Rail line tampering is 'terrorism': Security expert

[puckstopshere]

The sabotage of a CN Rail crossing signal during an aboriginal protest and rail line blockade near Belleville, Ont. over the weekend should be seen as an act of terror, says one security expert.

"This is a low-level, low-grade form of terrorism," said John Thompson, with the Mackenzie Institute think-tank. "It's not as dramatic as car bombings and so on and so forth, but ... the use of vandalism is a form of violence."

CN Police says it's investigating after a group of Idle No More protesters allegedly activated a crossing signal Saturday afternoon, and lit a fire on the tracks.

The blockade within Mohawk territory also grabbed the attention of Ontario Superior Court Judge David Brown.

He issued an injunction against the blockade on Saturday, but said Monday he's mystified by the refusal of Ontario Provincial Police to enforce it before protesters dispersed.

Brown also questions the judgment of an officer who said in a sworn statement that it was "too dangerous" to enforce the order on 15 protesters.

"That kind of passivity by the police leads me to doubt that a future exists in this province for the use of court injunctions in cases of public demonstrations," said Brown.

Thompson says infrastructure such as railways and pipelines remain vulnerable to a "tiny militant minority" of aboriginal protesters because of their rural location.

"We can't secure our infrastructure and they've known for a long time that they can tamper with things as they choose," he said.

http://www.ottawasun.com/2013/01/07/rail-line-tampering-is-terrorism-security-expert

[puckstopshere]

Paul Martin and Justin Trudeau have met with Chief Spence.

Anyone heard from Mulcair?  The NDP, normally critical of everything the government does, seem to be remaining silent on issue of native rights. 

[puckstopshere]

We natives are deeply divided. There’s nothing wrong with that

I often find myself surrounded by Mohawks. I’ve worked in Six Nations territory for the balance of my career and many good friends are Haudenosaunee. In fact, despite being Anishinaabe I often find myself identifying with the two-row wampum or Great Law of Peace.

But there are also things I just don’t get about those Mohawks (and Cayugas, Oneidas, etc.). They like to claim Anishinaabe land despite overwhelming evidence that it’s ours; they make political appeals to peace, power and righteousness, us to truth, humility and love; and curiously, when they round dance, they do it in the opposite direction!

The point here is that while we share a lot of important traits, there is also much that differentiates us. This fact, or the fact that there are 60-odd unique indigenous nations in Canada (scattered across 600 communities) is lost on Canadian punditry, media and most of the public generally. Recent attempts to interpret Idle No More movement has resulted in conclusions of sudden divisions, fracturing and “chiefs losing control”. But the differences of opinion among people in the reality is that these cleavages have always existed and some are natural.

Outside of the national political and cultural differences, one of the most noticeable rifts within the Idle No More movement exists between those who see the band council as part of the problem and those who see it as a solution, a debate stretching back to the late-1800s. Many of the former group view band councils as representative of the Indian Act and a system that prevents any real power to affect change (largely due to restrictions in the Act and policy direction required by funding arrangements). Ultimately, it’s a system that forces bands to be accountable to the federal government, not community members.

Then there are supporters of the band council, who feel chiefs are best suited to lead the transition away from the Indian Act. This is a position taken by band councils that comprise the Anishinaabek Nation in Ontario or the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations. Indeed, these are often good people working towards the resurrection of more authentic governments or the restoration of treaty relationships, but through a less-than-perfect framework.

As for the aforementioned treaties, they are the source of yet another division: communities with a treaty versus those without. The latter are distinct from much of the movement and advocate a better process to create treaties or some mechanism to share the land in the absence of treaties (this latter perspective is a reflection of the growing disapproval of modern treaties). Both non-treaty perspectives advocate jurisdiction over unsurrendered lands.

Finally, there are those who have less connection to the band council, the Indian Act or a treaty. These are Métis and Inuit peoples, but also Dene, Salish and Maliseet peoples in cities and suburbs. Their concerns range from obtaining Aboriginal rights off the reserve, to the protection for ecosystems, an alleviation of poverty, a national inquiry on missing and murdered indigenous women, adequate access to education, and on, and on (joining them in the streets are non-Native Canadians expressing solidarity for some or all of the above).

The conclusion of this terse overview of the diverse interests within the movement illustrates that there cannot be a parsimonious message except that federal policies are failing Indigenous peoples. One of the primary reasons for that failure is the continued belief that we’re all the same, which is manifest in one size fits all policy prescriptions. This is a narrative that also leads to misconceptions about factionalism. But as my Mohawk friend and colleague Professor Rick Monture says, “its strange to call differences of opinion ‘factionalism’, we just call it democracy.” It’s an important point. While we all may dance to a similar beat, our footwork can take us in different directions. And there is nothing wrong with that.

Hayden King is Anishinaabe from Beausoleil First Nation and an assistant professor of politics at Ryerson University.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/we-natives-are-deeply-divided-theres-nothing-wrong-with-th...

[valve37]

[quote mid="3000051148"]

Paul Martin and Justin Trudeau have met with Chief Spence.

Anyone heard from Mulcair?  The NDP, normally critical of everything the government does, seem to be remaining silent on issue of native rights. 

[/quote

Mulcair is playing it politics smart IMO. He'll be more popular with a major proportion of the populace who are fed up with street, road and railway blockages (and perhaps "idle no more" in general), by keeping his pie hole shut.

[prior-of-verity*shake-hands-with-your-devil]

Then there is the self-appointed leader, Chief Spence.

Where did you read she was ‘self’-appointed? She was elected by the band and because she is a woman it sounds like they went to the traditional way as opposed to the male concept that the government forced on the First Nations long ago.

If you mean self-appointed leader of Idle No More…..who said that? Idle No More started at the same time as her hunger strike. The ‘people’ just see her as a representative. It is the Media…..who has invented ‘leader’. And now some have added ‘self-appointed’. Neither of which is ……….. true.

There is the AFN, and its duly elected leader, Shawn Atleo. He was elected by a majority of 600 band chiefs.

Many Natives do not respect the AFN and many Chiefs vote reluctantly. Many Natives feel that the AFN and certain Chiefs have sold themselves off to both the government and corporations. Last time Atleo was elected I think he got 318 votes….a majority yes….but not much of one. The next runner up got 141.

Then there is Idle No More. They are a loosely knit group with no "apparent" leadership. Do they even want to negotiate or are they enamoured by the "protest" experience. It is cool to protest and think that you are "sticking it" to the government. Speculation was that this group will continue to protest, no matter what comes of the meetings with Harper.

True they have no ‘leadership’ except their conscience and their knowledge that the Bill is destructive to the Native people and the land and water. That alone brings the Native people together. We often feel there needs to be ‘leaders’, but I’m not sure that that is necessarily a necessity.

The concept of it is ‘cool to protest’ is very patronizing.

And no they will not continue to protest. Simply destroy the Bill being Forced on the Native people by outside forces. It’s that simple.

No More organizers will hold their own Friday meeting for chiefs that were not invited to the talks on that day with Mr. Harper.

Who didn’t invite them?…..Harper?

And Governor-General David Johnston announced on Tuesday that he would not be at Mr. Harper’s working meeting with key Assembly of First Nations leaders.

Oh, is his dance card all booked up? He is the representative of the Queen…..be there!

Who cares about Mulcair! He’s only in the news for political banter. It’s like wondering if the President of Nauru will attend a UN conference.  

[puckstopshere]

Then there is the self-appointed leader, Chief Spence.

Self-appointed by herself. 

[puckstopshere]

Oh, is his dance card all booked up? He is the representative of the Queen…..be there!

This from a person who believes that Canada should have no ties with England as far as running the country is concerned.  We should not answer to the Queen and her representatives have no business interfering in our government.

Unless, of course, they want to shoulder some of the financial burden of this mess.

[puckstopshere]

I was looking up AFN on Wikipedia and found this information:

After the failures of the League of Indians in Canada in the interwar period and the North American Indian Brotherhood in two decades following the Second World War, the Aboriginal peoples of Canada organized themselves once again in the early 1960s. The National Indian Council was created in 1961 to represent indigenous people, including treaty/status Indians, non-status Indians, the Métis people, though not the Inuit. This organization, however, also collapsed in 1967 as the three groups failed to act as one, so the...Native Council of Canada and treaty/status groups formed the National Indian Brotherhood (NIB), an umbrella group for provincial and territorial First Nations organizations.[ The NIB was a national First Nations political body which lobbied for changes to federal and provin...

The following year, the NIB launched its first major campaign in opposition to the 1969 White Paper, in which the Minister of Indian Affairs, Jean Chrétien, proposed the abolition of the Indian Act, the rejection of land claims, and the assimilation of First Nations people into the Canadian population with the stat...Harold Cardinal and the Indian Chiefs of Alberta (entitled "Citizens Plus" but commonly known as the...federal Cabinet. Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau and the Liberals began to back away from the White Paper, particularly after the Calder case decision in 1973.

[prior-of-verity*shake-hands-with-your-devil]

This from a person who believes that Canada should have no ties with England as far as running the country is concerned.

 Yeah I don’t think Canada should have ties to England ….but……the he should be there because the treaties were signed with …England ....so they're still in a sense part of it.

Self-appointed by herself.

Show me any real evidence of that, other than the picture some people have displayed in their own minds.