“The Mohawks should not be allowed to operate above the rule of law.”

I never know how to formulate a simple response to a simple question about whether “they”….any “they”…are justified in breaking the law as a strategy to bring about social change. So I won’t. But here are some of the unsynthesized elements that would, if I had a bit more time, form the basis of a stunning analysis.

a) Sol Alinki, the great community activist, would laugh at your question. He’d say that only one thing matters: what specifically are they trying to do, and will this work?

b) I favour the rule of law. But that assumes all parties honour the law. In the matter of observing its claims and treaties, the government has been found in breach of its own agreements by the Auditor General and a number of independent reviews. When the state refuses to honour the law but insists that its citizens do, and utilizes state-sanctioned force against them, then, as South Africa learned, there will be a reaction.

c) We tend to be more forgiving of disruptive social protest and a little less insistent on the “rule of law” when we like the protesters, have you noticed? I don’t recall any Westerner EVER commenting: “But all those people protesting in Tienanmen Square - they must have been violating all KINDS of rules!”

d) Aboriginal blockades are, in my opinion, a rather well chosen gesture. They sum up the entire land claim/treaty issue simply and graphically. Their statement is quite straightforward. It’s this: “We had a deal. We both acknowledge that we gave you the right to cross our land in exchange for specific benefits. We honoured our side of the bargain: you’ve cheated on yours. Your right of transit is hereby revoked.”

e) Law and justice are not synonymous.

Gentlemen, all good points for sure.

Balb, I hope by your point, c, you are not suggesting that I “don’t like” Aboriginals. That is not the case.

I recognize fully, JB, that there exists decades of resentment at the governments’ unwillingness to settle land claims fairly.
My point, however clumsy it may have been, is that the Mohawks are probably doing more harm than good to the overall cause of Natives in Canada by operating outside of the rule of law. Sure, it draws a lot of attention but I think it draws the wrong kind and only encourages more racism and polarized opinion against settling the land claims.

It looks to me from what I have read that the person who comes across as the winner in all of this is Commissioner Fantino for negotiating an early end to the blockade. That is what will get all the press this evening. Shawn Brant will be all but forgotten until the next time he tries to blockade (or perform some other escalation) something.

Brant’s rhetoric was also deplorable. On the news last night he was speaking about how his warriors were armed and ready for a fight. The day before he warned that the rail line would be blocked with a school bus full of woman and children.

Personally I think Chief Fontaine has a much more proactive approach that will be more successful in the long term. Brant and the Mowhawks come across as lunatic fringe.

“Balb, I hope by your point, c, you are not suggesting that I “don’t like” Aboriginals. That is not the case.”

I put it badly. Let me rephrase: the demonstrators at Tienanmen Square undoubtedly broke the law, impeded traffic, and inconvenienced many thousands of people. And their action was a far more direct attack on the state than the Aboriginal actions today: they were seeking a revolutionary transformation of government, whereas the demonstrators today are only asking that the Government honour agreements that it (the Government) acknowledges.

Yeow! Kathy Shaidle’s ladling out some heapin’ helpin’s o’ racism. I s’pose it’s like I was ayin’ before, if it weren’t fer fringe radical agitators like Kathy an’ Shawn, nobuddy’d pay the slightest attention. Shawn draws attention to injustice. Kathy draws attention to intolerance. Useful folks, sez I.

JB

I’ve been chewing this one over for a long time. First, I hate violence. I hate guns. But I can understand why people pick up both.

Shawn Brant, and Phil Fontaine and others similar.

I love Malcolm X. I worship Martin Luther King. One for revolution. The other for passive resistance. Both determined to achieve similar goals.

I do not not equate the four of them. The latter are on another plane altogether.

Fontaine, for example, has never put his ass on the line for anything. Not his job. Not his pension. Not his weekely paycheque by leading people to anything beyond carefully scripted photo ops Nor has any other national chief of the AFN or any other head of any Aboriginal organization. Patrick Brazeau, head of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, has his head so far up Harper’s ass… well you know the rest.

At least Brant put his body, his future, his children and family where his mouth his. It’s the talk of guns that lost me. One step over the line.

But every King has an X, if only to make them look reasonable. Too bad there’s no Aboriginal King here.