on a smoldering fire doesn't realistically put the fire out.
BaltACD Euclid BaltACD Euclid If the police ordered the tracks to be cleared and the protestors refused; and then if the police arrested them, I would not consider that to be violent confrontation. Would you? Fighting the police and resisting arrest would be violence and that would be the choice of the protesters. Semantical BS. Initiating 'arrests' under such circumstance is a act of creating violence. I disagree. Turning an arrest into violence is the choice of the person being arrested, unless the police are actually using violence in initiating the arrest, which would be illegal. Throwing gasoline on a smoldering fire doesn't realistically put the fire out.
Neither does letting it burn. How about pouring a little water on it?
EuclidNeither does letting it burn. How about pouring a little water on it?
Ask my two guys who went to the hospital after a property owner took exception to their extinguishing his out of control "controlled burn..."
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
tree68 Euclid Neither does letting it burn. How about pouring a little water on it? Ask my two guys who went to the hospital after a property owner took exception to their extinguishing his out of control "controlled burn..."
Euclid Neither does letting it burn. How about pouring a little water on it?
Were they trying to arrest the propery owner?
Euclid BaltACD Euclid BaltACD Euclid If the police ordered the tracks to be cleared and the protestors refused; and then if the police arrested them, I would not consider that to be violent confrontation. Would you? Fighting the police and resisting arrest would be violence and that would be the choice of the protesters. Semantical BS. Initiating 'arrests' under such circumstance is a act of creating violence. I disagree. Turning an arrest into violence is the choice of the person being arrested, unless the police are actually using violence in initiating the arrest, which would be illegal. Throwing gasoline on a smoldering fire doesn't realistically put the fire out. Neither does letting it burn. How about pouring a little water on it?
Police actions are not water - they are something with a very low flash point and escalate smoldering situations to raging fires in a instant.
EuclidWere they trying to arrest the propery owner?
No - they were trying to put the fire out. As firefighters with our fire department. After the fire was reported to 9-1-1. The police did respond to the scene after our people were assaulted.
Never under estimate the actions a determined person will take.
Semantically speaking -- what if it's a hydrocarbon fire to start with? Or a sodium fire, or a metal/fluorine fire?
The right response -- and, often, the critical thinking that goes with deciding a right response in emergency or rapid-required-response conditions -- is as important as do-gooding action to 'make' a response.
I'm tempted to ask Tree exactly how his people decided the property-owner's "controlled burn" was actually out of control ... or whether it was a response under 'fire-danger' conditions where any burn, 'controlled' or otherwise, was not allowed. And precisely how they took action to stop that 'controlled burn' that the property owner, rationally or irrationally, took objection to.
That's relevant in the case mentioned above, where Balt noted that any 'police' action to arrest protestors might count as "violence" in someone's (probably a protestor's) definition of that. I think there is little doubt that Mohawk protestors would take arrests as constituting an 'actionable' escalation -- it's among other things something right out of the old Alinsky playbook as an excuse for generating additional 'volunteer' arrests to clog the justice system, make a greater statement, etc., and in a situation where protestors are already piling up pallets right next to moving trains to set fire to them, it would be all too easy for 'arrests' to be precisely the sort of trigger that would verge 'civil disobedience' over into overt actions requiring a greater degree of force. Groups like Sendero Luminoso used acts of 'terror' to provoke what they perceived would be unpopular government response; I'm reasonably sure that the lessons there have been well recognized and perhaps well learned as potential tactics.
OvermodI'm tempted to ask Tree exactly how his people decided the property-owner's "controlled burn" was actually out of control ... or whether it was a response under 'fire-danger' conditions where any burn, 'controlled' or otherwise, was not allowed. And precisely how they took action to stop that 'controlled burn' that the property owner, rationally or irrationally, took objection to.
The fire was throwing flames 30-40' in the air (from what I was told by my people - I was out of town), and more importantly, was unattended - ie, the property owner wasn't there, nor was anyone else. Had he been there, he likely would have told responding FF's that it was a controlled burn, and that he was watching it to make sure it didn't wander. At that point, our folks would have left without taking action. He didn't arrive until extinguishment was underway.
DEC also took an interest because there was trash involved - a big no-no in NYS.
The upcoming annual spring burn ban notwithstanding, people regularly ask if they can burn a pile of brush. As long as it meets the DEC limitations, they are free to do so, although we do ask them to contact our dispatch center to advise them of the location so we don't get called out due to a passerby seeing the fire. Because some people have no idea where they are, we sometimes get called out anyhow...
This jackass assaulted firefighters working to extinguish an out-of-control, unattended burn? Was he arrested, and later convicted of anything? I surely hope so.
tree68The fire was throwing flames 30-40' in the air (from what I was told by my people - I was out of town), and more importantly, was unattended - ie, the property owner wasn't there, nor was anyone else. Had he been there, he likely would have told responding FF's that it was a controlled burn, and that he was watching it to make sure it didn't wander. At that point, our folks would have left without taking action. He didn't arrive until extinguishment was underway.
Meets all my tests, and then some. (I confess I might not have left 'without action' if the flames were reaching that height, especially if there were sparks or debris coming off ... but I respect that Tree's people would do so as a courtesy.)
The concern I had was that in some cases I've read about, government responders may be high-handed in their response, especially when 'infractions' are involved. This says nothing about whether their actions are safe or correct; it's only the perception of official arrogance on 'private property' that leads to problems, and as we know, many protestors are already geared up to view any intervention by police or other governmental 'agencies' in the most spinnable-as-provocative sense they can work.
As already noted, this is a very difficult situation to involve people in, and it requires careful political choices even when 'right is on your side' (or even when objective safety is involved) in many potential situations.
In the specific context of the protests: I have not yet seen clearly in the press reporting whether the perceived 'presence of the RCMP on Wet'suwet'en lands' has been definitively addressed, or that the 'solidarity' blockades consider this as anything but a pretext going forward. This is almost certainly more complex -- and representative of better government response 'thinking' -- than the public reports have appeared to indicate. Why does it appear that all the current government departments concerned seem to misunderstand any form of action or statement other than spin generation of one sort or another? Have they actually forgotten how to take stands and then defend them fairly even when taking no overt action?
Lithonia Operator This jackass assaulted firefighters working to extinguish an out-of-control, unattended burn? Was he arrested, and later convicted of anything? I surely hope so.
Last I heard, the state police were going to pursue charges. DEC may have pursued charges for the illegal burn (trash, branches larger than allowed, etc). Unfortunately, one of the firefighters (the worse of the two injured) otherwise counts this property owner as a friend and declined to press charges. More than a few people would have liked to see him leave in the back seat of a patrol car.
Very unsettling.
https://business.financialpost.com/opinion/joe-oliver-trudeaus-panicky-give-away-to-hereditary-chiefs-creates-more-chaos-and-confusion
MiningmanVery unsettling. https://business.financialpost.com/opinion/joe-oliver-trudeaus-panicky-give-away-to-hereditary-chiefs-creates-more-chaos-and-confusion
My daughter loves Oliver and listens attentively to him when she can.
However, I'm going to have to wait for her to get home from school, as when I attempt to pull up this link, the Financial Post sends me all kinds of advertising links for about a minute and a half in the background, but won't render anything but a blue page with their logo on it. Which changes size when I 'scroll down' but doesn't show anything else.
You might have to summarize his points if this happens to other posters too.
I saw it all right. It took a minute or two to load, and there were some pop-ups (no surprise, every news site has 'em) but no problems otherwise.
Mr. Oliver makes some good points.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.