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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
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?
Ask my two guys who went to the hospital after a property owner took exception to their extinguishing his out of control "controlled burn..."
Were they trying to arrest the propery owner?
EuclidNeither does letting it burn. How about pouring a little water on it?
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...
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.
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.
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.
Not choosing violent confrontation is not the same as siding with them.
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.
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.
EuclidThis stalemate can't go on forever.
All the blockades except for the one south of Montreal have ended.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
EuclidIf the government cannot enforce a trespass law because no such law exists, then pass one and enforce that.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
charlie hebdo York1: Thanks for introducing a bit of factual reality to this thread.
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.
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.
[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]
BaltACDIran nuclear Treaty, Paris Climate Treaty just name two broken treaties in the last 3 years.
Neither of those were treaties.
Both the Iran Nuclear agreement and the Paris Climate Accord were agreements signed by President Obama, but were not approved by the Senate.
The Constitution says that the president, "shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur;".
Alexander Hamilton made it clear that one person, the president, should not be able to tie the hands of administrations that follow without the approval of the Senate.
York1 John
Euclid BaltACD Treaty's are like contracts - they can be broken at will. The concept of honoring agreed obligations has very little creedence in today's world. I don't believe that is the case. Contracts can be broken, but there is a price to pay for breaking them. I have no idea whether there is a contract or treaty in the matters of these protests. But if two parties are at war, they have no contract. There are actually three parties to this conflict.
BaltACD Treaty's are like contracts - they can be broken at will. The concept of honoring agreed obligations has very little creedence in today's world.
I don't believe that is the case. Contracts can be broken, but there is a price to pay for breaking them. I have no idea whether there is a contract or treaty in the matters of these protests. But if two parties are at war, they have no contract. There are actually three parties to this conflict.
I'm starting to think you've never worked for a railroad.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
Iran nuclear Treaty, Paris Climate Treaty just name two broken treaties in the last 3 years.
There are always prices to be paid for the dishonor of breaking a contract or treaty. The biggest price that get paid is in any level of trust between any parties involved.
As a world we have gone from 'trust but verify' to no trust whatsoever. Warmongers live for wars they can die in, not for peace.
BaltACDTreaty's are like contracts - they can be broken at will. The concept of honoring agreed obligations has very little creedence in today's world.
Euclid Convicted One Pehaps we might interest them in signing a treaty? The way this is working out, I doubt they would feel a need to sign one.
Convicted One Pehaps we might interest them in signing a treaty?
The way this is working out, I doubt they would feel a need to sign one.
Treaty's are like contracts - they can be broken at will. The concept of honoring agreed obligations has very little creedence in today's world.
Convicted OnePehaps we might interest them in signing a treaty?
EuclidWhen resistance has the government on the run, that resistance doesn’t stop for tentative deals. If you worry about offending people, you empower them to win every argument. I doubt that this is moving toward a solution. Clearly, it is intensifying. 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.
Pehaps we might interest them in signing a treaty?
It was predictable that the tentative deal would not be enough to bring down the rail blockades. When resistance has the government on the run, that resistance doesn’t stop for tentative deals. If you worry about offending people, you empower them to win every argument. I doubt that this is moving toward a solution. Clearly, it is intensifying. 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.
https://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/mohawks-face-online-threats-hate-as-protest-continues
I coincidently just got back from Alberta, but I was about as far from the oil sands as you could get and still be in that provence. I was on a ski trip in the opposite corner. Retirement is great.
Crude oil prices have been down for a while. Oil sand projects are long term investments, and were more viable when it looked like the price of crude would keep rising. Concern over price uncertainties discourages such long term investments, and there are still plenty of other investment opportunities in conventional oil.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.